Please someone, end this debate--war veteran or not.

[koshergrl]

You're both wrong, however.
A vet is anyone who served during conflict, whether they saw action or not. There is no separation out of war vets who saw action, and war vets who for whatever reason, didn't.

There are technical differences between different types of vets for the purposes of entitlement programs they are potentially eligible for...housing, education and medical, for example...probably retirement...but these are just slight differences conjured up by our government in order to reduce the $$ they have to spend.

I have never met a vet who devoted much time or energy worrying about who is a *real* vet and who is just a vet. "War veteran" refers not to what you did, but WHEN you served. If you served during conflict, that makes you a war veteran.

 

[Kondor3]

"...I, myself, do not let entitlement programs dictate the language to me."

Neither do I.

But I do take a combination of verbiage from an Earned Benefits Program PLUS commonly-accepted protocols amongst that population itself as sufficient to reach such a determination for our purposes here.

 

[whitehall]

The strange thing about the Korean Conflict (aside from Truman not consulting congress) is the fact that the DOD changed the casualty statistics forty years after the Conflict during the Clinton administration. Every conflict in American history includes the deaths of every member of the Military during that conflict regardless if it was from disease or accident. It was acknowledged that the total of American KIA losses during Korea was around 55,000 in the three years of the conflict. Clinton's DOD decided to change the KIA statistics to include only Americans who were killed on the Korean Peninsula which reduced the statistics to around 35,000, still a significant amount but below the Vietnam totals which included all deaths in the Military. Why the Clinton DOD decided to change the statistics is anyone's guess but you can count on it being some sort of a political reason.

 

[NLT]

I didn’t know where else to turn for this menial yet so annoying argument that comes up between my husband and father every Veteran’s Day. My father served in the Air Force from 1951-55 during the Korean war. Although he never went to Korea and saw action, he served in England and Africa. My husband served in the Army in 1966-67 and did see action in Vietnam.

My father wears a hat that says Korean War Veteran and my husband says he can’t call himself that because he never was in that country nor saw any action; making my father simply a ‘veteran’—not a Korean War one. My husband says since he Was in Vietnam and fought that he can call himself a Vietnam Veteran.

Please, please, PLEASE, help me with this!!
Thank you!

He served during a war and could have been called into action at any time. As far as I am concerend he is a war vet. Retired Navy 1979-2002.

 

[Kondor3]

"...If you served during conflict, that makes you a war veteran."

I think you need to seek input from a gathering of your local American Legion or Veterans of Foreign Wars or similar veterans organizations before trying to push this case any further.

Veterans themselves, and the US Dept of Veterans Affairs, are the final arbiters in such matters, as recognized by Congressional acknowledgement and acceptance of these parties as authoritative and decisive in the matter of defining and categorizing veterans and their war-participation status.

You are in for a long uphill battle with a majority of veterans - especially combat veterans - supported by most of the rest of us - if you think otherwise.

That battle need not take place.

Your choice.

 

[longknife]

What a pissant, ridiculous argument. Both your husband and father are VETS! Drop the rest and leave it at that.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I didn’t know where else to turn for this menial yet so annoying argument that comes up between my husband and father every Veteran’s Day. My father served in the Air Force from 1951-55 during the Korean war. Although he never went to Korea and saw action, he served in England and Africa. My husband served in the Army in 1966-67 and did see action in Vietnam.

My father wears a hat that says Korean War Veteran and my husband says he can’t call himself that because he never was in that country nor saw any action; making my father simply a ‘veteran’—not a Korean War one. My husband says since he Was in Vietnam and fought that he can call himself a Vietnam Veteran.

Please, please, PLEASE, help me with this!!
Thank you!

I served during Desert Storm. But in Okinawa. I am a veteran but not of Desert Storm. I do have the defense ribbon but none of the desert storm ribbons.

 

[Kondor3]

What a pissant, ridiculous argument. Both your husband and father are VETS! Drop the rest and leave it at that.

I can see why the argument crops-up, even though I'm not a combat-vet stakeholder. My business takes me onto the local (large-scale) VA hospital campus at least a couple of times each month, and I hear that discussion on a regular and spontaneous basis amongst both patients and staff. If it's a pissant, ridiculous argument, it's one that continues to surfaces time and again, all across the country, and spanning the generations, between those who have 'seen the elephant' and those who have not, and those who posture as if they have, versus those who know better, versus those who see some merit in allowing them the distinction. But there's room for all manner of opinion on the subject, I suppose. Which is about as far as my thinking and patience takes me on the subject.

 

[koshergrl]

"...If you served during conflict, that makes you a war veteran."

I think you need to seek input from a gathering of your local American Legion or Veterans of Foreign Wars or similar veterans organizations before trying to push this case any further.

Veterans themselves, and the US Dept of Veterans Affairs, are the final arbiters in such matters, as recognized by Congressional acknowledgement and acceptance of these parties as authoritative and decisive in the matter of defining and categorizing veterans and their war-participation status.

You are in for a long uphill battle with a majority of veterans - especially combat veterans - supported by most of the rest of us - if you think otherwise.

That battle need not take place.

Your choice.

We had veterans speak at our church on Sunday.

I'm repeating what they said in front of the congregation.

 

[koshergrl]

Per the American Legion

PS...I think you're full of shit, kondor:

A VETERAN
-whether Active Duty, Retired, National Guard, or Reserve,
Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard, Merchant Marine-
is someone who,
at one point in his or her life,
signed a blank check made payable to
"The United States of America"
for an amount
"up to, and including, my life."

American Legion Ernest Peterson Post 228: VETERAN DEFINED​

 

[koshergrl]

And as I said..."war veteran" refers to the period during which someone served, not to the amount of action they saw:

"
For the American Legion, orders to service under Title 10, subsection 672 or 12301 and a DD214 showing dates for eligibility, not length of service, are the standards for qualification as a member. For services we can provide to those who need them, the larger definition above applies."

American Legion Ernest Peterson Post 228: VETERAN DEFINED

I'm glad I could straighten that up for you.

 

[koshergrl]

If you are a complete slave to the entitlement programs, then the definition varies, dependent upon which entitlement you are applying:

"Whether or not one is considered a "veteran" by the federal government depends entirely upon which veteran program or benefit one is applying for."

American Legion Ernest Peterson Post 228: VETERAN DEFINED

 

[Kondor3]

PS...I think you're full of shit, kondor

Really? Why? We hardly ever interact. Did I wrong you in some previous life?

 

[Kondor3]

If you are a complete slave to the entitlement programs, then the definition varies, dependent upon which entitlement you are applying:

"Whether or not one is considered a "veteran" by the federal government depends entirely upon which veteran program or benefit one is applying for."

American Legion Ernest Peterson Post 228: VETERAN DEFINED

Oh, my... a veteran puts in his-or-her time, serving their country, then calls upon the Feds for promised GI Bill benefits like VA backing for a home-loan, or college or vocational-school books and tuition, or healthcare, or hybrid VA-SBA small business loans, or disability pay, or burial benefits, and these are, in your mind, Entitlement Programs? Truly?

 

[koshergrl]

They are entitlement programs. They are programs veterans are entitled to. I don't wish they didn't exist, but that is what they are, I see nothing wrong with identifying them correctly.

As I see no problem with identifying war veterans correctly. A war veteran is a person who served during time of conflict.

Pretty basic.

The only *varying degrees* occur as they pertain to ENTITLEMENTS. Certain veterans are entitled to certain benefits, based on certain aspects of service. Those programs generate different definitions, as they pertain to THOSE PROGRAMS ONLY.

 

[Kondor3]

And as I said...'war veteran' refers to the period during which someone served, not to the amount of action they saw..."

I can't speak for others, but I, for one, have never, here, held that this had something to do with the amount of action they saw.

It is my contention that a 'war veteran' - as opposed to a 'veteran' - is defined by both(1) the timeframe in which he-or-she served AND (2) serving in a War Operations Theater rather than the other side of the world during that same timeframe, far from danger - and eligible to receive an in-theater campaign or war-ribbon, regardless of whether or not he-or-she fired a shot or saw shots fired or was actually close to the action.

Rather in keeping with the VFW - the Veterans of Foreign Wars - who have somewhat more stringent membership requirements than the easier-to-join American Legion, as may be discerned from the VFW's own membership eligibility requirements...

http://www.vfw.org/uploadedFiles/VFWorg/Join/sept2012%20ElgibilityFolder2.pdf

Your linked American Legion definition pertained to 'veterans' and not the variant 'war veterans', and, given your failure to catch that distinction when researching and posting it, you will forgive me if I do not put much stock in your supportive documentation just yet.

Unlike you, I do not think that you're full of shit. Merely misguided, and suffering from a too hard a leaning upon a strictly Literalist interpretation rather than the commonplace custom-and-usage amongst veterans themselves and as supported by VFW and VA recognition of such differences.

In some ways, and in truth, both of our arguments have some considerable merit.

You seem inclined to side with the Literalists in this instance.

I am inclined to side with the majority of veterans with whom I have interacted over the years.

"...I'm glad I could straighten that up for you."

Well, you certainly clarified the basis for your opinion, but you haven't closed the sale, either literally or figuratively.

One of our colleagues, a page or two back, speculated that the distinction between 'War Veteran' and 'War-ERA Veteran' was a relatively recent construct, brought about by recent (recent decades, anyway) political machinations...

In retrospect and upon reflection, I'm actually inclined to agree, now that I stop to think about it.

In decades past, we once-upon-a-time would call a war-era veteran to be a War Veteran, even if he was serving on the other side of the world and at no risk.

World War II was the last time we did that - as evidenced by that being the last time that we issued a War Victory Medal to every single person who served between Date A and B.

We did not do that for Korea and beyond, moving forward in time.

Anecdotally, I believe this to be the result of a better-educated, better-organized, more-interactive and communicative generation of WWII veterans who began to make that argument and distinction amongst themselves...

And whose generation rose to senior command of the Armed Forces during the Korean and Vietnam Wars...

And who laid-down these modern-age distinctions when defining who was entitled to a Campaign Ribbon...

And who were in-charge of the government and the VA when laying-down new distinctions to be recognized by the VA...

If my own speculation along these lines is true, then, we can probably thank the Greatest (WWII) Generation for creating these modern-day distinctions which have now, by-and-large, become commonplace and easily understood and accepted...

If all of that is true, then it may very well be that you are correct, in playing from the old, stereotypical understanding, as it has held true for much of the history of our country...

While I may also be correct, in playing from the newer understandings and custom-and-usage first crafted by the WWII generation and made dominant and operative since their own war ended...

That'a about as close as I can come to reconciling the two positions...

Whether it's good enough to get the job done is another matter, which is up to you and other readers...

 

[koshergrl]

VFW is specifically, veterans of foreign wars.

As I said. There are specific definitions that are specific to different programs.

You are the one who referred me to the American Legion. They, and I, and most vets, maintain that a vet is just someone who served during a time of conflict.

There aren't "two positions". There are probably a dozen different definitions as they pertain to different programs.

But that isn't what the OP was asking about.

 

[Kondor3]

They are entitlement programs. They are programs veterans are entitled to. I don't wish they didn't exist, but that is what they are, I see nothing wrong with identifying them correctly...

Understood.

Please, in turn, understand that when you say 'Entitlement Program', it seems likely that you are lumping Earned Benefits Programs in with General Welfare Programming, which carries a variety of stigma as baggage.

Another case of being Literally Correct while moving beyond the pale of Commonly-Accepted Usage?

 

[koshergrl]

I can't help it that other people have misconceptions about what "entitlement program" means. I happen to know what it means, and when I use the term, I use it correctly. In fact, you can count on me to use every term I use correctly.

And people who aren't capable of grasping the fact that words do have meanings, and aren't just whatever we mean them to mean, in the moment we use them... annoy the hell out of me.

 

[Kondor3]

"...But that isn't what the OP was asking about."

Indeed.

My own position was adequately rationalized earlier.

No point in rehashing it.

If I had to (1) sum-up my position and (2) take our own exchange and other colleagues feedback into account, I would re-word that feedback to the OP in a do-over as something along the lines of...

"Both are right and both are wrong, OP. Your father may (depending upon your viewpoint) be technically correct in styling himself as a Korean War Veteran, but, within the framework of interactions and categorizations between veterans themselves, your husband is equally correct in explaining the courtesies and distinctions that they recognize and largely abide by in the course of their own interactions; a position with some solid backing in the way that the VFW and the VA subdivide the veteran population. I know that isn't a hard-and-fast answer, but it's not as black-and-white as an outsider (non-veteran) might think. Personally, I stand with the latter position, for various reasons, but that's just me."

And that is truly the extent of my usefulness and substantive contribution on the subject.