Why do liberal professors hate the military?

[jmm99]

Hey Schmedlap,

Your's has been a good experience re: VA, etc. (my inference from your posts); but that is not always the case. Sometimes (IMO, too often the case) it is necessary to use "legal assistance to force the bureaucracy".

As to such legal assistance, two main things should be kept in mind:

1. VA law (and military benefits law, in general) are very specialized fields - in short, e.g., JMM is not competent to handle VA claims. Period.

2. The USG, in its infinite wisdom (that crack is only half-sarcastic, since some constraints are needed), has placed hurdles in the path of legal representation of veterans - some going back to the civil war.

Most often, service officers from the various veterans organizations are the best choice to render assistance. The vets orgs are also often the best shot at getting on-line assistance.

My own choice has been Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA; associate life member since near its inception, mem # 1xxx), which has several guides, etc., on vets benefits:

Benefits Guides on PTSD & Agent Orange.

Federal Benefits for Veterans and Dependents 2009. VA Guide is here.

VVA's Guide on PTSD has a section on Lawyers:

Lawyers

There are limits on when you can pay a lawyer to help you with a VA claim. Generally, you can hire a lawyer only after the BVA has decided your claim. Many lawyers work on a contingency basis that means you do not have to pay them a fee up front. If you do not win benefits, you will not have to pay a fee. Some private lawyers and some legal aid or legal services offices provide representation free of charge at all stages of a VA claim.

There is an organization of attorneys who regularly practice before the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (which has jurisdiction over BVA decisions). Its members are available to represent you at the Court. For a list of these attorneys contact: the National Organization of Veterans' Advocates (NOVA)

If no private practitioners are willing to represent you at the Court, it might be possible to obtain pro bono representation through the Veterans Pro Bono Consortium. The Court will send you information about this opportunity if you file an appeal there.

The VA regs on agents and attorneys are here.

No suggestions by me as to what (if any) pro bono legal work Schmedlap should do. You know my thoughts about the relative worth of good infantry officers vs good lawyers.[*]

But, the combo (law + infantry) has worked in the past - e.g., Caesar and Giap to name two.

Bonne chance.

Mike

-------------------------
[*] PS: for the benefit of others. JMM position: We need good infantry officers more than we need good lawyers.

[Schmedlap]

JMM,

I've seen some bureaucratic foolishness. For example, I know of a Soldier who lost two limbs, nearly lost a third, and some paper pusher wanted to give him something absurd, like 10% disability. About 15 very angry Officers and NCOs, to include some surly field grades, paid a visit to that office to explain why this was unacceptable. Things changed quickly.

Nonetheless, that is good info that I was not aware of. When a chain of command fails to do what I observed, I'm sure the paperwork and legality gets really stupid, really quickly.

However, my source of befuddlement with this fellow mentioned in the previous post was one of degree. Had I asked him, "what percentage of veterans have these issues?" I suspect that he would have said, "70 or 80 percent?" He seemed truly surprised when I told him that most veterans don't have those medical/mental problems and, among those who do, most do not encounter the bureaucratic nightmares that he referred to.

[jmm99]

agree with your analysis of a common misperception by folks who are not familiar with active or former serving types. So, the misperception that a majority of Vietnam vets were C-4 packages awaiting a fuse to be lit - as per the Rambo series, etc., ad infinitum, ad nausium.

Truth being that even the "nut cases" (full VA disability) are scarcely Rambo. E.g., close friend (combat medic attached to 1CAV), after his first full shrink and group sessions, was told he had severe problems. He told the shrink (in effect): What'd mean, I've stayed married to the same woman; ran a successful business, been a school principal; and have had to self-medicate some, but I'm on an even keel. The shrink said: That's what I mean. You're in total denial and have repressed everything. You're nuttier than a fruitcake.

That was many years ago - the shrink was right (and much of the repressed stuff was pretty bad). So, my friend could have sat on his ass and collected his checks (well-deserved). But, being a hard charger, he became and still is heavily involved in Vietnam vets stuff - so, he has earned his VA bucks at least twice over.

PS: He also has the PH for physical wounds; but those had less lingering effect than the mental stuff.

[jmm99]

was written off the top of my head - and frankly anecdotal. The question of the severity and extent of mental problems in combat veterans has been a controversial topic since Vietnam. I've linked the VVA Guide above; the definition of PTSD accepted by that organization is here.

The April 2009 issue of Scientific American has an article on the subject, Soldiers' Stress: What Doctors Get Wrong about PTSD, with a number of links to related studies. A critique ("PTSD, Mental Health, and the Military: Problematic Reporting at Scientific American and ScienceBlogs") of that article is here; and an update ("Mental Health and the Combat Veteran: It's Not All PTSD") to the crtique is here.

All of this tends to be inside baseball for those who are following it. In any event the links above will give those in liberal academia (and elsewhere) an idea of what is going on in this area. The %s (in whatever view) are much lower than those of Schmedlap's hypothetical friend's 70-80%.

-------------------------
Another Vietnam vet related question is that of mortality. I read Phil Salois' Taps column in the VVA Veteran. I've noticed for some time that more obits were of people younger than I, than the same age or older. So, I went though the latest issue and added up the deaths by two age groups: 66 and over - 17; 65 and under - 46.

That does not square with mortality tables. Possibly, VVA members are an unhealthy bunch as compared to other Vietnam vets. Also possible is that there are many more VVA members in the younger cohort (e.g., if average age ca. 1968-1969 was 19, born ca. 1949-1950; that may be the answer). Something for a statistician to report on.

I don't know whether anyone in academia (liberal or otherwise) has looked at the comparable death rates of Vietnam vets vs their general cohorts.

In any event, these are issues with which academia (liberal or otherwise) does not have to personally deal.

[jmm99]

such as this - reports at BBC, FOX and MSNBC. This is a tragedy and should be treated as such. I expect we will know more over the next few days.

[jmm99]

AP at 0006 EDT, 12 May, seems the latest update to the stress clinic shooting - shooter is identified as a sergeant, 5 victims not identified; with some added details to earlier accounts.

[120mm]

What distinguishes that event, is it's relative rarity.

If Conventional Wisdom ran the world, armed combat vets would be slaughtering each other on a daily basis. (and not in the context of enemies, either)

Fortunately, it IS the exception, not the rule.