BY ELIZABETH BRIDGES

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have created a daunting challenge back in the United States. Hundreds of thousands of veterans –720,000 at last count – have already returned home from duty, and with 1.5 million troops in action over the course of the conflicts, this number is sure to rise.

More than 300,000 of these veterans need physical or mental care and at least 200,000 have filed disability claims, at a total cost of approximately $350 to $700 billion. In addition, many of these men and women know that they have fought in a war that has proven immensely unpopular at home. But as public sentiment against the war remains, citizens have largely continued to support the soldiers and veterans themselves. The bigger question is how the U.S. government can best translate this public support for veterans into action. The answer appears to lie in simplifying bureaucratic red tape, and personalizing services for those returning from tours of duty.

Public Support
History shows a great disparity in the way that America’s veterans have been treated when coming back from war. World War II veterans were enthusiastically received with parades, ribbons, and great support from their communities. This warm reception may be largely attributed to strong support for America’s involvement in the war and that fact that nearly every American had a direct connection to one of 16 million Americans who served in the conflict. In contrast, the homecoming for Vietnam veterans was far more dismal. Overall, America received the veterans of a failed war with closed arms and little support. Given the waning enthusiasm for the current military action, where on this continuum will public support for veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan fall? Will decreases in support for the war, with some polls showing a fall from 60 percent to 39 percent or less, lead to decreased support for veterans?

Veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan have voiced fears that they will face the same hostile reception as those of Vietnam. Speaking with The Boston Globe, one Marine Corps captain expressed his fear that the new wave of veterans could be treated as “used goods and not worth much to society.” Yet in contrast to the domestic reaction to the Vietnam War, protests today are primarily directed at policy and policymakers, rather than at the troops themselves. In forums and panels, students have expressed appreciation for veterans’ efforts while directing the hardest-hitting questions at those responsible for sending soldiers to war.

Government Support
Whether or not abstract appreciation for veterans gets translated into reliable post-war care and support depends on how the government responds. The government serves two general functions for veterans: Providing direct medical care and issuing long-term disability and other financial benefits.

Although care varies across the thousands of veterans’ medical facilities, problems are far too common. Veteran care is particularly lacking for those suffering with mental illness. Forty percent of National Guard troops and 22 percent of active duty soldiers have been identified as needing mental care. Unaddressed mental health issues not only inhibit veterans’ relationships with friends and loved ones, but may also negatively affect a veteran’s ability to remain a productive member of society, a key goal of the government’s assistance to returning soldiers.

Complications in the issuance of disability benefits are partially responsible for the overburdened medical component of veteran care. Linda Bilmes, a scholar on veterans’ issues at the Kennedy School of Government, described the disability component of the VA to the HPR as “a complete meltdown.” The claim process for veterans to receive disability benefits involves a 23-page form with evidence that must be supported by extensive documentation of multiple disabilities. After the veteran has collected all of the necessary information, often with little aid from the government, there is a minimum six-month waiting period to collect benefits. Specialists who process the forms are overburdened, as it is difficult for the government to increase their ranks—extensive training is required to understand the thousands of combinations of disabilities and appropriate aid. Accordingly, there are over 600,000 disability claims that have not been fully processed.

A Prescription for Improvement
Given these weaknesses, there is clearly much room for improving veteran care. One of the greatest potential reforms would be to grant veterans disability benefits up-front following an exit examination from the army. This is a relatively safe solution because there has been little fraud by veterans claiming undeserved benefits. Additionally, an audit could be performed, in a manner similar to that of the Internal Revenue Service, if a case seemed to be questionable. Such a system would have the added benefit of freeing up resources that could be used to further improve the health care system for veterans.

Aside from the medical needs of returning soldiers, their social wellbeing also requires care as well. An emphasis on helping soldiers redevelop basic skills central to the civilian world appears to be necessary. One soldier in Afghanistan told the HPR, “Being gone for so long, you lose a lot of confidence in your people skills, especially when it’s been violen[t] and very stern tones that you have been speaking…with for the past year.” These skills could be cultivated through vet centers and appear vital to a smooth transition from the battlefield.

An equally important point with respect to veteran health care is that one size does not fit all: A nuanced understanding of veterans’ issues is needed to ensure that veterans of all backgrounds receive adequate support. One useful and effective resource provided by the government has been “vet centers.” These centers provide care for veterans and their families in their own neighborhoods, helping fill the gaps left by direct care. Expanding on this resource, Vermont Congressman Peter Welch has proposed to pilot mobile vet centers to reach veterans in rural areas. According to Welch, “The creation of mobile veterans’ centers recognizes the unique needs of rural veterans and the disproportionate high number of veterans who live in rural areas…By enhancing rural services, more veterans will get the quality care they deserve.” Ideas like Welch’s will help reduce the disparity of care between urban and rural regions.

Whatever method is employed, time-sensitive solutions are critical. As increased numbers of troops return home, the VA will only become more overwhelmed if it continues to operate with its current structure. While public appreciation for the troops is evident, citizens must hold the government responsible for its treatment of veterans as they return home. ]]>