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
4
4
0
It's these and those like them (non-serving, judgemental, entitled SOBs) that make want to punch them in their GD throat.
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
Junk like this really makes you hate the media. These pukes that print this junk don't know the meaning of service to ones country. They live under the freedom we provide yet take shots at those of us that served with honor. I'm not a combat veteran. I spent my time at sea on The Enterprise. But does that make me less a veteran?
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S.
SGT Bussing .. I agree with you totally.
It used to be that being a Vet was good enough, then there is Deployed Vets and then there are Combat Vets.
If there wasn't a difference the service would not have Combat awards and Deployment ribbons.
It used to be that being a Vet was good enough, then there is Deployed Vets and then there are Combat Vets.
If there wasn't a difference the service would not have Combat awards and Deployment ribbons.
(1)
(0)
SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S.
I don't think CIBs and CMBs are that hard to get .. you just have had to be in combat. I also understand that CABs are pretty easy to get as well. Just get into contact seems to do the deal. I never met an combat infantry or combat medic that told me they didn't get their badge.
I know way too many people that spent Vietnam at places like the Ben Hoa Airbase who's main complaint was the lack of hot showers on some days and call themselves "combat vets"
I know way too many people that spent Vietnam at places like the Ben Hoa Airbase who's main complaint was the lack of hot showers on some days and call themselves "combat vets"
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
It's really simple, civilians speaking on military service when it comes to being "downrange," is like men speaking on child birth from actual experience, their opinion is MEANINGLESS! They speak to feel relevant, not having the intellectual integrity to face the painful reality that they are NOT!
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
I will say this she is a combat veteran served and commanded service men and women in a hostile environment weather or not she was shot at or engaged the enemy point blank does not matter she did her job that was assigned her should get the respect she has earned for that I deployed doing the same mission that she was doing running convoys from kuwait into Iraq.
Really more vet groups should make more of a effort to support her and just to put out a simple statement is not good enough in my Opinion
Really more vet groups should make more of a effort to support her and just to put out a simple statement is not good enough in my Opinion
(3)
(0)
SGT Anthony Bussing
so, the admin people, wo were based at camp victory and never went any further then the PX....they are combat vets too, right? sorry TSgt...youre wrong...to be a "combat vet" one MUST be engaged on combat with the enemy...if you do not leave the wire...you are NOT a combat vet...
(1)
(1)
SGT Jim Z.
Here is what the VA considers a "combat veteran" no were does it say you must be engaged on combat with the enemy http://www.va.gov/healthbenefits/assets/documents/publications/FS16-4.pdf
(0)
(0)
TSgt (Join to see)
Sgt Bussing we have our difference of opinions which is all good I tend to disagree with you I left the wire many times and also served in the first Desert storm also have engaged the enemy while deployed on a mission that was not during a war time so does that make me a combat vet or not in your opinion.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
You are what is called, A Grunt. And you deserve accolades for that. It takes someone special to enter an area full of hostile enemy. Does it make them more brave than the cook? Damned right it does, but that cook can get injured or killed the same as the soldier who crossed over the green line. I respect all military members no matter what MOS they have. When we would get back to base camp after midnight our cook always had a pork roast ready for us. When we got mortared he could have been killed as easily as that grunt in the bush. Am I making any sense? After a day of CA's and taking the wounded and dead to Pleiku to be dropped off, all of us had to remain sharp because no matter where you were in Vietnam you were subject to be killed just like the congress woman.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
If you served in a designated combat zone, regardless of where in that zone, or your job, you are a combat veteran. I myself served between '81 & '84. Not in a designated zone. I do however consider myself, and others who served before and after me, to a point, a Cold War Veteran. There were no bullets exchanged but the tension and stress was very real. I was selected for the Berlin Orientation Tour. 4 Hours in East Berlin. Very tension filled.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
The proper term for service in a combat zone is Former Wartime Service. That is why we are authorized to wear Former Wartime Service Shoulder Insignia, more commonly referred to as the combat patch.
No one disputes the Senator's service in a combat zone, but there is certainly a distinction between serving in a combat zone and that of being a combat veteran. Traditionally, people equate the designation of combat veteran as someone who has been engaged in direct combat with an adversary.
I have no idea if the Senator has ever been engaged in actual direct or indirect fire engagements, and frankly, I don't really care.
The issue seems to be that the Huffington Post is calling into question her use of the term combat veteran because that is the platform that she used to catapult herself into the political arena. On one hand, I would agree that she played fast and loose with the term combat veteran. On the other hand, I would say that tactic is not unusual in the game of politics.
No one disputes the Senator's service in a combat zone, but there is certainly a distinction between serving in a combat zone and that of being a combat veteran. Traditionally, people equate the designation of combat veteran as someone who has been engaged in direct combat with an adversary.
I have no idea if the Senator has ever been engaged in actual direct or indirect fire engagements, and frankly, I don't really care.
The issue seems to be that the Huffington Post is calling into question her use of the term combat veteran because that is the platform that she used to catapult herself into the political arena. On one hand, I would agree that she played fast and loose with the term combat veteran. On the other hand, I would say that tactic is not unusual in the game of politics.
(3)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
MAJ (Join to see) . I am leaning toward you on this one. I like her politics, her positions etc and would have voted for her so there is no negative political motivation for me on the topic.
In the Marine Corps there is an award, the combat action ribbon. Essentially this is the award that means you were engaged directly with the enemy in combat (there is an equivalent for the air side as well). I would consider a Marine veteran that had this award to be a combat veteran. My understanding was the Army had a similar award. Perhaps that is the Combat Patch you mentioned.
In my opinion, not everyone that served in a combat zone is a combat veteran. If you engaged directly with the enemy (air or ground) and put rounds on targets or recieved rounds from the enemy then you are a combat veteran. Perhaps that is to strict a definition for some. I am not even 100% sure the military defines a "combat veteran" officially, I could be wrong on this point.
When someone tells me they are a combat veteran I expect that they were in actual combat. Not in the area, in the country, drawing combat pay etc. I think her use of the term combat veteran attempts to confer a status to her that she may not actually have.
In the Marine Corps there is an award, the combat action ribbon. Essentially this is the award that means you were engaged directly with the enemy in combat (there is an equivalent for the air side as well). I would consider a Marine veteran that had this award to be a combat veteran. My understanding was the Army had a similar award. Perhaps that is the Combat Patch you mentioned.
In my opinion, not everyone that served in a combat zone is a combat veteran. If you engaged directly with the enemy (air or ground) and put rounds on targets or recieved rounds from the enemy then you are a combat veteran. Perhaps that is to strict a definition for some. I am not even 100% sure the military defines a "combat veteran" officially, I could be wrong on this point.
When someone tells me they are a combat veteran I expect that they were in actual combat. Not in the area, in the country, drawing combat pay etc. I think her use of the term combat veteran attempts to confer a status to her that she may not actually have.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
We have the same type of distinction in the Army. If you are an infantry or special forces specialty, if engaged in direct combat with an enemy force, you are awarded the combat infantrymans badge. If you are in any other specialty, you are awarded the combat action badge.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Cpl Jeff N. The Department of Veterans Affairs defines it, not the military. Combat Veteran status is defined by "presence in a Combat zone" as opposed to participation in direct combat.
Keep in mind that until very recently (9/18/2001) the Army didn't have Combat Badges for non-Infantry/non-Medics. Are you suggesting there are no Army Combat Vets who aren't Infantry or Medics from eras prior to 2000?
The USMC's CAR is for Surface/Ground combat, as opposed to Air. Personal awards are not a good indicator of participation of combat. Just think back to the early 2000's before they changed the rules on IED's. They weren't considered "combat" either at one point.
The VA's blanket ruling of "stepping foot in a war zone" may be too lenient, but the old saying of everyone has a bullet with their name on it, but artillery is addressed to "whom it may concern" still holds true.
Keep in mind that until very recently (9/18/2001) the Army didn't have Combat Badges for non-Infantry/non-Medics. Are you suggesting there are no Army Combat Vets who aren't Infantry or Medics from eras prior to 2000?
The USMC's CAR is for Surface/Ground combat, as opposed to Air. Personal awards are not a good indicator of participation of combat. Just think back to the early 2000's before they changed the rules on IED's. They weren't considered "combat" either at one point.
The VA's blanket ruling of "stepping foot in a war zone" may be too lenient, but the old saying of everyone has a bullet with their name on it, but artillery is addressed to "whom it may concern" still holds true.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
It really calls Into question the character and the self esteem of those that want to make these types of allegations. There is a huge number of alleged "combat warriors" who like to walk around with their chest out talking shit about how they are the biggest baddest killer in the valley and anyone who hasn't been in the vicinity of a bullet launched by our enemies is simply not a combat veteran. I have found that the majority of the people passing these judgments have never been outside the wire let alone pulled the trigger in a real no-shit firefight. It is as though the only way they can validate themselves is to either embellish or make up altogether how bad they had it. This woman served in a combat zone and is indeed a combat veteran. Those that say otherwise need to get over themselves and stop tying their self worth to a perceived value based on if someone was shot at or not. Anyone that talks about how many times they were shot at or how someone else is a "POG" or less valuable because of their MOS instantly brings their own history into question and causes me great suspicion.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
All I have to do is look at WHO is questioning and it becomes clear... The Huffington Post - Training ground for what is known as "yellow journalism".
I don't object to honest criticism, but this is just so much blatant hogwash...... I'm not a fan of politicians in general, but if this is the worst they can come up with about her, I may have to consider moving to Iowa. *grin*
I don't object to honest criticism, but this is just so much blatant hogwash...... I'm not a fan of politicians in general, but if this is the worst they can come up with about her, I may have to consider moving to Iowa. *grin*
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
It's really simple, civilians speaking on military service when it comes to being "downrange," is like men speaking on child birth from actual experience, their opinion is MEANINGLESS! They speak to feel relevant, not having the intellectual integrity to face the painful reality that they are NOT!
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google