EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- German Official Warns of Immediate 'Revolution' if EU Adopts US Model
- Think Fracking Is Bad? Wait Until You Hear about the Gas Industry's "Acid Jobs"
- President Obama Uses a Sledgehammer Against Dissent
- Beware Capitalist Tools
- We’re Being Watched: How Corporations and Law Enforcement Are Spying on Environmentalists
- Burning Tulsa: The Legacy of Black Dispossession
- Think Fracking Is Bad? Wait Until You Hear about the Gas Industry's "Acid Jobs"
- We’re Being Watched: How Corporations and Law Enforcement Are Spying on Environmentalists
- German Official Warns of Immediate 'Revolution' if EU Adopts US Model
- President Obama Uses a Sledgehammer Against Dissent
Popular content
Today's Top News
Purple Heart Is Ruled Out for Traumatic Stress
The Pentagon has decided that it will not award the Purple Heart, the hallowed medal given to those wounded or killed by enemy action, to war veterans who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder because it is not a physical wound.
The Purple Heart will be given for physical wounds only. (Chris Ramirez for The New York Times) The decision, made public on Tuesday, for now ends the hope of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who have the condition and believed that the Purple Hearts could honor their sacrifice and help remove some of the stigma associated with the condition.
The disorder, which may go unrecognized for months or years, can include recurring nightmares, uncontrolled rage and, sometimes, severe depression and suicide. Soldiers grappling with PTSD are often unable to hold down jobs.
In May, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said awarding Purple Hearts to such service members was "clearly something that needs to be looked at," after he toured a mental health center at Fort Bliss, Tex.
But a Pentagon advisory group decided against the award because, it said, the condition had not been intentionally caused by enemy action, like a bomb or bullet, and because it remained difficult to diagnose and quantify.
"Historically, the Purple Heart has never been awarded for mental disorders or psychological conditions resulting from witnessing or experiencing traumatic combat events," said Eileen Lainez, a Pentagon spokeswoman. "Current medical knowledge and technologies do not establish PTSD as objectively and routinely as would be required for this award at this time."
One in five service members, or at least 300,000, suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder or major depression, according to a Rand Corporation study in 2008.
For some soldiers suffering from the disorder, the historical distinction between blood and no blood in an injury fails to recognize the depths of their mental scars. A modern war - one fought without safe havens and with the benefit of improved armor - calls for a new definition of injuries, some veterans say.
Kevin Owsley, 47, who served in the Ohio National Guard in 2004 as a gunner on a Humvee and who is being treated for PTSD and traumatic brain injury, said he disagreed with the Pentagon's ruling.
Unable to hold a job, Mr. Owsley supports his family on disability payments. This week he told his Veterans Affairs doctor he was fighting back suicidal impulses, something he has struggled with since his return. "You relive it every night and every day," he said. "You dream about it. You can see it, taste it, see people getting killed constantly over and over."
"It is a soldier's injury," he said, angrily, in a telephone interview on Wednesday.
But many soldiers do not feel that way. In online debates and interviews they expressed concern that the Purple Heart would be awarded to soldiers who faked symptoms to avoid combat or receive a higher disability rating from the Department of Veterans Affairs.
"I'm glad they finally got something right," said Jeremy Rausch, an Army staff sergeant who saw some of the Iraq War's fiercest fighting in Adhamiya in 2006 and 2007. "PTSD can be serious, but there is absolutely no way to prove that someone truly is suffering from it or faking it."
The Purple Heart in its modern form was established by Gen. Douglas MacArthur in 1932. Some 1.7 million service members have received the medal, and, as of last August, 2,743 service members who served in Afghanistan and 33,923 who fought in Iraq had received the award.
The medal entitles veterans to enhanced benefits, including exemptions from co-payments for veterans hospital and outpatient care and gives them higher priority in scheduling appointments.
The Pentagon left open the possibility that it could revisit the issue.
But a Pentagon-supported service group, the Military Order of the Purple Heart, has strongly opposed expanding the definition to include psychological symptoms, saying it would "debase" the honor.
"Would you award it to anyone who suffered the effects of chemicals or for other diseases and illnesses?" John E. Bircher III, director of public relations for the group, said Wednesday. "How far do you want to take it?"
Post-traumatic stress disorder was first identified during the Vietnam War and has gradually been accepted as a serious psychological problem for some who experience violence and fear.
Dr. Barbara V. Romberg, a psychologist in Bethesda, Md., and founder of Give an Hour, which offers mental health services to troops and their families, said that she and many other psychologists believed the discussion of Purple Hearts had brought more attention to post-traumatic stress disorder and the seriousness of psychological wounds suffered on the battlefield.
"We're working to normalize post-traumatic stress as an understandable human consequence of war that can result in very serious damage to some people's lives, and they deserve honoring for that," she said.
"But I don't want to be so quick to condemn the decision," she added.
Many have post-traumatic stress, but only some develop a serious lasting disorder; in both cases, she said, "people deserve to be honored in some way for the injury they received in combat."
After years of criticism for ignoring the problem, the Defense Department and the Veterans Administration have bolstered their capacity to diagnose and treat PTSD, and those with serious cases may receive substantial disability benefits. Some of those suffering from severe traumatic brain injuries qualify for a Purple Heart because they required medical treatment.
But in its decision not to extend Purple Hearts to PTSD sufferers, first reported Tuesday by Stars and Stripes, the Pentagon said part of the problem stemmed from the difficulty in objectively diagnosing the disorder.
That decision was made in November. It was not clear why the Pentagon did not announce the decision then.
There have been recent changes in awarding Purple Hearts. The criteria was expanded in 2008 to include all prisoners of war who died in captivity, including those who were tortured. "There were wounds there," Mr. Bircher said.
"You have to had shed blood by an instrument of war at the hands of the enemy of the United States," he said. "Shedding blood is the objective."
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

40 Comments so far
Show AllThis was a correct decision and by the Pentagon! Wonders will never cease.
Yes, it surprised me too. They are welcome to give out (or create new) medals for PTSD, just not the Purple Heart. I'm not making light of PTSD, but I've always associated the Purple Heart with heroes taking a bullet and carrying a buddy out of the line of fire.
I don't have an opinion on the medals that are awarded, but these comments do mirror a general, (American) societal attitude that separates mental illness from physical illness, with the former frequently regarded as dubious or outright stigmatized. Health insurers as a rule provide lesser and frequently inadequate benefits for mental illnesses, and the Army itself, if recent reports are accurate, urged its medical staff to reduce the number of PTSD diagnoses (why?). Some of the comments in the article in favor of the decision postitively reek of stigmatization (some cowards might fake mental illness, so all mental illness is suspect). Some others simply seem satisfied to rely on tradition.
I understand that you're both (Judah and Thomas) keenly aware of the debilitating, even hellish reality of PTSD, so I'm just curious as to why you find it categorically different from "taking a bullet." As a follow-up question, would a physical brain injury that caused a motor disability warrant a purple heart, but not a brain injury that produced a personality disorder? (I'm deliberately trying to blur the line between "physical" and "mental" here.)
FastEddie75
This is extremely simple to answer. My Dad has 5 purple hearts. Buddies of his that suffered "battle fatigue" (PTSD) have none. Since the creation of the medal it has only been awarded for physical wounds.
Since there is no way to go back and award the medal to those men from before, then no one going forward should wear it either unless they suffered a physical wound.
I don't favor it myself. I don't think most guys that suffer it would either. But I don't know that. Once again I would oppose a policy of awarding the Purple Heart to anyone other than with a physical wound.
"As a follow-up question, would a physical brain injury that caused a motor disability warrant a purple heart, but not a brain injury that produced a personality disorder?"
Yes to the first, because it was caused by a physical wound. A wound thats either there or not.
No to the second because there is no way to know what you just said was true. Perhaps the guy just smoked too much weed. Hard to know. Remember this. Just because a veteran claims PTSD, it doesn't mean he is suffering from it. This will shock you I know, but guys lie occasionally. And there are many types of mental damage.
I would have no problem at all if they wanted to award another type of new medal to recognize those wounds. I do question how many of the kids would want it or wear it.
I personally believe this whole idea was an answer in search of a question. A question no one asked.
Thanks for your thoughts. The short, short answer seems to be "tradition." No shortage of that in the military and elsewhere.
With regard to liars, I hope you don't think I'm that naive ("this will shock you..."). There seems to be no shortage of liars in the military. After all, the entire exercise of "embedding" reporters in this war was to enable the military machine to "control the messages" coming home. In my book, embedding reporters institutionalized lying, particularly by omission. I sometimes wonder what it means to veterans to receive honors from officers who lack any semblance of it for serving in a war initiated under false pretenses. I'm heartily sick of all the lying that accompanies these wars. But I digress (hot under the collar regarding Obama's pick of Admiral Dennis Blair for Director of National Intelligence--I think the journalist Allan Nairn satisfactorily demonstrated that Nairn lied to Congress regarding massacres in Timor in 1999--see yesterday's Democracy Now! transcript if curious).
To get back on track, yes, I imagine some soldiers will attempt any ruse to get the hell out of battle. I reckon some of the stories of self-inflicted gunshot wounds are true, too, which could earn a clever liar a purple heart, no?
Regarding "personality disorders," I was speaking quite clinically. It would take a mental health professional's diagnosis, but some of these disorders are quite evident, so I still see the line between physical and mental wounds as blurred. I firmly believe that the military mindset, reflecting American society as a whole, clearly stigmatizes emotional trauma as a "sketchy" injury; not quite to be trusted. ("Show me the blood or stop being such a pussy.") A physical wound merits honor; a mental or emotional wound earns mostly skepticism until the poor grunt blows his brains out. The stigma is so strong that I seriously doubt any soldier would accept a new type of medal for PTSD. Might as well just tatoo "MI" (for "mentally ill") on their foreheads. So I remain sympathetic to those who argue that it is unjust to disrespect PTSD as a legitimate wound.
Anyway, what matters more to me than the manner in which honors are awarded is that these vets get the care they deserve for as long as they need it. Part of that care is fundamental respect, which is the question no one wants to hear. The military is struggling to do this in its usual SNAFU way, but I wish it success on behalf of the injured.
Respectfully,
Ed
FastEddie75
"So I remain sympathetic to those who argue that it is unjust to disrespect PTSD as a legitimate wound."
I don't believe I said I didn't, but let me clear that up, PTSD is a legitimate wound. But not awarding a medal for it is not disrespecting it.
Reporters should be embedded in beds.
And tradition is as good a label as any as tradition is extremely important to the military and any sucessful society.
I'd also like to make clear my opinion on this "I sometimes wonder what it means to veterans to receive honors from officers who lack any semblance of it for serving in a war initiated under false pretenses." Bull poop. Serving in a war that some people disapprove of indicates in no way that they lack honor. Rather the reverse. Especially in a volunteer service. Consider this....when you say that, you just said that me and all my friends that served in Viet Nam lacked honor. Guess how I feel about that.
I have no patiensce with attempts to say that if you serve you must be dishonorable or murderers. That was the party line back in the sixties. It was no more true then than now. You can count on my response to that line of reasoning every time.
I digress.... "I imagine some soldiers will attempt any ruse to get the hell out of battle." yes....and we all think of it at times. Ask any combat soldier when he wasn't scared.
The real answer I believe is that there can be so many reasons for PSTD and only one for a purple heart.
What is the difference between a coward that broke before he entered battle and a man that faced combat and broke?
I've created a couple misunderstandings here, so let me clean up after myself again. ALL of your posts have clearly evinced a sympathetic point of view towards PTSD and all other wounds of war. You personally do not disrespect it, but clearly many others do. Stigmatization of mental illness is very real, but not by you. I hope that's cleared up.
I'm also not one to denigrate service (I thought we got past that--guess I fudged it up). My ranting digression was directed at higher-ups in the military, and only those higher-ups who advance politically by lying (of which there seems to have been little shortage lately), not the guys and gals on the ground. Perhaps I should have left it out altogether. My friends who served in Vietnam do not lack honor, and neither do you. I sincerely apologize for having offended you, and let me buy you a beer (figuratively, anyway). In fact, the reason I deliberately correspond with you on this site is because I think you have, among other qualities, a highly functional bullshit detector. You challenge me (and others) so effectively that it clarifies my thinking on issues, whether we end up agreeing or not.
"I believe is that there can be so many reasons for PSTD and only one for a purple heart." That's a crystal clear expression of your point of view, and makes for an undertandable distinction. Probably would have been a very useful comment during the deliberations.
"What is the difference between a coward that broke before he entered battle and a man that faced combat and broke?" Seems your answer is in the question itself: one is a "coward" and one is "a man." If there's more to it than that, let me know (does it relate to PTSD?).
"My ranting digression was directed at higher-ups in the military, and only those higher-ups who advance politically by lying"
Ah-Ha! Generals and the like.....the Pentagon.........let me rephrase that comment on lack of honor, its in abundance in those areas. Except we have some that do like Patreaus, Shinseki, Jim Jones and others.
"Seems your answer is in the question itself: one is a "coward" and one is "a man." If there's more to it than that, let me know (does it relate to PTSD?)."
The only real difference I see is where and what broke them. The injury is the same.
There is nothing wrong with being a coward, as long as you don't get somebody else killed. Everyone is scared all the time. What if I hasd been taken prisoner like McCain. They would have broken me I'm sure. After 14 months does that make me a coward? I'm very careful with that word.
Thanks for your patience. I hear you on the "coward" label. I was circumspect replying to your question because I'm not qualified to evaluate anyone's response under battle stress (never been there). I've been frightened enough in some few circumstances in my life to wonder--doubt, to be honest--how I might have fared in war. Do you work with vets? Seems they could use a man like you.
I don't work with them, I tried once. I didn't and don't have the guts.
Don't give the "how would I do" another thought. No one knows. About the only thing I can assure you of is that you would be scared all the time you are on the line, half scared in reserve and you'll wish you were anywhere else all the time.
"because I'm not qualified to evaluate anyone's response under battle stress"
Thats why I try to be so careful. Am I? Who knows. I just have my own opinions.
Some wounds you can see, some you can't, but I can assure anyone that they all hurt. Ask some of the other combat vets here if they have pictures and smells they would give anything to be rid of. And thats just normal.
Pax
"Don't give the 'how would I do' another thought." I won't. In my most dire bouts of foreboding, I fear the future may force upon me a chance to find out anyway.
Nope....no draft. Never again my friend.
I didn't mean a draft. My foreboding is of a deeper, more apocalyptic (and possibly neurotic) nature. I'm a biologist/ecologist by education and career, and the signs of accelerating, accumulating wear and tear on the planet, denied by many, are vivid and clear to me, as vivid as the image of the Cuyahoga River burning when I was a little boy, as vivid as the lurid glow in the night sky over Port Arthur when one drives there from Houston, as vivid as the images of severed, burned bodies in Gaza. I'm not saying we're necessarily headed for "Mad Max" territory, but I anticipate major difficulties that will test us, and maybe test the limits of my personal courage after all.
Peace to you, too.
FastEddie75:On this we part. It's not up to us to decide, for starters. But I have no problem giving a purple heart for someone with PTSD. I'm surprised. Maybe you'll reconsider. Look at it another way:what the heck are medals? I remember, and I'm sure Thomas More and ardee do, when Vietnam vets threw their medals away, publicly in protest, while fighting for peace and to end the war in Vietnam. I think we need to soften on some old ideas. What does your mother think?
Not that many threw them away. Medals are just a reminder and a recognition that you did your duty, nothing more.
Except for the Medal of Honor. That is something special reserved for special men.
I disagree with you on the purple heart. Tradition is important, and it represents a definate occourace. If recognition for PTSD is really needed, then it should have its own award.
Just one opinion....and I'm not set in stone, if it was decided to do it, I'd still believe it was a mistake, but I'd never say a word about it.
I really don't have an opinion about how medals are awarded, and it wouldn't be the primary point of departure I would take to reforming our military. My primary interests in this thread were to: 1) illuminate the differences in how mental and physical health issue are treated in society in general and the military in particular; and, 2) advocate for full care for those injured (again, in general and in war). Dante's eloquent summary of the issue (above) concisely states that point of view, and I hope Thomas More's confidence in Gen. Shinseki proves true.
Secondly (and beware because my thoughts are not fully cohered around this point), I am learning to be more and more deferential to the opinions of vets I know--not to abdicate reason or simply accept their points of view--but because I find that if I listen to them, I inevitably come to a horizon I've never crossed that those who experienced war first-hand were forced across. I have no longing for that experience, as some men do (at least until they've been in it), but it creates a difference that somehow makes me feel it's better to hold back. (We're kind of getting into "guy territory" here like we did once before, and I'm sadly reduced to inarticulate arm waving.) You can see by my attempts in this thread how easy it is to put one's foot in one's mouth. I really was trying to be careful, and wound up offending Thomas anyway, if only temporarily.
In this case, on this issue, I still hear both sides. I am still quite sympathetic to the vets voices above who say, "I was wounded in this war, but the nature of my wound, for some reason, precludes the same recognition that others receive for their wounds." Their reasoning, that a purple heart would confer respect for their wounds equal to the respect for physical wounds (a respect that might stimulate healing and recovery), seems sound. (I can also easily argue that PTDS is, in fact, a physical wound at a neurological level, making it equivalent to a lost limb, even if it is harder to diagnose.)
I haven't been fully persuaded by Thomas that there is any more reason for excluding the wound of PTSD than tradition plus the ease of identifying wounds to the body for which the purple heart is currently awarded. I agree that tradition can be important, but that it should not be rigid. I still think that the "PTSD can be faked" argument lacks something and smells of stigma. The decision reported in the article represents the path of least resistance for this specific medal, but it doesn't resolve the "you are different" label attached to the vet truly afflicted with PTSD, and may well overlook a significant gesture that could promote healing. But, as you said, "it's not up to us to decide," and so I'm satisfied to let my opinion be known and let the vets and the brass hash it out. The decision announced in the article heading this thread resolves the purple heart issue, but it is by no means the end of the larger issue.
"I really was trying to be careful, and wound up offending Thomas anyway, if only temporarily."
You really didn't. If I ever get offended and really mad I tend to become quite profane, so I'm careful!!!!
I'm willing to go with the majority myself on this question. Especially as PTSD is more of a factor for these wounded vets now. Don't wear them anyhow.
"I have no longing for that experience, as some men do (at least until they've been in it),"
If you come across a guy that is spouting let me at em' (can't wait to mix it up) my advice is to run like hell away from him because he is too stupid to stand near or flat crazy.
I'm glad you were not truly offended.
The second point had more to do with my step-son (not really my step-son because his mom and I are not married), who served four years in the Army in the 90s (including a long stint in the Saudi desert). His mom once said he felt he had not fully served; that he had missed something by serving between the Gulf wars. I think it was a passing thing, because he didn't re-enlist after 9/11. Instead he's facing danger by working fishing boats in the Bering Sea.
"Instead he's facing danger by working fishing boats in the Bering Sea."
Excellent choice!!!!
Judah
Not heroes, just wounded. Most of the time you get it for not keeping your butt down.
PTSD is nasty.
"Shedding blood is the objective."
I'd say that statement really sums it up.
I will never forget a scene in the movie Doctor Zhivago in which a party official calls the doctor to determine the cause of the death of an old man.
In the crowded, filthy, Moscow of 1919 the Reds were trying to project an image to the world of an idyllic Russia. When the examination was over the official asked nervously "Is it Typhus?"
The doctor said "No, it's another disease that doesn't exist in Moscow, starvation."
The official's implied threat was worthy of our modern FBI: "Your attitude has been noticed you know---oh yes, it's been noticed."
I can hear some pentagon official saying "If we recognize PTSD as a legitimate disability, who's to say somebody wouldn't merely pretend to have it? Don't worry about him. He'll find a cardboard box on the street somewhere."
Do you really expect an organization designed to solve problems by piercing human bodies with hardware to pay attention to wounds to the mind and spirit?
Joe
Yes...I do.
I wish folks like you were in charge. I would be happy enough if PTSD were treated as an illness, no less cause for a purple heart. Most often it is treated as a myth or actuarial nuisance by Veterans' Administration.
Joe
I have high hopes for Gen. Shenseki. I think he will do well if Obama will back him up. I think all veterans know that PTSD is real enough, maybe we need more Doctors that have served (lol)
I also think PTSD will be more of an issue with these veterans from the middle eastern wars.
The best way to treat it is not to have veterans. An impossibility in our world of course. But we keep hoping!
Pax
In WWI they called it "Shell Shock".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SS1dO0JC2EE&feature=related
and this,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRv56gsqkzs&feature=related
Later in WW2 "battle Fatigue"
Its bad.
A physical wound is viewed as a sign of valor while a mental wound is viewed as a sign of weakness. Sad .... is it not?
That's typical of our society.
I don't agree with that. I don't believe that Shell Shock and all the other names its called by are viewed as a sign of weakness by most soldiers. At least I didn't see much of it.
A man can break at the time or later. I'd say the only thing we didn't know was how bad the later was.
I would also say most of the folks "viewing" it as weakness had not seen anything.
My respects
Thomas,
The point I was trying to make is that mental illness has been, and still is, generally considered a weakness. It (PTSD) would never be viewed a weakness to the soldiers because it is they who understand the horrors of war. But for the purpose of propagating the hero myth blood always trumps mental trauma.
Many, if not most,Purple Heart recipients heal from their wounds in a very short period of time while those who suffer from mental wounds,in most cases, do so for the rest of their natural lives.
If mental wounds could be displayed with the pride of sacrifice as those of the physical type all mentally traumatized soldiers would be rightfully recognized for the great sacrifice they made on behalf of the people of their nation.
Unfortunately military tradition dictates that the mentally injured literally be written out of any official narrative. We will always hear of the person who lost his/her arm, leg, or eye sight in battle. Honorable injuries. Heroic according to any official military narrative. But those who lose their minds? Mental health has always been a poor second cousin to physical health.
Take care Thomas
Well said, thank you. Now let's make sure all these injured men and women get the help they deserve.
AMEN!
Amen!! Amen indeed.
Dante
Point taken and well made! Heros are in short supply though. Heroic? I only saw three or 4 and the most heroic was an NVA. I'd buy that little feller a beer anytime.
Dante:I'm wondering if there's more behind it than considering it "weakness", which the government may well do. But, connected to that, is that Walter Reed and then the VA is working hard to keep head trauma injuries, which are so common, from being recognized, treated and benefits given. I wonder if they are fearful that if they give recognition to PTSD...I just thought of something else, money related!
I saw a guy making music on Fifth Avenue,near 34th St,NYC a couple of years ago. He had a sign on the supermarket shopping card (I have a photo of it and used it/him in art.), something like " Vet: PTSD, lung cancer and ...something else I don't remember...and only 20% disability". Young guy, Iraq vet for sure. If you have a disability rating above a certain amount, you have to get treatment and full benefits.
Since the government is so consistent about looking for ways to NOT PAY, I am certain there's a link between recognition via Purple Heart and denying them to vets with PTSD. In the case of head trauma,so common in Iraq injuries,from concussion from explosions, it's not visible, no blood but folks are cognitively impaired, plus other symptoms, including PTSD. The mental illness is often caused by the physical illness. For example:loss of balance.
Finally, it is such an old trick by governments to trivialize illness any way they can so as not to pay. I am sure this is part of the whole picture.
Hi Artist!
The money issue is always lurking around the corner Artist. So much of the DOD budget goes unaccounted for you wonder why they even bother hiring accountants. They literally (DOD) throw money around as if it were confetti at a wedding ceremony but at the same time do everything in their power to ensure that the wounded and sick veterans get less than required for the promotion of their current and future health needs. I guess I just answered my own question. The DOD hires accountants to assure that the soldiers (veterans) receive only the minimum at most.
Artist you are correct in your comment where you suggest that this runs deeper than any simple comparison between what is considered acceptable (undeniable) and what is not.(Deniable) (Strength/Weakness) There are many factors at play working against the injured veteran. Money and commitment among the most obvious.
This very topic creates an anger in my heart. We send young women and men into battle and if they survive we allow them to die of neglect on our own city streets. Shame? Shame on us.
Great hearing from you again Artist. (Thank you for sharing the story about the young veteran on the streets of New York City.)
Take good care
Medals are fine for those who wish to stay in the military for a carrier, but I would rather not the applause, just throw money, please.
As most combat veterans know, wars bring little but a lifetime of bitterness, rage and sorrow. So stuff the medals up your arse, give me money and leave me your patriotic sympathy.
I expect that the new, improved, enlightened Pentagon will soon announce the issuance of a "Purple Brain", or even "Purple Last Nerve" medal, an award for those whose military service has forever shattered their sanity and peace of mind.
And then there will be much argument between Purple Heart recipients and Purple Brain recipients over whether such medals are equivalent, or whether a Purple Heart beats a Purple Brain.
Medal winners are typically quite jealous of their prerogatives, you know.
· Yr Obd't Servant