Veteran and government affairs. Not a love story.

As many of us know, the Department of Veterans Affairs has been around for plenty of decades with nice intentions of providing veterans with various benefits. Yet the operation of the VA does the exact opposite for thousands of retirees per year. A great deal of patients suffer from drawbacks within the VA system including conflicts such as: extremely long wait lists, understaffed VA hospitals, cancelled appointments with no reschedule,  and lost follow-ups. These men and women who once put their life on the line for our country should not have to feel like their making that same choice when visiting a VA hospital. 

Throughout their years of experience one might believe that the department would learn from their mistakes, but unfortunately they have not. For this reason, I wonder why the government doesn't put forth more effort and funds to take care of our veterans.

As thought by some veterans, misappropriated funds are a large cause of the issues within the VA. Many veterans believe that funding spent on individuals and families who abuse government assistance take away from those in the VA who are in dire need of assistance. Although a separate department of the government handles civilian assistance, it becomes enraging for veterans to see these other individuals being taken care of with government money when they can't even get an appointment with a decent physician at a VA hospital. With that in mind, it is not uncommon for veterans to succumb to extreme lengths to receive attention from the VA that they are needed. For example, a veteran who got the run around with the VA for two months finally had enough and felt compelled to make a scene by essentially throwing a tantrum to be heard. The disruption in the clinic was severe enough that security and officers had to surround the veteran for him to settle down. Nonetheless, the extreme outcry was acknowledged and the veteran was made an appointment right away. Most of these patients now know that when it comes to the VA and their postponements, the longer the wait without action could possibly mean waiting forever.

Lastly, what should be understood about the government's importance in funding for these men and women is the casualties. Casualties within these wait lists, understaffed VA hospitals and clinics, cancelled appointments that won't be rescheduled, and lost follow-ups. Because of all these factors, thousands of deaths and suicides that could have very well been prevented happened because these veterans relied on their government to help them, and were essentially given the short end of the stick. 

A Reaching Slam to Obama

On October 12th, 2015, a RedState blog contributor, Jay Caruso published an article addressing a statement from President Obama regarding gun control. Obama's statement was that it is easier to buy a gun than a book, which was not received well by Conservative writer Caruso. Meanwhile, as stated in the blog post, others say his statement was misunderstood and that Obama was referring to the lack of bookstores in low income areas. Caruso refers to this statement as ridiculous and continues by adding,"This is like saying it is easier for me to get a nuke than it is to get a Burger from In-N-Out since there is a total lack of those restaurants in this region." Caruso argues that the President made an asinine claim because no matter where you are in the United States, if you are making a legal gun purchase then you will undergo a federal background check. He follows his own statement by saying, "Charles Manson could walk out of prison tomorrow, walk into a Barnes and Noble and grab any book he wanted, pay for it and walk out." Caruso's final argument against Obama's statement is that even if a person were to purchase a gun off the street market they would still need nearly $200. Meaning that even people in low income areas can find and purchase a book somewhere (online, Good Will, Salvation Army, etc.) if they are able to find and purchase an illegal gun.
While this blog post makes good claims and arguments, is it really necessary or is this just a reach for a Republican to bash Obama? The author had steady credibility by inserting links to actual reported quotes, screenshots of what other people had to say about the statement, and by addressing arguments from different angles and concluding them with facts and solutions. Yet I still cannot find myself to agree with the author of this article because the intent seems to be more of a bash towards the President. Not to say that I'm a huge supporter in all Obama does or that I feel what he said was the right example, but I don't feel like it needs significant attention. I feel the intended audience could be  for fellow Republicans who are interested in a new reason to loathe President Obama.

The Pentagon and the blind eye in bacha bazi

On September 28th, 2015, USA Today's editorial board posted an article addressing the Pentagon's decision to have military forces stationed in Afghanistan turn a blind eye to the cultural practice bacha bazi, or "boy play." This practice allows Afghan men to sexually molest young boys and when  two U.S soldiers became aware of a local Afghan police commander who had worked alongside them was a part of this practice, they took matters into their own hands. Officially, U.S. troops were told to either look the other way or follow the order of reporting abuse to the Afghan authorities with the knowledge that there will be no consequence for the offender, and no justice for the boy. With that in mind, the two Green Berets confronted the commander who admitted to his crime and even laughed it off saying it was just a boy. Following the statement, the two soldiers then continuously body slammed him to the ground and left him at the gate to their camp where he picked himself up and ran away. U.S. commanders responded to the event by disciplining the men. One is no longer apart of the service and the Army is putting effort in trying to get the other to retire. Although, these punishments were more to save face from locals. As stated by Rep. Duncan Hunter, the situation "caused many locals to view our ALP as worse than the Taliban. If the locals resumed supporting the Taliban, attacks against U.S. forces would have increased dramatically."
The article argues that the two American soldiers made clear what U.S. policy has not, and that is that there is zero tolerance for molesting boys by Afghans working with U.S. forces. When the author put in the statement about how even the Taliban banned the ancient practice of bacha bazi, it strengthened the argument by adding an uneasy feeling to readers that even the bad guys know it is not right. The intended audience could be for those in the U.S. forces, family members with brothers or sons, or American readers in general. What assists to the author's credibility is the use of linking the story in the article and linking quotes of those involved.
All in all, I agree with the argument presented by the author because rape of anyone should never be apart of someone's culture, and that is where the American government should draw the line of what we stand tolerant of. As stated, "Americans can't be complicit in this kind of abuse, and it's up to the Pentagon to find a way to make that so."