Amid the outcry over a recent article in The Economist that called for a reduction in what it described as “absurdly generous” veterans benefits, one voice has stood out from the rest.
Patrick Murray, national legislative service director for the Veterans of Foreign Wars office in Washington, D.C., has issued a rebuttal that reflects the frustrations of a generation of veterans who served in the Global War on Terrorism and now face growing efforts to balance the federal budget on the backs of wounded veterans.
Not only did Murray, a Marine veteran who lost his right leg in Iraq, describe the piece as a “turd sundae,” but he also wrote that The Economist had taken “a turkey-sized dump on disabled veterans” by running the story on Thanksgiving.
“The last paragraph of this loosely compiled puddle of garbage juice included the statement, ‘Reducing payments to former soldiers will never be popular, but it would be wise.”
Murray goes on to say in the statement that the editorial reads like it was written by “The guy or girl who ‘totally would’ve joined…but I didn’t because I would’ve told-off a Drill Instructor if they got in my face.’”
Veterans everywhere will understand exactly what Murray is arguing, but what makes his rebuttal unique is that it comes from one of the largest veterans service organizations in the country — one which you might expect to take a more formal and buttoned-down tone.
Most big organizations based in Washington, D.C., tend to stick with the stale language of officialdom and avoid drama in their statements. But in his response to The Economist article, Murray has morphed from battalion XO to “kill hat” drill instructor.
What’s more, is that the organization’s response is written in a style that many veterans can appreciate. There are echoes of Sylvester Stallone’s famous speech at the end of the second “Rambo” movie when he is asked what he wants: “I want what they want, and every other guy who came over here and spilled his guts and gave everything he had wants — for our country to love us as much as we love it.”
You can read the VFW’s entire response here:
Normally, Thanksgiving is synonymous with food, family, friends, and giving thanks. For @TheEconomist, Thanksgiving apparently means taking a turkey-sized dump on disabled veterans. The other day I had the unfortunate opportunity to read an unattributed article on The Economist titled, “American veterans now receive absurdly generous benefits” and it left me with a lot of thoughts. (You can read it for yourself here: https://econ.st/3D0Nk87, just be ready to sign up for a subscription.)
The piece on The Economist has no author and reads like it was poorly run through ChatGPT. And the title of the piece is insultingly stupid. The definition of absurd is “wildly unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate.” I’d challenge the anonymous cowards at The Economist to illuminate us on which parts of veterans’ healthcare and benefits are inappropriate, illogical, or wildly unreasonable?
I am a disabled veteran. I had my right leg blown to pieces on September 4, 2006, in Fallujah, Iraq. Since that time, I have had to walk with an above the knee prosthetic and I have not had an easy day physically for as long as I can remember. Hey, The Economist, which portion of my healthcare or benefits are wildly unreasonable?
Service to our country can be an incredibly uplifting and positive experience for many who wore the uniform, but that service can also involve hazards. Some disabled veterans struggle physically or mentally with the effects of their service. Bullet wounds, Traumatic Brain Injuries, Post Traumatic Stress, and other effects of a service can sometimes cause chronic issues for veterans, and providing care and benefits for those issues is certainly not inappropriate or illogical.
While the AI assisted “journalists” at The Economist boldly chose not to put their name on this piece, they did attribute a quote to another non-expert in veteran benefits, Mark Duggan from Stanford University. Mark foolishly stated about VA Disability and Compensation, “Once you qualify you have an incentive not to get better.” An incentive not to get better?!?!? Hey Mark, any clue how I can get my right leg back? I’d gladly give back the money I’ve received so I can get up out of bed without the assistance of a wheelchair or a prosthetic.
The meandering poorly structured article in The Economist highlighted a lot of increased numbers and statistics, many of these figures quoted began back in 2001. It highlighted the increased number of veterans with high disability ratings beginning to increase in 2001. However, nowhere in the article does it state what else began back in 2001. These dopes conveniently left out the Global War on Terror that began in 2001 lasted for TWENTY YEARS! A full 20 years of the same all-volunteer force serving over and over, and over again in the same toxic hellholes fighting the same brutal terrorists. Gee, I wonder why today’s veterans are presenting with more chronic ailments than generations that came before us.
Ivy League elitists like Mark Duggan and the pretentious wankers at the Economist clearly didn’t bother to do much research on veteran disability or bother to speak to one of the millions of disabled veterans like me. We would have told these arrogant snobs that certain injuries and illnesses are with us for life, and no disability rating is worth the difficulties that come with some of the aftereffects of service.
The real cherry on top of this turd sundae was the lazy suggestion (possibly lifted from the fools at the @washingtonpost Editorial Board) that VA should means test veterans before receiving benefits. As in, if you make enough money after service, you won’t be taken care of for the costs of war. If The Economist had bothered to attribute a name to this drivel, I would ask that idiot, “how would you means test my inability to teach my son to ride a bike?” It’s a pretty routine joy that most parents get the privilege of taking part in. However, my prosthetic leg doesn’t really function in a way that allows normal bike riding. So that is a simple joy I won’t get. How exactly do buffoons like Mark Duggan and the dollar store journalists at The Economist suggest factoring in that loss?
The last paragraph of this loosely compiled puddle of garbage juice included the statement, “Reducing payments to former soldiers will never be popular, but it would be wise. America’s veteran obsession has gone too far.” — TOO FAR?!?!? Holy hell, this sounds like it was written by a jealous also-ran who every veteran has probably met. The guy or girl who “totally would’ve joined…but I didn’t because I would’ve told-off a Drill Instructor if they got in my face”. Losers…
In the future, if any major publication wants to embarrass themselves by anonymously taking shots at disabled veterans, I’d like to offer my services. I can start by helping you research this subject to learn about the actual effects of service-connected injuries and illness. I can also connect you with other disabled veterans so you can hear first-hand accounts of some of the difficulties veterans face. I could even help google image search pictures of actual veterans, instead of the stock photo of firefighters The Economist used at the top of its trash piece on veterans. Then finally, if you are still intent on disparaging disabled veterans, I can assist you in removing your head from your ass…free of charge.
The latest on Task & Purpose
- Marine Corps commandant completes combat fitness test 11 months after open heart surgery
- How generals and admirals get promoted now and how that may change under Trump
- 101st Airborne soldier ‘ain’t come to play’ in cage match video
- Army puts up $15,000 reward to help find 31 pistols and optics stolen from Fort Moore
- ‘Andor’ shows even the Empire has the Pentagon’s acquisition model