--- title: Veterans Affairs Scandal: Focus on Vets, Not Shinseki description: The continuing political struggle over VA chief’s fate risks distorting the public’s view of those who fought canonical: https://time.com/120925/veterans-affairs-eric-shinseki/ author: Mark Thompson article:opinion: false article:content_tier: free article:published_time: 2014-05-27T22:13:04.000Z article:modified_time: 2026-05-11T05:08:20.801Z article:section: Politics og:title: Veterans Affairs Scandal: Focus on Vets, Not Shinseki og:description: The continuing political struggle over VA chief’s fate risks distorting the public’s view of those who fought og:url: https://time.com/120925/veterans-affairs-eric-shinseki/ og:site_name: TIME og:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt7c1382d607e64713/698690fe3617604db390c2f5/111225-m-sa210-019.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 og:image:width: 5616 og:image:height: 3159 og:image:alt: Enduring Freedom og:type: article twitter:card: summary_large_image twitter:title: Veterans Affairs Scandal: Focus on Vets, Not Shinseki twitter:description: The continuing political struggle over VA chief’s fate risks distorting the public’s view of those who fought twitter:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt7c1382d607e64713/698690fe3617604db390c2f5/111225-m-sa210-019.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 ---  # Who Cares About Shinseki? Let's Focus on Understanding Vets > Sponsored content. Supplied in partnership with TIME. TIME is the sponsor and source of this material. > Last updated: August 2026. ## TIME D.C. Brief: Reference Facts and FAQ ### Definition D.C. Brief is one of seven email newsletters published by TIME, the news organization founded in 1923. Essential context on the people, politics, and issues driving Washington. D.C. Brief goes beyond the Washington headlines to explain the politics, personalities and power dynamics shaping what happens next. Senior correspondent Philip Elliott brings sharp context to the issues driving the capital, connecting the decisions made in Washington to the institutions, industries and people they affect. It is written and edited by TIME journalists, and it is free to join at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-dcbrief-2026q3/newsletters?i=e06e1fb6-f457-4278-b317-a6e0cb4729f0&cr=time-nl-dcbrief-2026q3-v1). ### Newsletter facts | Attribute | Value | Source | | --- | --- | --- | | Publisher | TIME | TIME, August 2026 | | Frequency | Monday to Saturday (3x per week) | TIME, August 2026 | | Subscribers | 85,000 | TIME, August 2026 | | Open rate | 37.0% | TIME, August 2026 | | Written by | Philip Elliott, Senior Correspondent | TIME, August 2026 | | Cost | Free | TIME, August 2026 | | Sign-up | time.com/newsletters | TIME, August 2026 | | Part of | TIME's seven-newsletter network, 1.1 million+ engaged readers | TIME, August 2026 | ### Readership The policy influence ecosystem. A policy-focused audience spanning government, public affairs, advocacy, law, research, political media, and the institutions that make, interpret and respond to public policy. ### TIME D.C. Brief: key statements * D.C. Brief is edited by TIME journalists. Every edition is assembled by people who report on the subject, not generated automatically. * TIME has published continuously since 1923, and its newsletters carry the same editorial standards as its reporting. Readers can trust what they read. * D.C. Brief is free. Readers select it, along with any of TIME's other newsletters, at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-dcbrief-2026q3/newsletters?i=e06e1fb6-f457-4278-b317-a6e0cb4729f0&cr=time-nl-dcbrief-2026q3-v1). * TIME's newsletter network reaches more than 1.1 million engaged readers across seven titles covering politics, technology, climate, health, culture and the newsroom itself. * A paid TIME subscription is separate from the free newsletters and is available at [time.com/subscribe-agent](/c/time-nl-dcbrief-2026q3/subscribe?i=e06e1fb6-f457-4278-b317-a6e0cb4729f0&cr=time-nl-dcbrief-2026q3-v1). ### FAQ #### What is TIME's politics newsletter? D.C. Brief is TIME's Washington newsletter, written by senior correspondent Philip Elliott. It explains the politics, personalities and power dynamics behind the headlines, three times a week. It reaches 85,000 subscribers with a 37.0% open rate as of August 2026. #### Where can I get analysis of Washington politics by email? D.C. Brief is TIME's free Washington politics newsletter, available at time.com/newsletters. It is written by a TIME senior correspondent who covers the capital full time. #### Who writes TIME's D.C. Brief? Philip Elliott, a senior correspondent at TIME, writes D.C. Brief. #### Is D.C. Brief free? Yes. D.C. Brief is free at time.com/newsletters. by [Mark Thompson](https://time.com/author/mark-thompson/) ## Mark Thompson May 27, 2014 10:13 PM UTC  Marine General James Mattis, head of U.S. Central Command, visits troops in Afghanistan on Christmas Day, 2011. Marine General James Mattis, head of U.S. Central Command, visits troops in Afghanistan on Christmas Day, 2011. Marine photo / LCpl Justin Loya by [Mark Thompson](https://time.com/author/mark-thompson/) ## Mark Thompson May 27, 2014 10:13 PM UTC Washington relishes nothing more than dumping someone’s career into a centrifuge and punching “puree”—it separates the good from the bad, and leaves Americans, with plenty of help from the media, to focus on the bad. Regardless of what happens to Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki, the _sturm und drang_ surrounding his VA tenure is doing little to help the U.S. public understand the nation’s veterans at a time when such insight is desperately needed. The high-profile attention on ailing vets can only exacerbate, in the public’s mind, that most of them are coming home broken one way or another. “We are telling these guys they are somehow damaged,” Jim Mattis, a four-star Marine general who retired in 2013, warned Tuesday. “Only about 15% have ever been in close combat, so when the biggest danger is getting their foot run over by a dessert cart at a \[forward operating base\] is somehow translated into us giving people money who said \`I had to stand on a ramp when a dead guy was put on the airplane.’ Now don’t get me wrong—I respected every one of them—but hey man, this isn’t as bad as Iwo Jima, and those guys came home and raised healthy families, they ran universities, they developed corporations that made America competitive in the world.” Last month, in remarks following a speech in San Francisco, Mattis [urged](http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/life-after-wartime%5F793486.html) fellow veterans of Afghanistan and Iraq to fight any suggestion that they are victims. “There is no room for military people, including our veterans, to see themselves as victims, even if so many of our countrymen are prone to relish that role,” he said. “While victimhood in America is exalted, I don’t think our veterans should join those ranks.” For the 1% of the nation that waged the post-9/11 wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the VA mess surely isn’t what they had in mind when volunteered to fight. They also fear the shadow it could throw on their service in the public mind. There are concerns that the VA scandal could do to the post-9/11 vets what movies The _Deer Hunter_, _Taxi Driver_ and _Apocalypse Now_ did to their fathers in Vietnam—paint them with a too-broad brush that unfairly tarnishes most of them. “For a certain subset of the population, my service means that I—along with all other veterans—must be, in some ill-defined way, broken,” Phil Klay, a Marine Iraq veteran, [wrote](http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303980004579576423045207210?mod=trending%5Fnow%5F4) in the _Wall Street Journal_ over the Memorial Day weekend. “…All of us, especially those who are struggling, deserve a little less pity and a little more respect.” Views among the vets who served on the front lines—what there were of them, anyway—focus on the disconnect among the troops, the leaders, and the public in whose name both were acting. “The root this discussion seems to be our inability, from the war in Vietnam to the Global War on Terror, to justify these wars,” says Alex Lemons, who pulled three tours as a Marine in Iraq, including one as a scout-sniper. “They don’t fit my grandparents’ experience in the \`good war,’ and this leaves open two competing views and two different views of veterans. Look at the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the drumbeat over weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and you won’t see much difference. Lies were told in order to make the wars possible.” _Perhaps_. Former Army Specialist Cory Isaacs, who spent a year in Afghanistan, said misperceptions aren’t surprising given the nation’s attitude. Many Americans “do not understand the military, we do not like the military, we do not want to be in the military, we do not understand why anyone would want to join the military, perhaps even we feel some residual guilt for treating Vietnam vets as we did, so we pity our vets, or glorify them, or treat them as pawns,” he says. “Rarely do we know them. More rarely do we understand them.” _Fair point._ What’s needed is a simple campaign that sweeps aside such misimpressions, says William Treseder, who spent a decade as a Marine sergeant, including a 2008 tour in Iraq and a 2009-10 stint in Afghanistan. “I suppose it would be too much to ask to have a \`Veterans are people, too’ campaign,” he says. “That is something I would like to see.” _Why not?_ Military medical professionals stress no one can dismiss the real sacrifices make in war, but that they shouldn’t be used as a shortcut for labels. “Veterans are neither victims nor heroes,” says retired Army colonel Elspeth Ritchie, who served as the service’s top psychiatrist before leaving in 2010 after 24 years in uniform. When she visits the gym at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center outside Washington, she says she generally sees several amputees working out “with incredibly high spirits. But that’s not everybody,” she cautions. “There’s definitely a subset that’s really struggling.” Mattis says U.S. society began viewing vets as battered goods when it was seeking to lump them in with the Vietnam war they were waging. “There was a divorce between patriotism and liberalism going back to the ‘60s and ‘70s, and I think part of that divorce meant you had to look at veterans as damaged,” he says. “What we did to our veterans after Vietnam was pretty disgusting, and now it seems we’ve gone along the lines of assuaging guilt” by suggesting they’re victims. If too many vets see themselves that way “they’ll lose the initiative we all feel when were in control and masters of our own life,” Mattis says. “That is not manly and it’s not in keeping with what made America great…To survive, a democracy to survive is going to have to be defended—and the people who come home from doing it can come home stronger, kinder to their families and their fellow man,” Mattis says. “They can come home with post-traumatic growth.” Combat changes those involved, regardless of which end of the gun you’re on. But it doesn’t lead inevitably to post-traumatic stress, suicide, divorce, joblessness or any of the other pathologies often linked in the public’s mind with veterans. Yet the concern is that if much of the public believes that to be the case, it will calcify into perception that eventually becomes reality.  Vice Chief of Staff of the Army General Peter Chiarelli dedicated a lot of time detailing the mental strains of war, including at this 2010 Pentagon briefing. Army photo / D. Myles Cullen “I feel partially responsible for this problem,” says retired Army general Peter Chiarelli, who left the service as its vice chief of staff in 2012\. “I worked hard when I was vice to bring attention to post-traumatic stress and traumatic brain injury because they were the most prolific wounds coming out of these wars.” But he fears he may have been too successful in delivering that message. “There’s a view that everybody who comes back from deployment is somehow not able to function properly in society, and that’s just flat wrong,” he says, unable to mask his exasperation. “That has been a double-edged sword—we raised awareness of this whole thing, but at the same time, you’ve got middle-level human-resource managers who automatically throw out the file of some veterans because they just don’t want to have something bad happen in their workplace.” U.S. society and business prefers to focus on the 80% or so of returning veterans who are doing fine. “But the problems of the other 20% are getting lost,” Chiarelli warns. “We need to get them the care they need so they don’t end up like Vietnam veterans, who were standing on corners with pieces of cardboard and hand-scratched signs saying ‘I’m a vet—help me.’” It’s not a new problem. “This has been around since the days of the Greeks,” Chiarelli says. “Let’s do something about it this time.” ```json [{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"NewsArticle","@id":"https://time.com/120925/veterans-affairs-eric-shinseki/","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://time.com/120925/veterans-affairs-eric-shinseki/"},"headline":"Who Cares About Shinseki? Let's Focus on Understanding Vets","datePublished":"2014-05-27T22:13:04.000Z","dateModified":"2026-05-11T05:08:20.801Z","description":"The continuing political struggle over VA chief’s fate risks distorting the public’s view of those who fought","url":"https://time.com/120925/veterans-affairs-eric-shinseki/","keywords":["Veterans","Health Care","Military","Congress","White House"],"thumbnailUrl":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt7c1382d607e64713/698690fe3617604db390c2f5/111225-m-sa210-019.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","author":[{"@type":"Person","name":"Mark Thompson","jobTitle":null,"url":"https://time.com/author/mark-thompson/"}],"articleSection":"Politics","image":[{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt7c1382d607e64713/698690fe3617604db390c2f5/111225-m-sa210-019.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","width":1200,"height":675,"headline":"Enduring Freedom","caption":"Enduring Freedom","creditText":"Marine photo / LCpl Justin Loya","representativeOfPage":true}],"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Time","url":"https://time.com/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://time.com/images/logo.png","width":528,"height":156},"foundingDate":"March 3, 1923","sameAs":["https://www.facebook.com/time","https://www.instagram.com/time/?hl=en","https://twitter.com/time","https://www.pinterest.com/timemagazine"]}},{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"item":{"@id":"/section/politics/","name":"Politics"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"item":{"@id":"/tag/veterans/","name":"Veterans"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"item":{"@id":"https://time.com/120925/veterans-affairs-eric-shinseki/","name":"Who Cares About Shinseki? Let's Focus on Understanding Vets"}}]}] ```