I agree with your statement. I think the clamoring for entitlements and awareness is driven by veterans advocacy groups, not the veteran community as a whole. In my opinion, it's a reaction to the neglect and apathy that veterans of previous wars experienced, most recently the Vietnam War. (If you want to be depressed, read about the maltreatment of WW1 vets in the US.) The veterans groups fight for entitlements because they believe they are subject to revocation as soon as awareness drops.
Through the lens of being a veteran, I find most of it to be overblown, though in the case of the author I think it's perhaps somewhat justified. However, he should admit that his issues aren't systemic; they're personal. His issues are 99% due to psychological issues from his combat service, not a tech-industry imposed Jim Crow Era (the Driving Miss Daisy comment in the article).
I don't think I'd ever comment on a CIB on display, it seems about as appropriate as the proverbial ignorant question, "Did you kill anybody?"
A good half of my friends who returned from combat had significant difficulty fitting into normal American life, and experienced psychological and relationship issues. I wish veterans groups would focus their rhetoric on that specific problem. Pay for servicemembers has increased far beyond parity with civilian jobs for the vast majority of occupational specialties, the Post-9/11 GI Bill truly solves the post-service employment training issue, and the stigma of being a veteran is essentially nonexistent. The hard problem that needs to be focused on is the significant therapy and rehabilitation need for the minority of veterans who actually were in combat.
What gets me is that he's whining about his raw deal as a veteran (pysch issues aside, is nonexistent), but he fails to accept responsibility for his life choices of 1) graduating (for free) with what I presume is a creative writing degree and failing to take internships, 2) failing to live in an affordable city (what's wrong with living in Oakland or Union City and driving over the Bay Bridge?), and 3) lamenting his lack of money as he wastes it at the bar (presumably in SoMa, and expensive).
The reason for the above is not because he's intentionally avoiding reality, it's because veterans often self-segregate in veterans groups. He lives in the TL because that's where his veterans organization operates (originally for Vietnam War vets with a more dire situation than his). Hopefully now that his Vice article has gotten him some more exposure, he'll have more interaction with non-vets and gain some perspective.
> I think the clamoring for entitlements and awareness is driven by veterans advocacy groups, not the veteran community as a whole. In my opinion, it's a reaction to the neglect and apathy that veterans of previous wars experienced, most recently the Vietnam War.
I think this is true, but kind of missing the recent "veteran outrage" that has been going on in the community. For example, the stolen valor shaming is totally out of control. It's not illegal to parade around in uniform and claim you were a badass - but there are tons of vets out there making name and shame videos and then plastering them around of people that do, claiming that they will call the cops or that the person will go to jail etc...
Same with the recent "furor" over some people wading into the reflecting pool at the WWII memorial, or some kids playing on the Vietnam memorial.
In my opinion it's taking it too far and burning up all the good feedback and positive relations we have had over the past decade.
That is all under the backdrop of probably the most supportive civilian population in recent history. I can't tell you how often I was thanked for my service or stopped and given thumbs up or free stuff when I was in uniform.
I have to agree that Stolen Valor nonsense got out of hand (although i have say pretending to be a vet is disgusting)
However, even though i have rather ambivalent opinion on military (especially the modern one), mistreatment of monuments regarding human sacrifice is disgraceful.
I am a hardcore atheist but I'd think to me it's as bad as having kids play on an altar to religious people. Just don't do it. Show some token respect, we all would be better off. (I do not refer to the person above, just to whoever does aforementioned stuff!)
I think there is a difference between mistreating a monument and just not having self-awareness.
The way I look at it, if there are kids laughing and playing on a monument, that is a better representation of freedom and security than any amount of pillars or stone could ever represent.
Through the lens of being a veteran, I find most of it to be overblown, though in the case of the author I think it's perhaps somewhat justified. However, he should admit that his issues aren't systemic; they're personal. His issues are 99% due to psychological issues from his combat service, not a tech-industry imposed Jim Crow Era (the Driving Miss Daisy comment in the article).
I don't think I'd ever comment on a CIB on display, it seems about as appropriate as the proverbial ignorant question, "Did you kill anybody?"
A good half of my friends who returned from combat had significant difficulty fitting into normal American life, and experienced psychological and relationship issues. I wish veterans groups would focus their rhetoric on that specific problem. Pay for servicemembers has increased far beyond parity with civilian jobs for the vast majority of occupational specialties, the Post-9/11 GI Bill truly solves the post-service employment training issue, and the stigma of being a veteran is essentially nonexistent. The hard problem that needs to be focused on is the significant therapy and rehabilitation need for the minority of veterans who actually were in combat.
What gets me is that he's whining about his raw deal as a veteran (pysch issues aside, is nonexistent), but he fails to accept responsibility for his life choices of 1) graduating (for free) with what I presume is a creative writing degree and failing to take internships, 2) failing to live in an affordable city (what's wrong with living in Oakland or Union City and driving over the Bay Bridge?), and 3) lamenting his lack of money as he wastes it at the bar (presumably in SoMa, and expensive).
The reason for the above is not because he's intentionally avoiding reality, it's because veterans often self-segregate in veterans groups. He lives in the TL because that's where his veterans organization operates (originally for Vietnam War vets with a more dire situation than his). Hopefully now that his Vice article has gotten him some more exposure, he'll have more interaction with non-vets and gain some perspective.