Hunter is right on the mark with his outrage particularly about women getting short shrift. My guess is that all the services consider PTSD in the same way private sector insurance companies think of mental illness and that is a condition difficult to diagnose and treat, thus an open ended financial commitment. Gates in the past few years has been wailing about the DOD becoming inundated with healthcare costs more than any other single item and consequently affecting its ability to fund both procurement and operations. It’s not hard to imagination that the services have received that message.

I see a lot of political types out there clamoring for more defense money for sexy weapons projects that employ people in their districts and this is usually irrespective of need or cost. But I don’t see the Lindsay Graham’s or John McCain’s screaming about more money to fix the casualties produced by the wars they champion? If you want to have wars then you are going to break people and their care is far more important than a second engine for the JSF.

Because you gave me an excuse to post this offtopic comment:

Remember all the ire I raised when I suggested that the death of the EFV might result in the death of the Marine Corps? Here's a little new story about the EFV - big ticket item. And you guys just thought it was me talking smack.

MARINE CORPS TO SECRETARY GATES: ‘WE’RE RELEVANT’ - The Marine Corps is at a crossroads.
The "Soldiers of the Sea" have been fighting on land for a decade in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Corps' amphibious troop carrier has just been canceled; its new fighter jet was postponed.
And the Marine Corps itself is finishing up its own review, asking this basic question: What should the Marine Corps look like in the 21st Century?
No More Landing On Enemy Beaches
The Marine Corps has made a name for itself storming beaches: Barbary Coast and Veracruz, Iwo Jima and Inchon.
"For many years now, its core mission has been forcible entry, meaning going ashore in the face of hostile fire to claim enemy beaches and then push inland quickly before defenders regain their balance," says defense analyst Loren Thompson. He says those days may be over.
That's because Defense Secretary Robert Gates has done something that pirates in the 19th century and Japanese troops in World War II couldn't do — he has the Marine Corps reeling.
If the Marine Corps is no longer going to do opposed landing on enemy beaches in the face of hostile fire, then its role will be significantly diminished in the future. (Source: NPR)

Is this the same Loren B. Thompson, PhD that stated on 12/15/2010:

"However, the Marine vehicle is a good example of what's wrong with the commission's list of "illustrative" weapons cuts, because killing a program isn't the same thing as killing a requirement. The Marines will still need to get from ship to shore, and it's getting awfully hard to do that in the slow, antiquated amphibious vehicles the service operates today. That means that if EFV goes away, the Corps will have to spend a lot of money on other approaches to meeting the military requirement -- first by upgrading legacy vehicles, then by developing new ones. So killing the EFV won't save the government much money, and quite likely will cost the Marine Corps many lives. "

Lexington Institute
'Deficit Commission Ideas Would Waste Money, Not Save It'
Author:Loren B. Thomson PhD

"...Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal, who was inspecting Green Beach on Iwo Jima that morning in 1945, saw the Stars and Stripes go up atop Mount Suribachi and heard the beleaguered troops below come alive with whistles and cheers and shouts of joy. He turned to Marine General Holland M. Smith and said, 'The raising of that flag on Suribachi means a Marine Corps for the next five hundred years!”

Hunter the American people (and Congress) express a deep and abiding reverence for the United States Marine Corps more than any other of our nations armed forces. It’s reputation; its legends and its myths have created an image in the minds of Americans that compares with nothing else in our armed forces. When there is trouble abroad its ‘Send the Marines’. Yeah, I understand the Army resents the hell out of this but it is what it is.

JPWREL. We already covered the resentment piece...I don't have any. Not a stitch, for the Navy maybe, but not the Marines, got plenty of Marine buddies. Just using logic. But I do think you have a way too high opinion of the USMC and the American public's reaction to it as well. Most Americans don't care enough to care about your precious Corps.

All I was doing was reiterating a point I made a few weeks ago with the support of people who get paid lots more than I do to make that point. As for the other post, I don't think there was any cognitive dissonance between what Thompson said then and now. What did I miss?

Closer back on topic, you made mention of sacrificing personnel and personnel issues to big ticket expensive weapons programs. So which is more important, keeping a relevant Marine Corps by supplying them with a viable "from the Sea" platform? Or caring for the damaged Marines (and other servicemembers) of these wars? I think it clear that in the future that may be a real choice that someone will have to make. May not be the only options out there, but things are looking increasingly grim...so my Hobson's choice my be more accurate than any of us want it to be.

Hunter asks, “So which is more important, keeping a relevant Marine Corps by supplying them with a viable "from the Sea" platform? Or caring for the damaged Marines (and other service members) of these wars?”

You seem to be posing a Hobson’s choice. Your statement suggests a choice between the future existence of the USMC or funding the proper care of the damaged people of our armed forces. I reject that choice and say we are going to need to take care of both our casualties and preserve the USMC.

Now if you are suggesting that the Marines should be smaller, lighter, faster and logistically more durable then I am in total agreement. This country has no need for two army’s and three air forces. Personally, I would reassign all Marine fixed wing aviation to the U.S. Navy and consolidate all the armed services ‘special operations forces’ under the USMC banner. The Marines need to be brought back to their core mission of forced entry from the air and sea. The dollars saved from relinquishing aviation would fund needed amphibious lift modernization and a ship to shore combat platform that is actually affordable and tactically viable.

If Tier 1 and 2 SOCOM units cannot be brought into the Corps then they should be separated and set up as an independent service with its own funding. In fact I think that happening in the next twenty years is highly probable as much of the business of the conventional Navy, Marines and Army is concentrated in highly professional SOCOM forces whose missions are more discreet and technically complex and do not require massive weight.

Well I stated as much in my second post, I called it out as a Hobson's choice. So other than me poking a stick at your beloved service we seem to be in total agreement. Marines need to get back to their core Corps purpose. EFV or something like it is probably necessary. I like your other recommendations...no issues.

GSF I know this is your territory so I dare not assault a high ground position with superior fields of fire...but if you had PTSD and someone diagnosed you with depression...wouldn't that make you sad/mad?

While I am sure there are plenty of servicemembers who want to get some money for their trouble, I'm guessing most just want to get better. Proper diagnosis is the first step there...is it not?

Now changing tactics...wouldn't it be nice if we prepared our soldiers ahead of time to prevent PTSD and/or depression? Wow, that would be cool. Sadly the current Resiliency training doesn't meet the requirement.