DiscussMormonism.com

...Finally Breaks Silence, Says Navy Told Him Go “F” Yourself

http://gawker.com/5983327/the-seal-who- ... ks-silence

In an Esquire article published today, the Center for Investigative Reporting's Phil Bronstein writes about the guy—who's remaining anonymous—and his attempts to form a post-Osama life. The upshot: with no assistance from the Navy or the government, he's been left with no insurance, no job, and no security.

http://www.esquire.com/print-this/man-w ... 3?page=all

"They [SEAL command] told me they could get me a job driving a beer truck in Milwaukee" under an assumed identity. Like Mafia snitches, they would not be able to contact their families or friends. "We'd lose everything."
...
Private security still seems like the smoothest job path, though many of these guys, including the Shooter, do not want to carry a gun ever again for professional use.
...
(and there is the whole Bin Laden story, long, but worth to read)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off ... terans-day

Remarks by the President on Veterans Day
Arlington National Cemetery, Arlington, Virginia
...
So long after the battles end, long after our heroes come home, we stay by their side. That’s who we are. And that’s who we’ll be for today’s returning service members and their families. Because no one who fights for this country overseas should ever have to fight for a job, or a roof over their head, or the care that they have earned when they come home. (Applause.)
...

Why I did wrote this?
After I was pensioned after 39 years service, as lieutenant colonel, from a relative high position, I must have had to work. Then - as a programmer - I've earned three times of my incoming as an active, five times of the pension.

Sometimes governments seem to not like their soldiers, active or veteran, only in words...

It's a tough position, because a deal's a deal. He left before his pension vested, and it's my understanding that he gets five years of health care. But if the Navy makes an exception for him (on what basis?), then how can it deny similar benefits to other soldiers who leave at 16 years instead of 20? Are they supposed to make a "hero" clause up out of thin air?

Yes. A deal is a deal.
And there are exceptions. Or may be...

Bin Laden was an exception, too.
Were the special forces flung against all terrorists, with the same power?
Our one an only spaceman was advanced faster than other H. airmans.

Please don't misunderstand me. I don't seek for a solution.
I've found an article, an interesting one. You may say, not my business, by the way.

I have a past, and it is my past - past perfect, in grammar...

Our deal (hehehe) was that Hungarian officers earn 1/9 of west-european or of US colleagues - enemies, at that time - even I could tell one story.
And my pension itself is a little to live, too much to die of hunger.

You know, the parallels...

cinepro wrote:It's a tough position, because a deal's a deal. He left before his pension vested, and it's my understanding that he gets five years of health care. But if the Navy makes an exception for him (on what basis?), then how can it deny similar benefits to other soldiers who leave at 16 years instead of 20? Are they supposed to make a "hero" clause up out of thin air?

It is a tough position. On the one hand, we as a society need some of our young people to spend their formative career years training to defend the nation. We do this within the same playbook where some of our youth choose to become business professionals, truck drivers, cops, engineers, etc., etc. with the same risk/rewards that come from choosing a career.

What I think we miss, as a society, is that the act of killing another human being isn't the same as being lost in the corporate cubical world. Sure, the latter can be soul-corroding and many a person has found themselves 10 years into a career and looked around to find themselves miserably lost.

But that isn't the same as being haunted by the faces of lost comrades, dead civilians, so-called enemies...seeing the effects of one's job up close and personal.

Remember that our career military structure is in large measure what it is as an effort to create a professional military as opposed to a conscripted, draftee military during times of conflict. And I've never met the soldier who wanted anyone other than someone who chose to be with him or her at their side on a mission.

But I think we need to rethink "the deal" we give our combat vets. We ask a hell of a lot of them and leave them with wounds that don't heal. I think this ex-SEAL's experience gives us a good chance to reexamine our relationship to combat vets and, maybe, not make an exception for him as much as make a new deal for all combat vets.

honorentheos wrote:What I think we miss, as a society, is that the act of killing another human being isn't the same as being lost in the corporate cubical world.

As a teacher and expert of radar maintenance, I've never killed anybody. I've taught others to do it - indirectly. And I used to know it in every minute.

honorentheos wrote:But I think we need to rethink "the deal" we give our combat vets. We ask a hell of a lot of them and leave them with wounds that don't heal.

+1

This is the OP.

honorentheos wrote:But I think we need to rethink "the deal" we give our combat vets. We ask a hell of a lot of them and leave them with wounds that don't heal. I think this ex-SEAL's experience gives us a good chance to reexamine our relationship to combat vets and, maybe, not make an exception for him as much as make a new deal for all combat vets.

Such a discussion has been ongoing for past year+.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/47251684/Possibl ... Stirs_Fear

http://www.stripes.com/blogs/stripes-ce ... w-1.178416

http://www.dallasnews.com/business/pers ... hanges.ece

The discussion started under Secretary Gates, continued under Panetta, and will likely continue under Hagel. You would also have a hard time determining who was a "combat" vet. One of the worst cases of PTSD I know of involved someone who was never "in" combat, but was responsible for sending people into areas where he was sure they would be killed (and they were).

Retirement is always discussed, and likely will be for several more decades, but there is no real impetus for changing it. Right now the government saves a TON of money by making retirement 20 years, since it takes a lot to get there, and if you leave at 19.9, you get nothing. Those in, do not want a 401k, people do not trust the stock market when they have a set pension. Those who are not in usually leave before 20.