Moral Duplicity

Apologies are in order to whoever pointed this out to me--I forget who it was; otherwise, I'd link to your site first.

A disabled soldier will never see combat again, but he might find himself fighting a new fight against the government's medical bureaucracy.

Lieutenant John Fernandez, who lost part of both legs in Iraq, knows he can no longer be a soldier, but he's not ready to leave the army.

"I personally don't think it's right to be forced out of the — the military and all of a sudden be forced to live on half of the pay that I was getting," he says.

Ryan Kelley, who lost his left leg below the knee, makes about $20,000 a year as a staff sergeant. Once he leaves the army, he will receive about $8,000 a year in benefits.

Fernandez is appealing his medical discharge. "I'm not gonna let myself be pushed around," he says.

People who opposed the Vietnam war have been falsely accused of abusing soldiers upon their return to the United States. But what is more abusive than basically giving the heave ho to people who gave their all while in uniform? Certainly the wounds suffered by many soldiers render them unable to perform combat missions--duh. But there are plenty of non-combat roles these individuals can perform in, IF THEY SO CHOOSE. Giving these folks the bureaucratic run-around is nothing more than figuratively spitting on them. Between this and Bush's attempt to cut combat pay--fortunately, enough outcry was raised to put a stop to that--you have to wonder what the hell is going on in their minds.

Of course, consider: of the big shots in the Bush administration, exactly two--Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld--actually served in the regular, full time military (and Rumsfeld's service was between wars). No wonder they have little or no awareness.