6
6
0
From: Army Times
No one disputes that Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, served with the National Guard in a combat zone.
So the recent round of questions about whether she counts as a "combat veteran" has made more than a few former service members uncomfortable and upset.
But they aren't necessarily surprised.
"This kind of stuff has been going on for generations," said Phil Carter, director of veterans programs at the Center for a New American Security. "We've seen conversations about peacetime service as opposed to wartime service. We've seen veterans from different wars trade stories about who had it tougher.
"But so few people have an appreciation for what military service is that these arguments start to take on a controversial quality about what 'counts' as service."
Earlier this month, the Huffington Post questioned Ernst's characterization of herself as a "combat veteran," noting she had not been involved in a firefight during her 14-month Middle East deployment.
The Iowa Guard lieutenant colonel commanded the 1168th Transportation Company during the 2003-04 deployment, overseeing transportation runs in Kuwait and southern Iraq and running a protection detail in Kuwait.
She touted her "combat veteran" status in numerous campaign stops during the mid-term elections last year, and noted in response to the recent criticism that both Veterans Affairs and Defense Department guidelines classify her as one.
Fellow Senate Armed Services Committee colleague Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. — himself a Vietnam veteran and former prisoner of war — called Ernst a combat veteran "by any definition."
"Malicious claims to the contrary denigrate not only her service, but that of countless current and former service members who served honorably in a range of roles in our military," he said in a statement.
Carter echoed that sentiment, noting that honoring only certain kinds of military service — in this case, battlefield fighting — risks alienating other troops who have served honorably.
"There's always someone harder than you," he said. "There's always someone who has seen more combat, or had tougher tours. But that doesn't erase someone's war record."
Since the Ernst piece was published and picked up by other news outlets, most veterans' groups have declined comment on the criticisms, other than to offer official statements saying it's clear the senator served honorably in a designated combat zone.
Mark Seavey, new media manager at the American Legion and an an expert in stolen valor cases, said he worries that criticisms like those leveled at Ernst confuse actual cases in which troops or imposters claim military honors they never earned. Ernst has not claimed any medals or campaign awards beyond her record.
"You don't want to see real crimes get watered down because of some people's semantics about service," Seavey said.
He also sees the continued buzz over the issue as underscoring the lack of understanding by many civilians about what the recent wars were really like.
"I can't think of a place, the entire time when I was in Afghanistan, where I thought, 'Wow, I feel really safe here,' " he said. "Everyone who has served over there was in a dangerous area.
"A minuscule number of individuals ... were involved in firefights. But it's still a combat zone."
http://www.armytimes.com/story/veterans/2015/02/19/ernst-combat-veteran-criticism/23666043/
No one disputes that Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, served with the National Guard in a combat zone.
So the recent round of questions about whether she counts as a "combat veteran" has made more than a few former service members uncomfortable and upset.
But they aren't necessarily surprised.
"This kind of stuff has been going on for generations," said Phil Carter, director of veterans programs at the Center for a New American Security. "We've seen conversations about peacetime service as opposed to wartime service. We've seen veterans from different wars trade stories about who had it tougher.
"But so few people have an appreciation for what military service is that these arguments start to take on a controversial quality about what 'counts' as service."
Earlier this month, the Huffington Post questioned Ernst's characterization of herself as a "combat veteran," noting she had not been involved in a firefight during her 14-month Middle East deployment.
The Iowa Guard lieutenant colonel commanded the 1168th Transportation Company during the 2003-04 deployment, overseeing transportation runs in Kuwait and southern Iraq and running a protection detail in Kuwait.
She touted her "combat veteran" status in numerous campaign stops during the mid-term elections last year, and noted in response to the recent criticism that both Veterans Affairs and Defense Department guidelines classify her as one.
Fellow Senate Armed Services Committee colleague Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. — himself a Vietnam veteran and former prisoner of war — called Ernst a combat veteran "by any definition."
"Malicious claims to the contrary denigrate not only her service, but that of countless current and former service members who served honorably in a range of roles in our military," he said in a statement.
Carter echoed that sentiment, noting that honoring only certain kinds of military service — in this case, battlefield fighting — risks alienating other troops who have served honorably.
"There's always someone harder than you," he said. "There's always someone who has seen more combat, or had tougher tours. But that doesn't erase someone's war record."
Since the Ernst piece was published and picked up by other news outlets, most veterans' groups have declined comment on the criticisms, other than to offer official statements saying it's clear the senator served honorably in a designated combat zone.
Mark Seavey, new media manager at the American Legion and an an expert in stolen valor cases, said he worries that criticisms like those leveled at Ernst confuse actual cases in which troops or imposters claim military honors they never earned. Ernst has not claimed any medals or campaign awards beyond her record.
"You don't want to see real crimes get watered down because of some people's semantics about service," Seavey said.
He also sees the continued buzz over the issue as underscoring the lack of understanding by many civilians about what the recent wars were really like.
"I can't think of a place, the entire time when I was in Afghanistan, where I thought, 'Wow, I feel really safe here,' " he said. "Everyone who has served over there was in a dangerous area.
"A minuscule number of individuals ... were involved in firefights. But it's still a combat zone."
http://www.armytimes.com/story/veterans/2015/02/19/ernst-combat-veteran-criticism/23666043/
Posted in these groups: 
Army National Guard
Combat
Army National Guard Combat
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 52
11
11
0
As you all know, she is in fact a combat veteran. This is just more media slander from folks who likely never served, nor would they.
Being a veteran, means your served honorably. Being a combat veteran means you served in a combat theater/zone. That could be wherever the DOD has designated a combat theater of operations. That service alone does not mean you earned the Combat Infantryman's Badge, Combat Action Badge, Combat Medic Badge, or similiar awards from other services. Those are separate awards, and a separate category.
Many many many serve in the Army and support and fight along side our Infantry and Armor forces, hence many support Soldiers (which most of us are in the Army) are right there with them.
Because a transporter never got in firefight, does mean they were not doing a dangerous and at times deadly job in combat. In 2003-2004 driving from Kuwait to Baghdad on MSR Tampa, or Route Irish... was no walk in the park. Many times being a support Soldier out and about supporting has inherent risks that don't come if your rolling around in Heavy Battalion or Stryker Battalion TF. We know early on, for most of the war in Iraq, the bad guys would specifically target support units. Heck, that is one of our combat principals... attack the rear and disrupt lines of communication...
She is combat Veteran, and they should shut up.
Being a veteran, means your served honorably. Being a combat veteran means you served in a combat theater/zone. That could be wherever the DOD has designated a combat theater of operations. That service alone does not mean you earned the Combat Infantryman's Badge, Combat Action Badge, Combat Medic Badge, or similiar awards from other services. Those are separate awards, and a separate category.
Many many many serve in the Army and support and fight along side our Infantry and Armor forces, hence many support Soldiers (which most of us are in the Army) are right there with them.
Because a transporter never got in firefight, does mean they were not doing a dangerous and at times deadly job in combat. In 2003-2004 driving from Kuwait to Baghdad on MSR Tampa, or Route Irish... was no walk in the park. Many times being a support Soldier out and about supporting has inherent risks that don't come if your rolling around in Heavy Battalion or Stryker Battalion TF. We know early on, for most of the war in Iraq, the bad guys would specifically target support units. Heck, that is one of our combat principals... attack the rear and disrupt lines of communication...
She is combat Veteran, and they should shut up.
(11)
(0)
11
11
0
As I have said before...all this qualification and sub-classification does nothing but harm Veterans and SM. We had better get our act together and start acting as one cohesive unit. It is no wonder that the politicians and citizens don't give us the respect that is certainly deserved. All one has to do is start one of these combat vet/non combat vet discussions in a group of military/veterans and walk away laughing while every argues who is more important or valued. And this isn't the only divisive military topic.
This is ridiculous. We need to stop this. Everyone raised their hand. Everyone took the oath. Everyone did what they were told/assigned to do. You don't get to pick what that is. The needs of the service determine that.
Obviously, everyone respects those in direct fire and those wounded whether that be physical or mental injuries. And of course all of us should be campaigning for more services for them. We should be one of the most powerful lobby groups that politicians have to deal with...as it is no one really cares as we often argue amoungst ourselves. I hope we can pull together and start working together to take care of our own.
This is ridiculous. We need to stop this. Everyone raised their hand. Everyone took the oath. Everyone did what they were told/assigned to do. You don't get to pick what that is. The needs of the service determine that.
Obviously, everyone respects those in direct fire and those wounded whether that be physical or mental injuries. And of course all of us should be campaigning for more services for them. We should be one of the most powerful lobby groups that politicians have to deal with...as it is no one really cares as we often argue amoungst ourselves. I hope we can pull together and start working together to take care of our own.
(11)
(0)
10
10
0
Probably payback in the current situation because of Lyin Brian Williams. Mr Stolen Valor himself and the petty carping over that. The problem is that the Senator is a victim of politics. Why can't reporters report the news rather than concoct it?
And we know the media's affinity towards lying. Just take Stephen Glass as a prime example.
And we know the media's affinity towards lying. Just take Stephen Glass as a prime example.
(10)
(0)
7
7
0
I was awarded a Silver Star for action in the Delta in Vietnam in 1968. I never expected to be on the wrong end of a VC mortar but I was. My point is that one never knows who has you targeted and when whether on convoy duty or as an infantry soldier. Senator Ernst was in a similar situation during her deployment. That she wasn't targeted is simply good luck. She put herself in harms way as part of her duties. She IS a combat veteran.
(7)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Thanks for your service CPT Hubbard. I know you didn't want that Silver Star for that mortar hitting you. Shit just happens in combat. It's a minute to minute situation when in a war, for REMF, or back at the hootch having a beer, or burning shit. Glad you made it home Sir.
(0)
(0)
CPT James Hubbard
Thanks Sergeant Bodine. I am fine as is my family. I hope your life has been successful as well. And Welcome Home!!
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
Reference: "Fellow Senate Armed Services Committee colleague Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. — himself a Vietnam veteran and former prisoner of war — called Ernst a combat veteran "by any definition." "Malicious claims to the contrary denigrate not only her service, but that of countless current and former service members who served honorably in a range of roles in our military," he said in a statement. Carter echoed that sentiment, noting that honoring only certain kinds of military service — in this case, battlefield fighting — risks alienating other troops who have served honorably. Since the Ernst piece was published and picked up by other news outlets, most veterans' groups have declined comment on the criticisms, other than to offer official statements saying it's clear the senator served honorably in a designated combat zone."
I read through all of the other posts and while all are in agreement that the Senator served honorably and most agree can claim the title "combat vet", I truly don't think that is the "kernel" of danger that this entire public dialogue represents. This rhetoric is much much deeper than what most have characterized as a 'political' challenge from Democrats/liberals against Republican/conservatives, if fact one can find where both sides have defended the other when veteran status was challenged (such as Sen McCain criticizing ads denigrating then Sen Kerry's veteran status when he was seeking election to President and SECDEF Carter's (D) defense of Sen Ernst [see above quote]). What I read into this during a time of fiscal constraints and government economic debt combined with downsizing from the concept of less risk and threat to the nation's security is only the beginning of a discussion we (as veterans, NG, Reserve and AD) will see more of in the future and must carefully decide how we will engage in it. The concept is to attempt to "narrowly define" who does and who does not deserve government benefits and how those benefits will be provided to the generations that come behind us. The "declined comments" by veterans groups are likely due to the impression that to provide comment provides credence to the media claims. These claims also serve to splinter veterans' voices and create doubt in the minds of those who were not actively in a firefight as to their own status (as witnessed across other RP posts). I am in agreement with several other posts that as the minority (less than 2% of Americans have served in uniform, much less in combat zones), we must carefully pay attention to such public "dialogue" and determine how we as a community should respond. If we do not provide the "definitions"- make no mistake that the media and others who have not served stand ready to provide those definitions for us.
I read through all of the other posts and while all are in agreement that the Senator served honorably and most agree can claim the title "combat vet", I truly don't think that is the "kernel" of danger that this entire public dialogue represents. This rhetoric is much much deeper than what most have characterized as a 'political' challenge from Democrats/liberals against Republican/conservatives, if fact one can find where both sides have defended the other when veteran status was challenged (such as Sen McCain criticizing ads denigrating then Sen Kerry's veteran status when he was seeking election to President and SECDEF Carter's (D) defense of Sen Ernst [see above quote]). What I read into this during a time of fiscal constraints and government economic debt combined with downsizing from the concept of less risk and threat to the nation's security is only the beginning of a discussion we (as veterans, NG, Reserve and AD) will see more of in the future and must carefully decide how we will engage in it. The concept is to attempt to "narrowly define" who does and who does not deserve government benefits and how those benefits will be provided to the generations that come behind us. The "declined comments" by veterans groups are likely due to the impression that to provide comment provides credence to the media claims. These claims also serve to splinter veterans' voices and create doubt in the minds of those who were not actively in a firefight as to their own status (as witnessed across other RP posts). I am in agreement with several other posts that as the minority (less than 2% of Americans have served in uniform, much less in combat zones), we must carefully pay attention to such public "dialogue" and determine how we as a community should respond. If we do not provide the "definitions"- make no mistake that the media and others who have not served stand ready to provide those definitions for us.
(6)
(0)
5
5
0
If she's not a combat veteran, than neither am I. I ran 18 missions "outside the wire" in Iraq and was never engaged by the enemy. Other units received contact on a regular basis running the same mission set. Some were hurt or even killed. The only reason I can come up with for this is that we were just lucky.
This shouldn't even be a discussion. This is simply partisan mudslinging from what I can see.
This shouldn't even be a discussion. This is simply partisan mudslinging from what I can see.
(5)
(0)
5
5
0
COL (Join to see)
The demographics can be found, the military is characterized as a majority of conservative but in actuality we are much more IND than the public in the political sense. Using several sources in my research of the "civ-mil divide" hypothesis I was pleasantly surprised in this area: the officer corps of the Army tends to be slightly more Republican, the NCO corps slightly more Democratic, but when you multiply the percentages against the totals of both for actual numbers of "votes" it works out roughly 50-50. However because of Gerrymandering our votes as a military are largely watered down by the states/counties where we cast our votes and many military though registered do not actually bother to vote.
From my research:
"Media claims military is conservative-heavy, largely Republican - (MYTH)
33% of officers identify themselves as moderate independents (77K)
45% enlisted identify themselves as moderate independents (540K)
25% of officers identify themselves as Dem (59K)
27% of enlisted identify themselves Dem (324K)
41% of officers identify themselves as Rep (96K)
32% of enlisted identify themselves Rep (384K)
77% military registered compared to 65% of Civilians
29% of those registered in the 2010 election actually participated by any method (44% less than in 2008)
Only 34% of Active Duty Spouses Voted in 2010"
Sources:
http://projects.militarytimes.com/polls/
Joyce, James. (2012) Military Less Republican Than You Think. February 12, 2012, http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/military-less-republican-than-you-think/
and
Federal Voting Assistance Program for statistics
From my research:
"Media claims military is conservative-heavy, largely Republican - (MYTH)
33% of officers identify themselves as moderate independents (77K)
45% enlisted identify themselves as moderate independents (540K)
25% of officers identify themselves as Dem (59K)
27% of enlisted identify themselves Dem (324K)
41% of officers identify themselves as Rep (96K)
32% of enlisted identify themselves Rep (384K)
77% military registered compared to 65% of Civilians
29% of those registered in the 2010 election actually participated by any method (44% less than in 2008)
Only 34% of Active Duty Spouses Voted in 2010"
Sources:
http://projects.militarytimes.com/polls/
Joyce, James. (2012) Military Less Republican Than You Think. February 12, 2012, http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/military-less-republican-than-you-think/
and
Federal Voting Assistance Program for statistics
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
COL (Join to see) Colonel; Every so often I think that it would be a good idea to treat the military as a state (for the purpose of the House of Representatives at any rate) and allow the military to elect one member to the House for every (whatever the average population of HoR electoral districts is) members.
Then I stop drinking.
Then I stop drinking.
(1)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
COL Ted Mc that would never do :) we would not be able to agree on what Service would be the representative :) or take turns fairly...however we do need to do a better job of railing against a system that moots our voices in the electoral process as American citizens.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
LTC (Join to see) Colonel; If you went by the average size of the Congressional Districts, then the Army PLUS the USMC would be entitled to one Representative between them and the Airforce and the USN would be entitled to one Representative between them. If you used Rhode Island as a benchmark, then the Army would be entitled to one Representative, the USN and USMC would be entitled to one Representative, and the USAF would be entitled to 60% of a Representative (toss in the USCG and you might as well give the USAFCG one Representative as well.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
This is outright stupid. Calling someones service into question when the DOD and the VA both confirm that she is in fact a combat veteran is deplorable. Combat Veteran status is not determined by being in a firefight. It is determined by being in service in a combat zone. If I remember correctly the 1178th Transportation Company was based out of Camp Arifjan in Kuwait. According to the DOD Kuwait was part of the combat zone for OIF. This makes her a combat veteran..
(4)
(0)
SFC Miguel Lopez
Its the politics game SSG Carter. Politicians do anything within their reach to discredit the competition or to benefit from damaging someone's record.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
Reading the tone of this just pissed me off. In this day and age, especially with reporters embellishing their war time record, and stolen Valor reports floating around the internet with lightening speed, we are stuck in time and space...and feel the need to question everyone's record. We have even seen reports of AD soldiers wearing awards they do not rate. Fast forward to the 21st century....our records are not always accurate, unfortunately every place we do deploy to does not get entered into our ERB/SRB...we have to advocate for ourselves. We have to stand up for what is right, and sometimes it involves asking questions. Combat time in today's Army doesn't mean we pulled the trigger, it means we were in harms way...we were locked and loaded, prepared for the worse....unfortunately for some this isn't the same as their experience. And sadly in this case, I honestly believe she is being questioned because she is a Republican and female....what has it come to?
(4)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
I'm right there with you SSG. A combat zone or in harms way is a dangerous situation and has to be treated as such. Just because you go on an ambush and don't fire a shot because there were no enemy doesn't mean you weren't in danger. Anytime you step out the green line you're in danger. Accordingly, if you are working inside the green line and there is a chance to get mortared, overrun, or blown up, then you deserve the term combat soldier. We got mortared a lot in Vietnam and a cook or an infantryman that got hit got a PH. That's all I'm going to say about that. Cased closed. Move on out!
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
This is nonsense. She served in a combat zone, she's a "combat veteran" period.
Plenty of support troops died and continue to die on the battlefield making sure the fighters have what they need to continue the fight only to treated like they're less valuable. We need to stop this.
Plenty of support troops died and continue to die on the battlefield making sure the fighters have what they need to continue the fight only to treated like they're less valuable. We need to stop this.
(4)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google