In the aftermath of al-Qaeda’s horrific attacks on New York City, Pennsylvania and Washington, DC on September 11th, George W. Bush announced to the world that his administration’s response would involve a long-term, preemptive* military response against terrorist networks across the globe which posed a threat to US interests, as well as any states that harbored terrorists. As this first iteration of the Bush Doctrine indicated, the prosecution of the War on Terror has for the past seven years relied heavily on the members of its armed forces, including the National Reserves and National Guard.
For those brave and women who have contributed – and in many cases, sacrificed – such a disproportionate amount for this war, the American public ought rightly ask how the administration, Congress and the federal courts have fulfilled its obligations to provide veterans as well as those currently active with the medical care they need.
Getting an answer to this question and addressing any flaws in policy or implementation obviously has profound implications for these citizens, and the attorneys who ultimately provide them.
There are two separate questions for us to ask. First, what is the scope of care that is offered and what determines who is eligible to receive care and under what circumstances? Second, what is the adequacy, or quality of those services that are provided?
More posts will follow in the near future which will discuss this important topic more expansively, and in particular discuss recent developments in the legislative and regulatory environment, as well as important court decisions, that may change the way future care is ensured and provided. But for now, consider this an open thread for discussion.
As with all other posts on the blog, this discussion will not be moderated to exclude the expression of views or opinions that the editor disagrees with. However, any offensive or completely unrelated/off-topic content will be deleted.
*A speech given by President Bush on June 1, 2002 contained statements that have been interpreted as extending the basis for a “preventative” military response to protect US interests from any terrorist attack that was not imminent but rather foreseeable.