# Canada's wounded soldiers told not to criticize online



## GAP

Canada wounded soldiers told not to criticize online
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/09/21/325237/canada-wounded-vets-told-not-to-criticize/

Canadian soldiers wounded in service are being required to sign a form agreeing not to criticize the military on social media sites, a report shows.


The report was published on Friday by the Canadian daily Ottawa Citizen, which received the form by offended military members regarding it as a threat to their right to speak out about the Department of National Defense and Canadian Forces’ failure to take care of those wounded in service.

The disclosure of the form has caused a quick reaction from the country’s opposition, the National Democratic Party (NDP.)

    “To single out ill and injured soldiers and require them to sign this form is tantamount to saying, ‘Don’t complain’, ” said NDP parliamentarian Jack Harris, adding, “I call on the minister of defense to take measures to ensure that all our ill and injured soldiers are getting the help they need, rather than being muzzled.”


The form was introduced in March of this year and states that any military officials within the Joint Personnel Support Unit (JPSU) will be held responsible for not only the comments they have posted online but also the content of others which they have “tagged” on various sites.

It also told injured soldiers not to disclose “your views on any military subject” and not to “write anything that might discourage others or make them dissatisfied with their conditions or their employment.”

This comes as some of the wounded and their family members have publically discussed the military and government leadership’s failure to help those injured while in service.

Retired air force officer Sean Bruyea said wounded personnel use social media to speak with each other as well as to raise issues affecting them.

“The public deserves to know how these people are being mistreated and about the failure of the senior leadership to take care of them,” said Bruyea, adding, “This is just an attempt to shut them up.”

The JPSU came under fire in August when the Canadian daily revealed that the unit had extensive problems, with soldiers and staff speaking out about lack of resources and concerns that some of the support centers are dysfunctional.
end


----------



## pbi

Some caution might be required here. 

The way the article reads, it sounds like this might be a local measure taken by the chain of command of one particular JPSU (although that isn't really clear from the article). One CO's whims do not a "CF policy" make.

I would want to actually read the form and see if it requires anything different than the normal information policy the CF functions under. Anybody in uniform who publicly criticizes either the Govt or the CF has always run the risk of some kind of sanction, so is this anything new?

What I really, really, hope is that this is not actually another manifestation of the current Govt's extremely controlling view of public discourse, especially where the whole veterans' portfolio is concerned.

And even if it were, there is little that can be done about serving members' families speaking out, which could be quite embarrassing for the Govt and the CF.


----------



## tomydoom

Off topic and a bit OCD, but I notice that the article spelled "Department of National Defence" as "Defense". I understand that some news papers follow American spelling and that the Canadian Press wire service historically has, but the proper name of the department is spelled with a C rather then an S and should be used regardless of what spelling convention is followed. 

More on topic, if this "don't complain" policy is consistent with current CAF Policy of dealing with the media, why is it necessary to have members sign an additional agreement to keep quiet. Couldn't this be achieved with less publicity and poor press by just quietly enforcing the current rules?


----------



## stealthylizard

What is this "National Democratic Party" they speak of?


----------



## The Bread Guy

stealthylizard said:
			
		

> What is this "National Democratic Party" they speak of?


It appears Iranian media (the source of the OP's link) doesn't seem to know that NDP stands for "New Democratic Party" - maybe that whole "Democratic" thing threw the Iranian editors into a bit of confusion  

Here's the _Toronto Star's_ take:


> .... The document, first obtained by the Citizen, was reportedly created in March and handed to military personnel who transfer to the Joint Personnel Support Unit, which was designed to help mentally and physically wounded soldiers.
> 
> The JPSU confirmed the form exists but said its purpose is “to educate our members and personnel on what constitutes the appropriate and inappropriate use of social media and the possible ramifications for a CAF member.”
> 
> A Canadian Forces email sent to the newspaper explained that each unit has a different way of communicating the social media policy.
> 
> “The difference being that the JPSU is asking members to indicate that they have read and understood the policy by signing the form,” the email said.
> 
> ( .... )
> 
> The head of Wounded Warriors Canada, a non-profit that advocates for injured soldiers, has asked Defence Minister Rob Nicholson’s office for clarification on the social media policy.
> 
> “It’s important that we know exactly what’s being asked in this form,” executive director Scott Maxwell said. “I don’t want to speculate. I have not seen what they’re being told what not to say.” ....


----------



## pbi

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> It appears Iranian media (the source of the OP's link) doesn't seem to know that NDP stands for "New Democratic Party" - maybe that whole "Democratic" thing threw the Iranian editors into a bit of confusion



I thought the website seemed a bit odd.


----------



## Teflon

pbi said:
			
		

> I thought the website seemed a bit odd.



WHAT?! I always go to Iranian media for my news! Doesn't everyone? It's the only way to get news unfiltered by an obvious bias!


----------



## ARMY_101

I've signed the document and I don't work for/am not being seen by JPSU. I was told it was becoming a standard form for all members.


----------



## JorgSlice

I understand that the NDA, CSD; do remove many of our rights and freedoms and surplants other methods to achieve those _now-privileges_... But could a member then have a case for Charter violation?

I also understand that the NDA and CSD also outlines the strict use of Social Media and discussing/criticising the Government/Monarchy/CAF... But if they continue to throttle the voices of those in need, how can things ever improve?

Mods: I don't want to start a flame war or anything of that sort so if this is better left unsaid, please delete.


----------



## Nemo888

The horror stories that could come out of the JPSU would make you want to punch someone. If you've known someone who works or worked there ask about some of the unfair things they have seen.

Keeping vets quiet is part of the tax savings strategy.  To accomplish this Vets have to feel isolated and powerless. If they saw that the problems were systemic and deliberate,.....


----------



## The Bread Guy

A few answers here, from a fat old guy who's been outta the system 20+ years ....


			
				PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> I understand that the NDA, CSD; do remove many of our rights and freedoms and surplants other methods to achieve those _now-privileges_... But *could a member then have a case for Charter violation*?


Interesting question, but practically speaking, it would take a loooooooooot of lawyer money to get an answer to that one.


			
				PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> I also understand that the NDA and CSD also outlines the strict use of Social Media and discussing/criticising the Government/Monarchy/CAF... But if they continue to throttle the voices of those in need, how can things ever improve?


I think there's more than one way to look at this:
1)  The Chain of Command is there to make sure if there are issues to be dealt with, everyone above one who may be able to fix the problem gets a fair chance to do so.  If the system works as it should, problems get solve as they go up the line.
2)  Once an issue reaches a certain point, it may come down (in a grossly over-simplified way) to "what do the troops want?" and "what do those elected by the taxpayers of Canada want?"   Remember if push comes to shove, "loyalty up" has to take precedence over "loyalty down" because of civilian oversight of the CF?  If the "loyalty up" solution conflicts with the "loyalty down" solution, one can accept it, one can try to change it within the system, or one can try to change things outside the system - and accept the consequences of doing so.

I wish I had a better answer for ya.


----------



## Nemo888

What if the civilian oversight has decided that it is financially prudent not to honour the unlimited liability agreement between soldiers and the government? 

If Public Relations now needs to resort to intimidation to try and stop the free flow of information I think the word is getting out already.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> What if the civilian oversight has decided that it is financially prudent not to honour the unlimited liability agreement between soldiers and the government?


Since we live in a democracy, we patiently await our chance to speak our piece at the ballot box.  Also, taxpayers who believe in doing more for those needing the help can remind politicians of things they've said like this:


> .... We will continue to listen to Veterans, and to work with partners who share our common goal of supporting those who put their lives on the line for Canada. We are here to deliver the care and support Veterans need, when they need it. That is our promise to Veterans. Always has been. Always will be.



Again, I'd like to see more done for vets/wounded warriors, too, and would like quicker action as well.


			
				Nemo888 said:
			
		

> If Public Relations now needs to resort to intimidation to try and stop the free flow of information ....


A.K.A. "message discipline"


----------



## Nemo888

It makes it rather hard to follow(or give) dangerous orders knowing you and your family are screwed if you get hurt. If this keeps up we will turn into France's Armée de Terre.


----------



## Jarnhamar

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> I've signed the document and I don't work for/am not being seen by JPSU. I was told it was becoming a standard form for all members.



I'd refuse to sign it and deal with the repercussions.


----------



## PuckChaser

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> I'd refuse to sign it and deal with the repercussions.



I'd want to see a DJAG letter stating it was legal for them to order you to sign it. Could become one of those "Signed as Reviewed" like a PER is.

I don't see the issue as long as it is simply rehashing the CANFORGEN on Social Media and the relevant QR&O/NDA sections. Something tells me its not though, until I see a copy of subj letter.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Pissing off the guys with the guns is never a good idea, it only takes one really PO'ed individual to cause a gigantic shit storm.


----------



## ARMY_101

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'd want to see a DJAG letter stating it was legal for them to order you to sign it. Could become one of those "Signed as Reviewed" like a PER is.
> 
> I don't see the issue as long as it is simply rehashing the CANFORGEN on Social Media and the relevant QR&O/NDA sections. Something tells me its not though, until I see a copy of subj letter.



Yes, it's "signed as read," not agreed. And it's purposely written ambiguously so it could (probably) survive a court challenge within the established rules and orders.


----------



## PuckChaser

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> Yes, it's "signed as read," not agreed. And it's purposely written ambiguously so it could (probably) survive a court challenge within the established rules and orders.



Did your copy mirror what the CANFORGEN states?


----------



## ARMY_101

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Did your copy mirror what the CANFORGEN states?



Yes, with a lot more fluffy language. A lot of sentences like 'while we cannot silence free speech or impede Charter rights...' or 'while social media has been an enormous benefit to Canadian society, it can also have grave negative impacts.'


----------



## Teager

For any injured/ill member who knows they don't meet U of S and knows they will be getting released is not going to care about any form. IMO they should voice their concerns if they have any that can't or aren't being taken care of.


----------



## PuckChaser

Teager said:
			
		

> For any injured/ill member who knows they don't meet U of S and knows they will be getting released is not going to care about any form. IMO they should voice their concerns if they have any that can't or aren't being taken care of.



And feed money from fines into the system they're pissed off with? If I'm heading out on a 3B and pissed off with the system, I'd rather wait and keep all my money before running my mouth off.


----------



## Teager

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> And feed money from fines into the system they're pissed off with? If I'm heading out on a 3B and pissed off with the system, I'd rather wait and keep all my money before running my mouth off.



If there are issues that aren't being taken care of for yourself and others you would be willing to let that slide because of a fine? I've stood up for a lot of issues that have affected a lot of injured members so far I've paid $0 in fines.  Once your out you may not be able to do much about the issue as you did when you were in. 

The media is a tool and should only be used when every other avenue has been tried.


----------



## krustyrl

I believe the Ombudsman is looking for just this sort of feedback for his investigation on just how the ill/injured are being treated by the JPSU/IPSC Units. 
I know I will be forwarding my personal concerns having dealt with 2 different IPSC's. 
In my case both Units admitted dropping the ball on several occasions for my 3b. 
I will use this as my method of voicing deficiencies and of course my personal concerns. 
Will gladly offer my  :2c:


----------



## The Bread Guy

Teager said:
			
		

> The media is a tool and should only be used when every other avenue has been tried.


And one used realizing that once you've spoken to them, you have no control over what they write/broadcast.


			
				krustyrl said:
			
		

> I believe the Ombudsman is looking for just this sort of feedback for his investigation on just how the ill/injured are being treated by the JPSU/IPSC Units.


Good point re:  one way to work within the current system.


----------



## Edward Campbell

"New media" has made life very complicated for large organizations, especially for governments and, within governments, for _special_ agencies like the military.

We you The military is a very, very process driven organization and systems are put in place (and, hopefully, constantly reviewed and updated) to deal with situations in a manner that best meets the "needs of the service." "New media" allows people to 'jump the queue' and to try to adapt the system to one individual's needs rather than to the "needs of the service."

Clearly anyone who is not in the CF is welcome to comment and criticize as they see fit. Those of you who are serving, on the other hand, have _promised_ to _"be faithful and bear true allegiance"_ and Canada, from the Governor General on down to your ship's captain and platoon WO interpret _fidelity_ and _allegiance_ to include not openly criticizing the policies of the CF or the Government of Canada.

Years and years ago we, people of my age, understood what _Restricted_ meant: for internal, within the CF use, only, not to be communicated to the press or public. Well, there is no more _restricted_ and even if there was it's not clear how it would apply to public discourse.

In my opinion: if you are serving, regular or reserve, you have a *duty* to obey the rules - not just as written but also as intended.


----------



## Lightguns

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Pissing off the guys with the guns is never a good idea, it only takes one really PO'ed individual to cause a gigantic crap storm.



I understand that you are angry (or prehaps joking) but I caution you on using the noun "guns" in this way.  We live in a frightened society where our police have made "guys with guns" the boogey man with a police force that, during a major flood, spends more time and scarce military resources rounding up guns and ammo than it appears to have done assisting human and animal life.

Nor do we want the public to think we would do anything but complain and lobby legally to get changes we need.


----------



## pbi

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...Years and years ago we, people of my age, understood what _Restricted_ meant: for internal, within the CF use, only, not to be communicated to the press or public. Well, there is no more _restricted_ and even if there was it's not clear how it would apply to public discourse....



People serving have the same choice they've always had: put up and shut up, or speak up and be prepared to take the consequences, if they feel strongly enough about the issue. People who are out can fill their boots, as they are more and more frequently doing. (Much to the discomfiture of the current Govt). Granted that a percentage of these may be whiners from the "blame/entitlement" sector of society, but from my own contact with vets I think these are probably a small minority.

That said, as some posters have suggested, there is a "social contract" between a society and its volunteer, professional, long-service military. In exchange for its unlimited liability and obedient, reliable service without threat to the state, serving members expect more than just a pay cheque. If the relationship is reduced to just that IMHO it borders on a one-sided "mercenary" relationship.

The soldier expects that his injuries and reasonable needs will be taken care of, including after he has finished uniformed service. This is a part of that contract. As soon as there is any _suspicion_ raised about the state's intent to fully honour the spirit and not just the letter of this contract or any part of it, then the soldier may begin to question whether or not the contract is going to be honoured at all.

I think this is what is happening. Unclear, poorly-explained things like this document we are discussing only fan the flames of mistrust and suspicion, even when they aren't really meant that way (the Army I remember lived  on rumours and misunderstandings...), What is needed here IMHO is a very clear, timely and forthright statement by the responsible Minister as to what this is all about.


----------



## The Bread Guy

pbi said:
			
		

> .... What is needed here IMHO is a very clear, timely and forthright statement by the responsible Minister as to what this is all about.


And if the past is any indicator, we _may_ get a statement by a General/senior official to explain what was really meant.


----------



## pbi

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And if the past is any indicator, we _may_ get a statement by a General/senior official to explain what was really meant.



"May" being the operative word. And that IMHO is the problem.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Lightguns said:
			
		

> I understand that you are angry (or prehaps joking) but I caution you on using the noun "guns" in this way.  We live in a frightened society where our police have made "guys with guns" the boogey man with a police force that, during a major flood, spends more time and scarce military resources rounding up guns and ammo than it appears to have done assisting human and animal life.
> 
> Nor do we want the public to think we would do anything but complain and lobby legally to get changes we need.



It was an off the cuff comment I made in reference to the fact that societies that stop treating people properly usually end up with bigger problems to contend with.  I am not angry at all but I just look at our neighbors to the South where the mistreatment of portions of their society has lead in the past to people taking matters into their own hands.

I don't think we are even remotely close to being there but if you beat a dog for long enough eventually it is going to fight back and bite you.


----------



## captloadie

pbi said:
			
		

> That said, as some posters have suggested, there is a "social contract" between a society and its volunteer, professional, long-service military. In exchange for its unlimited liability and obedient, reliable service without threat to the state, serving members expect more than just a pay cheque. If the relationship is reduced to just that IMHO it borders on a one-sided "mercenary" relationship.


But in this day and age, with the current crop of junior members, is this true? Many walk through our doors with a sense of entitlement before they even don the uniform full time. Try to get guys to put in some extra hours or attend social events without ordering them to do so; there is a general apathy in many corners. Members would also rather turn to social media sites, or the MSM, to bitch and complain about their lot in life instead of addressing their issues up the chainof command, and god forbid actually have to wait for a response.


----------



## OldSolduer

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> "New media" has made life very complicated for large organizations, especially for governments and, within governments, for _special_ agencies like the military.
> 
> We you The military is a very, very process driven organization and systems are put in place (and, hopefully, constantly reviewed and updated) to deal with situations in a manner that best meets the "needs of the service." "New media" allows people to 'jump the queue' and to try to adapt the system to one individual's needs rather than to the "needs of the service."
> 
> Clearly anyone who is not in the CF is welcome to comment and criticize as they see fit. Those of you who are serving, on the other hand, have _promised_ to _"be faithful and bear true allegiance"_ and Canada, from the Governor General on down to your ship's captain and platoon WO interpret _fidelity_ and _allegiance_ to include not openly criticizing the policies of the CF or the Government of Canada.
> 
> Years and years ago we, people of my age, understood what _Restricted_ meant: for internal, within the CF use, only, not to be communicated to the press or public. Well, there is no more _restricted_ and even if there was it's not clear how it would apply to public discourse.
> 
> In my opinion: if you are serving, regular or reserve, you have a *duty* to obey the rules - not just as written but also as intended.



Very well said. And I agree.


----------



## Jed

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> "New media" has made life very complicated for large organizations, especially for governments and, within governments, for _special_ agencies like the military.
> 
> We you The military is a very, very process driven organization and systems are put in place (and, hopefully, constantly reviewed and updated) to deal with situations in a manner that best meets the "needs of the service." "New media" allows people to 'jump the queue' and to try to adapt the system to one individual's needs rather than to the "needs of the service."
> 
> Clearly anyone who is not in the CF is welcome to comment and criticize as they see fit. Those of you who are serving, on the other hand, have _promised_ to _"be faithful and bear true allegiance"_ and Canada, from the Governor General on down to your ship's captain and platoon WO interpret _fidelity_ and _allegiance_ to include not openly criticizing the policies of the CF or the Government of Canada.
> 
> Years and years ago we, people of my age, understood what _Restricted_ meant: for internal, within the CF use, only, not to be communicated to the press or public. Well, there is no more _restricted_ and even if there was it's not clear how it would apply to public discourse.
> 
> In my opinion: if you are serving, regular or reserve, you have a *duty* to obey the rules - not just as written but also as intended.



And this is why I kept my opinions to myself (online anyway) until I had taken off my uniform for the last time.


----------



## Teager

I think some members here need to take a step back and think about a few things. Yes, there are rules and we need to obey them. Yes, there are those that think they are self entitled but this exists in all organizations just like bad apples. With multiple comments about the self entitlement you may just make some of the public beleive that the injured/ill are all greedy when there may be a serious issue affecting members and now the public simply beleives there just being self entitled.

IMO it seems some here think speaking out on issues wrt the injured/ill is wrong because of the rules. Well when it was annouced that there would be cuts to mental health within the CF soldiers went to the media to speak out about this. Thanks to them speaking out the cuts did not happen and funding was increased. If no one had spoke out the cuts would have happened and our mental health units would be in a severe crisis right now. For the injured/ill some issues are time sensitive and cannot wait long periods of time for an answer.

To date I don't think there have been any soldiers that have been punished for speaking out. This might be because the solider tried other avenues first but went nowhere and was right and a change occured which is usually the case.

For those that have not had to go through the process I suggest wearing the boots of someone for a day who has to deal with their injury/illness and deal with the system that DND and VAC have. Your opinion might change.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Teager said:
			
		

> I think some members here need to take a step back and think about a few things. Yes, there are rules and we need to obey them. Yes, there are those that think they are self entitled but this exists in all organizations just like bad apples. With multiple comments about the self entitlement you may just make some of the public beleive that the injured/ill are all greedy when there may be a serious issue affecting members and now the public simply beleives there just being self entitled.



We used to kick homosexuals out of the military. It was the rules, so we obeyed.


----------



## Lightguns

It is a moral decision that every individual has to make based on their own inputs.  The rules are clear but our society is such that clear rules often run counter to societal expectations of organizations.  Are we entitled...yes very much.  Is it right to speak out yes if it is in your lane.... if you are wounded, it is in your lane, IMHO.  I am far too old to say this but "rules must evolve with society and the organizations that represent that society".  

Being wounded in the Canadian military is the new "gay", so to speak...very loosely.  Do not speak out and you will not be punished.  I am not going to critique the combat casualty care system as I have not experienced it.  If I was among the wounded and I did not get the best care, I am not sure I would shut up regardless.  There is something systemically wrong, if a military has to encourage a muzzle on their wounded over issues of care.  We prided ourselves in the 50s, 60s and 70s on how well Canada treated veterans, that pride is not there...in military, in the vet groups, in VAC, in the government.  Let's honestly and openly look at what we are doing, maybe we are providing an excellent level of care but expectations are too high,; maybe we are not.  Let's listen to the complaints and address them transparently, no hiding behind privacy or "rules".  

If you are proud of your system, you will address concerns and rectify errors in the open.

God bless each and everyone who is struggling in this system!


----------



## Teager

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> We used to kick homosexuals out of the military. It was the rules, so we obeyed.



Your point?


----------



## MARS

We used to kick homosexuals out when we were living in a time and space where being homosexual carried MUCH more of a social stigma than it does today.  It Didnt make it "right" back then, but society was not as accepting.  Correspondingly, the knowledge that a military member was homosexual was indeed, in my opinion, a valid security risk.  If it wasn't, then our enemies wouldn't have wasted time trying to exploit that knowledge.  That wouldn't happen today.  It would be an empty threat in trying to turn someone. 

So yeah, those were the rules.  and when measured against the values held by the majority of canadian ciizens today, those rules would appear distasteful.  But not back then.  and they aren't the rules today.


----------



## OldSolduer

Attitudes need to be changed, but it takes time and education to change attitudes.

Women in the Infantry in 1980 were unheard of and would not have been accepted. Now we have female infanteers.

Homoseuxuals were released in the 90s once they were "outed". No longer.

It used to be acceptable to smoke the the Mess Hall. No longer.

Give it time. Plant a seed in someone's mind and it will take root.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Give it time. Plant a seed in someone's mind and it will take root.


<cynicism alert>
And make sure doing the right thing doesn't cost anything - that increases the odds of it happening.
</cynicism alert>


----------



## Nemo888

Public Relations can play the game when individual soldiers come forward. Say it is an isolated incident or a clerical oversight. In some cases they have illegally raided their VAC files and gone so far as character assassination and intimidation to stop valid complaints. They fired the last ombudsman for telling the truth as well. Dealing in bad faith does not inspire trust in the system. 

JPSU pers see the pattern of the problem. If you get one drunk you would be both shocked and angry. Shutting them up is very important.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Teager said:
			
		

> Your point?



Some orders should be looked at and decided if it's an order because it is for the greater good of the machine or because it's convenient to not deal with/answer tough questions.



			
				MARS said:
			
		

> So yeah, those were the rules.  and when measured against the values held by the majority of canadian ciizens today, those rules would appear distasteful.  But not back then.  and they aren't the rules today.



Totally agree. I hope in the near future wounded vets being treated unfairly by the system/not getting the help they need won't be an issue.


----------



## pbi

captloadie said:
			
		

> But in this day and age, with the current crop of junior members, is this true? Many walk through our doors with a sense of entitlement before they even don the uniform full time. Try to get guys to put in some extra hours or attend social events without ordering them to do so; there is a general apathy in many corners. ..



There is truth to this, but I can assure you that this is absolutely not new. We were sensing this (including amongst newly arriving junior officers) when I was on regimental duty back in the 90's. (We've spoken about it on other threads related to Mess life, etc) Like all important social changes (as Jim Seggie points out with his "_planting a seed_" observation) this change has been happening gradually for a while. Our society has been producing this for decades now. What did adults say about the "Hippy Generation" 40 years ago?

The whole business about speaking out is one I struggle with (and didn't handle very well when I was in uniform), but in the end I think that loyalty cannot be reduced to mere blind obedience.  That way lie atrocities, war crimes, a "culture of silence" and other bad things we can remember all too well.

Normally, those in uniform follow the rules very well, and do as they're told quite happily. Sometimes, they do it grudgingly. And, very rarely, they see something that they know is wrong, and begin to struggle over what to do about it. In fact, the Army for the last few years has made a lot of noise about encouraging people to speak out ("Lamplighters", etc), so the institution seems to send the message that it's not just OK, but encouraged. Still, it's difficult.

But, that said, the right thing to do in the face of a blatant wrong or injustice, once you have taken reasonable measures inside the system, is to speak up, and be prepared to face the consequences.  This is not a strong tradition in our military, maybe because it hasn't often been necessary.

On the issue of whether or not every complaint by every soldier or vet is justified, I agree with the suggestion that we need to be careful so as not to knock the legs out from under those with real problems. On the other hand, I do know (as many of us here may know) that there are a few whiners and posers out there too. Again, not a new thing. Still, I believe that they are a small minority, and the main focus needs to be on helping those in and out of uniform who need it.


----------

