The Pentagon has decided that they will not award Purple Hearts for military members diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder after serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. I don't know if changing the criteria for the Purple Heart is the best answer, but they really missed an opportunity to decrease the stigma from PTSD.
Also, the military is seeking to create virtual mommies and daddies for children whose parents are deployed. Because come on, kids will cope better with deployments if a computer says "goodnight" to them.
And, continuing reaction to the Reid and Burris spectacle and a Dem announces for the 2010 Alaska governor's race.
The Pentagon has decided that soldiers who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder are not eligible for a Purple Heart. The decision was made in November, but not announced until this week:
The Pentagon has decided that it will not award the Purple Heart, the hallowed medal given to those wounded or killed by enemy action, to war veterans who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder because it is not a physical wound.
The decision, made public on Tuesday, for now ends the hope of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who have the condition and believed that the Purple Hearts could honor their sacrifice and help remove some of the stigma associated with the condition.
It may not be a physical wound, but PTSD is a wound nonetheless. The Pentagon Advisory Group argued that PTSD is just too hard to diagnose and isn't "intentionally inflicted" by an enemy in combat. The Pentagon justifies their decision as follows:
“Historically, the Purple Heart has never been awarded for mental disorders or psychological conditions resulting from witnessing or experiencing traumatic combat events,” said Eileen Lainez, a Pentagon spokeswoman. “Current medical knowledge and technologies do not establish PTSD as objectively and routinely as would be required for this award at this time.”
The Purple Heart is more than just a medal. It comes with a number of benefits, including co-payment exemptions and priority scheduling for health care.
I can see how the logistical issues may be complicated, since you can't "see" PTSD like a bullet wound or another physical injury. But it seems that would be an easy hurdle to clear, by requiring a doctor's diagnosis of PTSD before the medal could be awarded. Or, maybe instead of changing the criteria for the Purple Heart, a new category of service medal could be created. Just because you cannot "see" a mental wound does not mean it is any less serious than a physical wound.
Some veterans support the Pentagon's decision because they worry some soldiers may try to fake symptoms. However, the Pentagon missed a really good opportunity with this decision to change the terms of how PTSD is viewed and discussed in the military community. With an estimated 1 in 5 troops suffering from PTSD, this issue is not going to go away.
PTSD already comes with enough of a stigma, and this decision would have gone a good distance in removing that stigma and probably allowed many silent sufferers to come forward and seek treatment. In fact, the original idea was first proposed by a military psychologist who thought the move would help reduce the stigma and who thought PTSD was just as "worthy" an injury as any physical one. Edward Stump, a veteran, summed it up better than I ever could:
"My wounds do not bleed but they have as many scars as a lot of other wounds," Stump wrote. "These wounds will never heal anymore than the scars, from any that are from combat-related fighting, will disappear."
However, it is obvious that the stigma will remain when the Military Order of the Purple Heart declares that allowing the Purple Heart to be awarded for PTSD would "debase" the honor.
::::::
In other military news, how bad must it be getting for military families if the Defense Department wants to create "virtual" mommies and daddies?
The announcement, from the Defense Centers of Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury, requests "a highly interactive PC or web-based application to allow family members to verbally interact with virtual renditions of deployed Service Members." The application must "produce compelling interactive dialogue between a Service member and their families … using video footage or high-resolution 3-D rendering. The child should be able to have a simulated conversation with a parent about generic, everyday topics. For instance, a child may get a response from saying 'I love you', or 'I miss you', or 'Good night mommy/daddy.' "
The military thinks the "the illusion of a natural (but simple) interaction" will help children cope with deployments. Slate columnist William Saletan seems to think it is a good idea, but I agree with critics who think the military should be spending money on improving real services to military families, rather than creating a "virtual parent" for a child whose mother or father is on their third, fourth or fifth tour of duty.
::::::
So, the Dems in Congress are going to be seating Burris after all. Dana Milbank's reaction to the news:
"Under these circumstances, anyone appointed by Gov. Blagojevich cannot be an effective representative of the people of Illinois and, as we have said, will not be seated by the Democratic Caucus."
-- Last week's statement on Roland Burris by Democratic Senate leaders.
"He obviously is a very engaging, extremely nice man. He presents himself very well. He's very proud of his family. He's got two Ph.D.s and two law degrees, and he talked about how proud he was having those degrees."
-- Yesterday's statement on Roland Burris by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
There were more caves in Washington yesterday than in the mountains of Afghanistan.
It seems that we could have avoided a lot of drama and hassle if Reid had just said at the beginning: "I don't like it, but Blagojevich is still the governor and still has the power to appoint. So, we have to seat Burris." Instead, we are are seating him anyway, but with the addition of lots of drama and Harry Reid looking wimpy. But I am glad to end this Burris drama and move on.
Joan Walsh disagrees and thinks there are too many downsides to seating Burris, namely that the stink of corruption may taint Democrats who benefited from Republican corruption in 2006. I see her point, but they had to end this drama or it would have completely overshadowed the first few weeks in Congress like it has the first few days.
::::::
John Nichols argues that the whole Burris situation has put Reid's ability to lead in serious doubt:
And if Reid -- who says he plans to lead the Senate until at least 2015 -- does not clean the mess up quick, California Senator Dianne Feinstein will be glad to do so.
Feinstein, who has been making lots of big-elbow moves in recent days, led the charge for seating the Illinoisan. "If you don't seat Mr. Burris, it has ramifications for gubernatorial appointments all over America," the California Democrat said. "Mr. Burris is a senior, experienced politician. He has been attorney general, he has been controller, and he is very well-respected. I am hopeful that this will be settled."
Translation: If Harry Reid can't lead, I will.
I am certainly no fan of Harry Reid's leadership ability, but Feinstein is not an acceptable alternative either. Can't we get a decent Democrat in there?
::::::
Howard Fineman thinks Barack Obama hasn't handled the challenges of the pre-inauguration period very well, and he is mainly referring to Richardson and Burris:
You might expect Republicans to be uncooperative. But, except for refusing to accept the advent of Al Franken as a senator from Minnesota, they have been relatively quiet—knowing, perhaps, that it is folly to attack a guy who won on "HOPE" and who enjoys sky-high approval ratings and the good wishes of the world.
No, it is the Democrats who are giving Obama pre-inaugural fits. And that is not surprising, of course, for they are Democrats. And it must be said that Obama himself hasn't played his January hand all that well.
The Richardson story was a one-day affair. No one cares anymore. The Burris spectacle has, in my opinion, created more of a distraction, but I think that is on the heads of Senate Democrats more so than Obama.
::::::
Obama is giving his big speech on the economy today. A preview:
Obama's primary goal is to convince skeptical members of Congress and the public that the recovery plan, which he indicated yesterday could cost as much as $775 billion in tax relief and new public spending, is necessary to shore up the weakened economy. Aides say Obama will make the case by again stressing the immediacy of the crisis.
At the same time, consumers, investors, and lenders are carefully following the president-elect's every word. Analysts say that today and through his early days in office he must be mindful of not hitting the sky-is-falling message too hard, and that he needs to offer the American people solutions, reassurance, and, above all, hope that better days lie ahead.
::::::
The 2010 race for governor in Alaska is starting to shape up, as Bob Poe announces his intention to run for the Democratic nomination:
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) has drawn her first Democratic challenger in a potential reelection bid in 2010, a hurdle the former vice presidential nominee may need to clear before pursuing national ambitions.
Democrat Bob Poe, the former Alaska State Commissioner of Administration and former CEO of Anchorage Economic Development Corporation, said Wednesday he will announce tomorrow that he intends to seek the Democratic nomination for governor of Alaska.
Poe is viewed as a serious, viable candidate by state Democrats, though there are some other candidates that could derail Poe's bid to unseat Palin. Poe lacks statewide name recognition unlike a candidate such as Ethan Berkowitz, the Democrat who came close to defeating Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) this past November.
Wouldn't that be awesome if Democrats could kick Palin out of the governor's office in 2010? I'm not going to hold my breath, but I would definitely do the happy dance for that one...
::::::
Oh, and a correction from yesterday: NPR incorrectly reported that the new prison under construction at Bagram would hold 10,000 prisoners. It will actually only hold 1,000. That sounds a little more reasonable! But I still think we should be closing overseas prisons, not opening up new ones.
What's on your mind this morning?