More on the Purple Heart

Our discussion from Monday about the qualifications for the Purple Heart has stayed with me this week, for several reasons.
First, it troubles me that there is indeed an association of weakness with the idea of needing psychological healthcare. This is not to say this is surprising-- this association is one upheld strongly in a traditional Southern complex. I doubt if there is any way to dissociate the concept of weakness from those struggling with mental health problems, but I do think that there is a successful means of dissociating weakness with the idea of the armed forces in general. I, for one, do not associate any one who voluntarily enters into military service to be of weak mind.
Second, the examples provided in Sandel's book were bothersome. Is it truly just that we would grant a solider a highly esteemed award for a ruptured ear-drum, but not for PTSD sustained from long-term exposure to violence? Are not both of these instances of risks assumed when agreeing to go into an active war zone?
From there, I make my ultimate point-- there needs to be degrees of severity for both physical and psychological injuries appropriately scaled for the conflict of the time. Perhaps a ruptured ear drum was something that, in a past conflict, was more serious and less frequent. That clearly is not true in the conflict in Iraq. Furthermore, I feel that there are levels of PTSD to be acknowledged based on under what circumstances the trauma occurred. The general trauma of being in active war zones is assumed by the person when they agree to serve in the armed forces. While the possibility of capture and torture by enemy forces is, I suppose, a possibility for all of those service men and women as well, perhaps that level of trauma can be considered to be significantly more than the average trauma of a soldier.
In short, I feel that there are far more nuances to this issue than have been addressed.