Should veteran status be reserved for those who have deployed?

Amen

Do not let anyone put a definition on you that you are not a Veteran. You are, by the ‘legal definition’ and certainly did your part and more. Yes, Combat Veterans deserve to be called such…I have the utmost respect for them. Veterans need to stick together.

I started as a Reservist, then went Regular. Either way one could be deployed on short notice! To decide veteran or not based on something beyond their control.

I understand what you are saying. We trained every day during drills in the Army National Guard in the event that we might be called up.

Active duty units came to evaluate our performance levels for all the common soldiers tasks, our MOS specific tasks in the Field Artillery, as well as Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Warfare. We were told over and over that we not only met the Army Standards but most often exceeded them. We took great pride in our performance and were ready to fight.

A couple of years later our units were activated shortly after I had retired . We lost three soldiers in a helipad bombing when injured soldiers were being carried out to the helipad for transport after a vehicle accident and some trigger happy bomber detonated charges they place beneath the helipad as my stretcher bearers were approaching the helipad. I have felt a profound loss ever since that day, as these guys were people I had trained with and worked with.

Without someone checking the weapons, defects, Making sure that the 3 pant legs are not issued, Yes I would consider that a win in my book! From the construction of all our equipment, deployment, fittings, recruitment and all the way to the field! That is how it was during World War 1 and World War 2 in this amazing country of ours
and some how it has lost all it's meaning today.

Having read through many of the comments here there seems to be a division between those who "deployed" and those who didn't. First, what does "deployed" mean? An overseas tour? A tour near a combat zone? A tour in a combat zone? Getting mortared? Shot at? Wounded? Killed? MOS? Kosovo didn't count as a combat tour but in 2000 we were investigating "war crimes" and shit that happened after we arrived to keep the peace (LOL). I saw and heard the most godawful things there. Iraq in 2004 was still kind of like the wild west. AFG in 2013 was, well, AFG. Most of us want the opportunity to test our skills but be careful what you wish for. I've seen things I will never unsee. I've seen careers destroyed because someone made a bad decision. Commanders who've gone absolutely bonkers. My deployments changed me permanently and not for the better in my opinion. I digress.

Stateside guys who supported us were invaluable. Period. Deployed near a combat zone? Like the guys who stayed in Kuwait while we were in Irad? Should they count? If it weren't for them we likely wouldn't have gotten in and out effectively, no supply trains, we'd have been hurting. What about those in a combat zone who never left "the wire?" Should they be discounted? Did they not provide a necessary service while still at risk? Everyone contributes regardless of where they are (unless they're in Leavenworth maybe). I've been mortared, rocketed, shot at and IED'd (somehow unscathed but a sniper came within an inch of blowing my brains out). I was in MI - not combat arms but I was outside the wire plenty. We had four man teams plus an interpreter running around Baghdad in two hummers - a driver and a TC with no security element (or crew served weapon). The infantry guys thought we were out of our minds but we had to make do. I saw cooks and admin clerks driving for security convoys day in and day out - quite possibly the most dangerous job in any modern combat zone. So MOS doesn't really matter either. Personally, I hated getting mortared more than anything - I'm talking when they're close, not on the other side of the base or camp and about 15 -20 are dropping all around you. Bottom line: there's a legal definition of a "veteran" - I think we should stick to that. Don't forget: Be careful what you wish for.

(Cont) I'm sure there will be the discussion about whether one served honorably or not which is something I can understand. But to try and make a distinction between someone the went to combat and someone that didn't the defining factor is wrong. Most of those that might think that way because too many have been in and all they know is combat. So what are you going to to do about those that served during non combat years? So before someone higher up even starts to get an idea like they usually do, I say squash the question, a veteran is a veteran period.