You're right, but that's not quite what she says. A lot of guys come back and really aren't all that affected. Or they have some minor issues (sleep-related, wariness . . .) that they expect or have experienced before, know that the issues will go away fairly quickly, and so say 'I'm not affected.' I worry that we may get young guys so worked up that there's an expectation to come home with psychological trauma that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. That diverts resources away from the troops who really do need help. This gets compounded by well-meaning financial compensation for wounds, which is fine if you've lost a leg, but can be a problem for a psych issue. If the payment is based on you continuing to be unwell (which, in the case of a lost leg is pretty much a given), then there's no incentive to even try to get over the psych wound.

I'm not sure our knowledge of these psychological issues (not to be mixed up with head trauma and the effects of concussion on the brain - that's a related but separate field with a lot of potential) has really progressed much beyond what Lord Moran figured out. We throw a lot more resources at the problem and have lots of good intentions. We've almost erased the stigma of this kind of injury, but possibly at the expense of considering it acceptable to not be affected. Most soldiers come back without getting shot and we don't consider that odd. We shouldn't think it odd that soldiers come back without psych either.

>>but can be a problem for a psych issue. If the payment is based on you continuing to be unwell (which, in the case of a lost leg is pretty much a given), then there's no incentive to even try to get over the psych wound.

this is the conscious effort to benefit. in psychological parlance there is the 'gain through illness' phenomemon where subconsciously seeks treatment in order to get out of bad situation and then gets financial award.

During Vietnam (yea I know - ancient history) too little attention was paid to PTSD. Now it is becoming a cottage industry. However, that is not to say it isn't a problem or a concern

But more to your point CMEYERGO, again during Vietnam, the Corps sent the majority of Marines returning to CONUS from down "south" via a couple of days on Okinawa.

There they administratively processed, were put on mindless working parties (except mine) to let them blow off steam by bitching, and at night go to the on base, and supervised clubs - drink some suds and trade been to hell and back stories with each other - decompressing so to speak. I think it helped? : |

My Dad (COL (ret.) Vietnam Vet, R.I.P.) said it best. It's a stupid award. Why give some an award for getting shot. I say, Get rid of it.

Any award that causes so much concern or requires so much documentation short of our highest awards for valor...should be done away with. (This includes CIB, CAB, CFMB).

Commands spend too much time threading camels through the eyes of needles, with 80 page packets, to justify stupid awards. Then there is the subjective extrapolation of what justifies it (TBI, PTSD, how about John Kerry's supposed band-aid award?). It's a distraction, and it causes animosity in the rest of the bunch. Anytime one guy gets something and another wonders "wait a minute, I got a boo boo too" it just causes problems.

It doesn't take a purple ribbon to illustrate that someone is injured in a war. There are usually, sadly many other outward signs. Get rid of it.

@Hunter...you can use that argument with just about any award "why give someone a medal/ribbon for doing their job." I don't agree with either argument.
I found that the PH was actually easier to document than CAB/CIB, couple of sworn statements, and proof of the injury. There was really no room for discussion on approval, as either the troop was injured or not (BTW awarding of the PH meant automatic CIB/CAB award).
Are there degrees of injury, sure, losing a limb, going blind is certainly more than a scratch on the arm, but the PH is authorized for both; as in if you are injured, you are entitled to the award. In additon, awarding of the PH leads to benefits after you leave the service, so it is worthwhile to give to Soldiers when they are injured, no matter the sevarity.

I suppose you are right. But I think (IMHO) that we lend to much creedance to these funny bits of ribbon. And some of them like the combat badges seem to lead our soldiers the wrong way. I have commented on this before.

Badge seekers in the COIN environment are particularly counter to what is required by the mission. My unit had fewer than 20 CIB/CAB earners because they were doing their job properly (and I used the widest net possible on their behalf despite my personal misgivings). Our sister unit had 6-7 times that number doing the same mission, largely (again IMHO) because they were seeking out or creating conflict. Meanwhile they were also undermining their (and my) mission.

Earned badges and tabs seem to me to be reflective of learned skills (Airborne, AASLT, Ranger etc). CIBs/CABs even PHs and whatnot are reflective more of luck/bad luck or being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It is incongruent to me to give awards for that, esp. when so subjective and such wide ranging incidents - scratch on the arm from shrapnel on the FOB vs EFP IED strike eliminating a few of your brothers and maybe a few limbs. Thankfully no PHs in my unit, not because I didn't choose to award them but because my soldiers did their job well,a nd made their own luck and thus were not injured (with all due credit to them - esp the SGTs and SSGs - for their professionalism and discipline)

I know of no special dispensation for PH award winners beyond what a normal vet gets? Feel free to enlighten me.