Reply to comment

I think it's incredibly interesting that, if we consider the Army as a separate culture just as the United States has a culture, the change in regard toward mental health in the United States should therefore begin to correspond in the Army way of life.  The Army prides itself on honoring the utmost United States "values" -- and when those values begin to change, like the consideration of mental health in society, as should the Army's own consideration of mental health.  We see from many points of view, as highlighted in the New York Times article arguing for purple hearts for PTSD, that the view of mental health is changing -- and therefore, this supports the above philosophy: that if the Army upholds the values of the USA, should it not honor the changes of those values in society?

On another note, incentives were brought up in the discussion.   Therefore, should the Army really BE encouraging the USA's "values" by giving incentives that almost perseverate the "goodness" of being injured?  Should the Army put that much focus on "values" that are constantly changing and hold different amount of significance to different people?  If we are to put this kind of emphasis on incentive, like the purple heart, people will always be striving to receive them -- it is our culture's disposition.  It, to me, is almost like encouraging injury in war as honorable. 

.....