Who Is a Veteran?

For a long time, I've wondered whether war and peace diplomats, humanitarian aid workers, rights advocates, doctors, and others who work to save lives while unarmed and unarmored in war zones should be treated comparable to military war veterans.

The question is particularly provocative when one considers that some military folk in war zones for some reason may not have ended up near combat, while a number of civilian doctors and aid workers end up near combat and risk being kidnapped or killed every day. The labels may be trivial in the zone, but when every one gets home it's interesting what happens.

Hometowns greet combat veterans upon their return these days with positive nods, if not parades. Those who succeed in rebuilding their lives colorfully are celebrated, while those who encounter nightmares that keep them from reintegrating are ignored or discriminated against. Meanwhile, doctors, aid workers, diplomats, and others returning from war go through their reintegration in private; few know about or celebrates their sacrifice.

Recently, while researching the question of who should receive veteran's rights, if not only military combat vets, I discovered that even within the category of military service many cannot agree on who exactly should hold the title "veteran."

In some cases, political or business leaders brag about serving during a war when they were nowhere near it; in other cases people were washed out of the military or didn't serve but claim benefits; and in still other circumstances people who fought and saved lives with the armed forces in war are denied veteran benefits because they did not get an honorable discharge. Should the lines of who is a veteran be redefined federally? Here's clarification on the current status. A veteran is:

U.S. FEDERAL LAW

According to U.S. federal law and the Department of Veterans Affairs, a "veteran" is someone who served on active duty in the U.S. armed forces in the geographic theater of a war during a "period of war" and was honorably discharged. Of course, "period of war" must be further defined, so they have included specific dates up to 1990. Apparently, if you were wounded outside of those official dates and outside of the Iraq or Afghan wars (for example, in fighting during actions not declared war like Somalia, Haiti, the Philippines, etc.), then you only get benefits on a case by case decision. Or at least this is what the Department of Veterans Affairs has in their literature. This appears to exclude millions of people who served in the military, but not in the theater of war during a declared war or military action.

STATES

Meanwhile, New York, according to the state law linked here, is similar except that it only requires service during the period of war, not in the war zone. So everyone in New York who put on the uniform and completed satisfactorily is a veteran, even if not a veteran on the federal level. Massachusetts requires veterans to have served either at least 180 days active duty with an honorable discharge or at least 90 days with at least one day during a period of war. Exceptions to this classification are starting to seem absurd. So many what ifs. Recently Connecticut had an analyst respond to a question publicly, and they found that anyone who served in the military and was discharged under honorable circumstances is a veteran.

CUSTOM

Many combat veterans assert, for good reason, that people should use the distinction "combat veteran" to make sure that those who really risked their lives on the frontlines are set apart from others who may or may not fit the legal definition of veteran. Of course, others are likely to debate this as they may not have been to Iraq or Afghanistan, but nearly got blown up at the embassy in Yemen or Nairobi or broke their ankle jumping out of a plane at Ft. Bragg.

QUESTIONS THAT REMAIN

Should there be a distinction, both in terms of who gets federal or state benefits and who gets public recognition, between people who served in the military in general and people who were in the line of fire? How would that distinction be made given attacks on New York or Nairobi and undeclared military action in Africa and Asia?

Should there be a distinction between people given an honorable discharge and those without an honorable discharge, some of whom may have risked their lives for their country but were either accused of a conduct violation or prone to disobey orders?

Should there be an exceptional category for civilians who served their country outside the military by providing diplomacy, humanitarian aid, medicine, or something similar but peace-bound in war zones?

Photo credit: U.S. Army