Fort Hood shooting: why it took five years to award victims Purple Hearts

Initially, the gunshot wounds sustained by Fort Hood victims were considered 'workplace injuries' by the Department of Defense. The Purple Hearts were awarded Friday.

Donna McWilliam/AP/File
Soldiers salute as they honor victims of the Fort Hood shooting at a memorial service at Fort Hood, Texas, Tuesday, Nov. 10, 2009.

More than five years after psychologist Nidal Hasan, then a US Army major, went on a shooting spree killing 13 people and wounding 30 others, the military victims of his rampage received Purple Hearts in Fort Hood, Texas, Friday.

The medals were a long time coming. That’s because initially, the gunshot wounds sustained by the victims were considered “workplace injuries” by the Department of Defense.

It was a rider included in the 2015 defense budget that expanded the parameters for Purple Heart eligibility, reclassifying the victims' injuries as the result of an attack inspired by a terrorist group, rather than a workplace injury. Since its inception, the medal’s most basic requirement has been that recipients be injured at the hands of an enemy.

The medal ceremony this week, and the latest legislation that allowed the Purple Heart awards to move forward, reflect the new realities of war, says Phillip Carter, director of the Military, Veterans, and Society Program at the Center for a New American Security.

“We’ve entered a more complex era where we don’t just fight overseas, but at home, too,” he says. “There’s no principled reason to divide the victims of 9/11 from Fort Hood from some victims in Baghdad.” 

Had, for example, an Al Qaeda-inspired attack occurred in Kuwait or Iraq, there might have been some brief debate that probably would have come to the same conclusion in far less time than five years, adds Mr. Carter, who served in the Army as a civil affairs officer in Iraq and is also an adjunct professor of law at Georgetown University in Washington.

Sgt. 1st Class Miguel Valdivia was shot three times by Mr. Hasan, who was convicted in 2013 of 13 counts of premeditated murder and sentenced to death.

While it “feels good” to know he is receiving a Purple Heart after years, Sergeant Valdivia also grapples with a “guilty feeling,” he told the Military Times.

“I only got wounded. Deep inside, I feel I don’t deserve it,” he said.

It’s a common feeling among many Purple Heart recipients. Victims of friendly fire, for example, are generally eligible for the medal because their injuries tend to be imputed to enemy contact.

The Purple Heart is one of the more venerated medals in the military inventory, and such awards matter within the fraternity of soldiers, Carter notes – providing a sense of community to those working through injuries through the Military Order of the Purple Heart and other organizations to which recipients of the medal can belong.

“It means a lot to get recognized with an award for a combat injury,” he says. 

The ceremony at Fort Hood Friday served as a reminder, too, of other soldiers awaiting a verdict on whether they qualify for Purple Hearts. This includes US troops who were exposed to chemical weapons in Iraq.

Last month, the Army reversed a Purple Heart medal rejection and instead approved the medal for a soldier who had been burned by sulfur mustard gas in Iraq. 

Other US troops were exposed to chemical weapons hidden by Iraqi insurgents in roadside bombs, and Undersecretary of the Army Brad Carson says he expects more medals to be awarded to these troops after further review.

“To me, the scandal is that we had protocols in place and the medical community knew what they were, and yet we failed in some cases to implement this across the [Iraq] theater,” he told The New York Times last month. 

“That was a mistake, and I apologize for that. I apologize for past actions and am going to fix it going forward.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.