Testimony in Support of Proposed Bill No. 5730

I am a former Officer in the United States Navy, as well as a bronze star decorated veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and I write today in vehement support of this bill, and in solidarity with all my fellow veterans regardless of when they took their oaths. When a person raises their right hand in service to their country, even in peace time, they do so with the understanding that any day our nation could be called to war. It is only through benevolent fortune far outside their control that they complete their service without being called into wartime duty. However, had the winds of fortune changed, their oath of service would have demanded that they answer that call, and they would have done so readily and with honor.

Moreover, in our specialized modern military, not all who serve, even in wartime, will face the same hazards, or ever experience a deployment to an active theater of combat, yet they are no less vital to the mission. However, it seems unjust and arbitrary that one who provided valuable support to the military’s core mission, but was never ordered to a combat theater, should be treated any differently than one who performed those same valuable functions during a time of peace.

Finally, the nature of warfare has changed. Currently, wartime service is defined by the VA as only those eras in which our nation is formally at war. The National Defense Service Medal criteria, and VA Regulations list these recognized periods. They are: Mexican Border period (May 9, 1916, to April 5, 1917, for Veterans who served in Mexico, on its borders, or in adjacent waters); World War I (April 6, 1917, to November 11, 1918); World War II (December 7, 1941, to December 31, 1946); 1950-1954 (Korean War); 1961-74 (Vietnam War); 1990-1995 (Gulf War); September 11, 2001-To Be Determined (Global War on Terror). These are not, however, the only times in which the men and women of our armed forces are subject to the hazards associated with armed conflict.

The USS Cole bombing was a suicide attack by the terrorist group al Qaeda against USS Cole, a guided missile destroyer of the United States Navy, on 12 October 2000, while she was being refueled in Yemen's Aden harbor. Those who survived this attack are not considered “wartime veterans.” On October 23, 1983, two truck bombs struck buildings in Beirut, Lebanon, housing American and French service members of the Multinational Force in Lebanon (MNF), a military peacekeeping operation during the Lebanese Civil War. The attack killed 307 people. The survivors of this attack are not “wartime veterans.” These are only two examples, but there are many, many other times in which even in peacetime, our men and women have put their lives in danger to support peace around the globe. Connecticut has taken a more expansive view of the definition of wartime, and in fact has continued the definition of Gulf War to the present day without interruption. However, just as the federal definition has some key omissions, we cannot be sure that the Connecticut definition is inclusive of all circumstances in which a service member has been in direct harm’s way.

Peace, not war, should be our default. Those who serve in these times of peace by standing ready to ensure that peace, should not be penalized for the simple fact that their efforts in power projection and their sustained vigilance in shielding our foreign allies from external threats proved successful, at least for a time. I urge this committee to find that all honorably discharged veterans receive equal treatment under Connecticut law. Honorable service should be the only requirement for this state’s recognition.

Thank you, Emily D. Trudeau