Section 20

“Charles Marmar, a New York University professor who was on the team of the National Vietnam Veterans Readjustment Study, the most comprehensive study of combat stress ever conducted, points out that you really have to spend the money to treat PTSD, since the costs of not treating it are so much higher. ‘Personal tragedy, suicide, depression, alcohol and drug use, reliving terror … The treatment and compensation disability programs have cost billions. And the costs of the untreated are probably in the tens of billions. They’re enormous.'”

This passage has two main claims:

• The author opens section 20 with a credibility claim about Charles Marmar. His authority is, according to the author, grounded in his work on a National Vietnam Veterans Readjustment Survey and his position as a professor. Essentially, he is claimed to be knowledgeable and trustworthy, at least as pertains to Veteran PTSD.
• The author borrows Marmar’s credibility to present his argument about the cost of veteran PTSD, both treated and untreated. This attributive claim asserts that PTSD is a costly affliction (“you really have to spend. money to treat PTSD”) but the cost of not treating it is even higher.
• A smaller claim made is that the National Vietnam Veterans Readjustment Study is the “most comprehensive study of combat stress ever conducted.” Says who? The author presents a small but not unremarkable qualitative claim.

“Experts say it’s nearly impossible to calculate what treating PTSD from Vietnam has and will cost American taxpayers, so vast are its impacts. There were 2.4 million soldiers deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, and while no one is sure what PTSD among them will ultimately cost us, either, everyone agrees on one thing: If it’s not effectively treated, it won’t go away. When Caleb checked into his VA inpatient therapy in 2010, more than two-thirds of his fellow patients were veterans of Vietnam.”

• The author begins again with another credibility claim. Just one word this time: “experts.” I could not find a specific citation for where this comes from. The next sentence has a VA source, but it does not make a specifc claim about treatment costs for PTSD.
• The next claim is that “it’s nearly impossible to calculate what treating PTSD from Vietnam has and will cost American taxpayers”. I suppose I can’t contest this factual claim. The nature of PTSD makes it impossible to know all the cases and their effects and so on. This claim is unsourced.
• Next, a simple quantitative claim, this time accompanied by a VA administration source. “There were 2.4 million soldiers deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan” this is correct.
• “no one is sure what PTSD among them will ultimately cost us, either, everyone agrees on one thing: If it’s not effectively treated, it won’t go away”. This is a factual claim, but it is once again lacks citation. Truly, does no one know what PTSD will cost. Does everyone really agree on one thing? What if I believe that PTSD will go away without treatment?
• Finally another quantitative claim. 2/3rds of Caleb’s fellow patients in VA inpatient therapy in 2010 were Vietnam veterans.

“Vietnam vets still make up the bulk of Danna’s clients—though she is assisting traumatized men who served in World War II, in the early years of which half the medical disability discharges were psychiatric, and some of those men still show up at Danna’s office and cry, and cry, and cry. Many people at her fundraiser are saying that she saved their lives, kept them from killing themselves, kept them off the streets—or out of the woods, as it were, where she sometimes found vets living on earth floors under cardboard boxes.”

• “Vietnam vets still make up the bulk of Danna’s clients” is another factual claim. It is essentially indisputable — I don’t have Danna’s client list and she has no reason to lie here.
• “Many people… are saying that she saved their lives” is a causal claim. Essentially, because Danna intervened in their life, they did not commit suicide. This is a cause-and-effect claim.

“‘I don’t just get to see the bad stuff,’ Danna says. ‘I get to see the good stuff too.’
By way of example, she introduces me to Steve Holt and Charlene Payton Holt. Steve served in Vietnam, fought in the Tet Offensive. The chaplain assured him that he shouldn’t feel bad about killing gooks, but the chaplain was paid by the Army, and who took moral advice from a chaplain carrying a .38? Back at home, Steve drank wildly. He waged war with his wife, attempted to work odd jobs where he had as little contact with humans as possible. But then he got divorced, and then he got with Charlene in 2001, and then he got in a big fight with Charlene and pulled the rifles out and sent her fleeing into the night, through the woods to the closest neighbor’s house a mile away. But then he got inpatient psychiatric treatment in Seattle, several times, and found Jesus, and only ever has a beer or two, and now you have never seen two people so in love in any double-wide in the United States.”

• Danna claims that she doesn’t just see “bad stuff” but also “good stuff”, which is another factual claim based on her experience with patients.
• An ethical claim is made by the author when he adds the rhetorical question, “who [takes] moral advice from a chaplain carrying a .38?”. The author claims that a chaplain who is paid by the army and is armed is untrustworthy is questions of morality.
• The author makes an evaluative claim about Steve: he “waged war” on his wife. This implies that Steve consciously prosecuted a campaign of aggression against his ex-wife. To “wage war” even as a metaphor, implies purposeful, premeditated actions over a long period of time. The comparison of domestic strife to war is also an illustrative claim.
• “He got inpatient psychiatric treatment in Seattle, several times, and found Jesus, and only ever has a beer or two and now you have never seen two people so in love in any double-wide in the United States.”Four back to back factual claims with some extra ones sprinkled in. It is claimed that he got inpatient treatment several times in Seattle. No sources other than a his testimony, we do not hear from this treatment facility. Next, he “found Jesus”. This is both a factual and moral claim. “Finding Jesus” is contrasted by the author with drunkenness and domestic violence, which implies that finding Jesus is a desirable outcome. Further, his beer consumption is a simple factual claim, but it similarly is contrasted positive compared to his old behavior. Finally, the last claim is that “you have never seen two people so in love in any double-wide in the United States”. This is primarily intended to be an illustrative example of a successful treatment of a veteran with PTSD, but it’s also an unverifiable factual claim. I think that I have seen two people more in love. Just because I am a contrarian.