> I think it's sad that we have an industry, where someone with six years' experience, is considered a "veteran."
What does it take to be considered a "veteran" in the military?
> The term "veteran" means a person who served in the active military, naval, or air service, and who was discharged or released therefrom under conditions other than dishonorable.
> 1. A person with long experience of a particular activity.
The military version is a bit different:
> 3. A person who has served in the armed forces, especially an old soldier who has seen long service; also called a war veteran to distinguish from veterans who weren't in armed conflict.
> c. 1500, "old experienced soldier," from French vétéran, from Latin veteranus "old, aged, that has been long in use," especially of soldiers; as a plural noun, "old soldiers," from vetus (genitive veteris) "old, aged, advanced in years; of a former time," as a plural noun, vetores, "men of old, forefathers," from PIE wet-es-, from root wet- (2) "year ... General sense of "one who has seen long service in any office or position" is attested from 1590s. The adjective first recorded 1610s.
You can see definition (1) dropped the "soldier" restriction, and (3) dropped the "old" restriction.
I therefore don't think you can apply your understanding of (3) when (1) was meant.
Around these parts, "veteran" is usually used to designate military servicepeople that served during times of active conflict, yet it seems pretty much any soldier that was honorably (or, at least, not dishonorably) discharged, is able to access the VA health system (we have a VA hospital in my town, and I know quite a few veterans). I'm not so sure about other benefits, like schooling, loans, and insurance.
My father[0] was a veteran. He's buried in Arlington. Got a silver star, a bronze star, and a purple heart. His GI Bill benefits got him a Harvard LLB.
I am not even close to a military veteran. I did work for a company for almost 27 years though. In this community, that elicits a lot more scorn, than it does respect.
I was US military for 11 years and can definitely tell you that, beyond the “on paper” definition I posted above, members of the military consider anyone who volunteers for military service and does their time to be a veteran. I’d definitely be interested to know where this concept of “you have to be in a conflict” definition came from. Is it from people who were in the military or just pop culture influenced misconceptions?
> members of the military consider anyone who volunteers for military service and does their time to be a veteran.
If you take the oath, go where you're sent, and do as you're ordered (within the law and morality), that's all that can be asked. Some find themselves having to do it with people shooting at them or trying to blow them up, like my dad and some of my uncles; others are more fortunate, like numerous other family members, including me. All are veterans. (And that goes for draftees too, although it's been 50 years since the U.S. has had a draft.)
I'm a not-so-young chap, so a lot of my compatriots are combat veterans (mostly Vietnam, and Iraq 1). They are the ones that have given me that impression.
In any case, my original post had nothing, whatsoever, to with military service, and I think we've just about exhausted this rabbithole.
What does it take to be considered a "veteran" in the military?
> The term "veteran" means a person who served in the active military, naval, or air service, and who was discharged or released therefrom under conditions other than dishonorable.
( https://www.va.gov/OSDBU/docs/Determining-Veteran-Status.pdf )
> Most first-term enlistments require a commitment to four years of active duty and two years of inactive
( https://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/making-commitment... )
A veteran is someone with experience. Why wouldn't six years of experience make you a "veteran"?