In Guerneville, California, a so-called "Veterans Village" -- a four story building on two acres of land, lovingly and recently donated by a World War II veteran who wishes to remain anonymous -- is slated to open in January and start housing soldiers back from Iraq and Afghanistan, who struggle with PTSD and/or combat trauma. The project is the brainchild of a Gold Star mother, Nadia McCaffrey, who lost her son, Sgt. Patrick McCaffrey, in Iraq three years ago. Her eventual goal is to build a national "Veterans Village" on land outside of Charlotte, North Carolina, in an ambitious project which will cost over $100 million. ABC News, Channel 7, in the Bay Area, covered this story in print and with video. Click here for the link. The idea, with at least the California location, is that the building will serve returning soldiers with PTSD while they get a chance to acclimate back to being in the U.S. and receive therapy.
It's hard to tell whether this idea is really cool -- or just plain kooky. It's obviously generous, sincere, and deeply heartfelt, on everybody's part who's involved. That's all great.
What isn't great, in my mind, are two things:
One, it's never a good precedent to start doing things privately in lieu of getting the government to step up and provide the care they're contracted to give returning veterans. It's a troubling precedent, and it's becoming too frequent a pattern, to see private citizens step up where the government should be, but isn't, or isn't working fast enough, to take care of problems. That's a giant problem, in my opinion. Selfless, altruistic concern and doing good are fantastic, and they're a core attribute of wonderful people in our society. But the government can do more, more effectively, and needs to be held accountable for the care it's already supposed to be providing. Doesn't the government have a duty to care for its veterans? If not, shouldn't it have one? I can easily see where people get distressed because, in essence, good help for veterans is not coming fast enough, by a long shot. That's very true. But it's the government, not private citizens, who needs to to be ministering to the very real needs of returning soldiers. What private citizens do should be icing on the cake. Disturbingly, they're trying to provide the cake. That's not a good situation, or a good precedent.
Secondly, it's hard to tell what the plan here is, and how well thought-through it is, or isn't. Returning servicemembers, aka veterans, who are affected by PTSD and combat trauma, according to what we know, may not even start showing signs of distress for months afterwards -- so the timing is difficult. Do veterans themselves decide when it's time to pay a visit to this village? That could possibly work. But how would the capacity of the place be balanced to accommodate potentially wide fluctuations in who needed help when? And what sort(s) of help would be offered? It's potentially quite chaotic to have a group of any people residing in one place who are at risk for experiencing disturbing episodes, such as PTSD can trigger. At minimum, trained professionals (psychologists and the like) who are able to manage such an environment would need to be on staff, because that's a job not just anyone is going to be able to do. It's definitely clear that veterans heal better or best in community with other veterans -- that's a huge check on the "plus" side. On the minus side, though, is the potential chaos that could ensue with people in close proximity going through flashbacks in a group residential setting.
I don't suppose these are really reason not to do this venture; but just to approach it with caution. My main concern is that combat veterans suffering from PTSD or combat trauma are, tough as they might be as people, a vulnerable population because of their injuries. It really wouldn't be good at all to offer people at a vulnerable low point in their lives a lifeline that turns out to be too flimsy to support them. Ultimately, that would add hardship, not create good. And let's not do things like this in lieu of requiring our own government to care for its veterans. If the government isn't doing its job to provide the quality of care we should expect for our veterans -- let's lean on the government to do so, not just pitch in and try to do it ourselves. That would be like having insurance, and when your car gets totalled in an accident, replacing it out of pocket. Ummmm, no. Even if it takes a while and is a pain, that's WHY you have insurance. And the car accident wasn't your fault.
The Dole-Shalala's Commission's findings showed what the VA needed to do. Lawmakers and others have let those resolutions linger in some form of limbo. As they used to say with the justice system, justice delayed is justice denied. In this case, care delayed is care denied. If the government isn't doing enough for returning veterans, especially those who suffer from PTSD, let's lean on the government to do more -- to do what it ought to do. And then we can supplement that care with our own civic goodheartedness, but never in place of what our government ought to be doing. As taxpayers and voters, we should be very clear about the power we wield to hold our own government accountable for doing what's right by all its citizens, including and especially, for the sake of this conversation, our veterans.
In the sixties, there was a bumper sticker that said something like, "Wouldn't it be nice if schools had all the supplies they needed, and the AIr Force was forced to hold a bake sale to buy its bombers?" I'm loosely paraphrasing here, but the concept was clear: schools nationally suffered cutbacks and often did hold bake sales so that students received the supplies they needed; whereas the military budget was rarely cut. Without detouring into any pro-war or anti-war ideology here, which would be seriously missing the point, there's an analogy here with veterans care. Why are private citizens trying to offset what the government should be doing? When the government estimates the cost for going to war, what portion do they estimate for taking good care of the veterans who fight? Or is the focus on weapons and warfare and infrastructure, and very little on caring for those who fight? If that's the case, that's the first place the wrong should be redressed. Then private citizens can jump in and add their care to their mix, but as a supplement, not as the essential care veterans should be receiving.
