There is a move afoot to define Combat PTSD (and presumably Combat CPTSD) as strictly a military experience definition. Why this is being pushed so hard I don't understand. What is the motive? I think the whole arguement is superficial and not based on sound logic. If one wanted to start two classifications to seperate out the experiences you could (but I wouldn't) create two classes of Combat PTSD, namely Military Combat PTSD and Civilian Combat PTSD. Clearly, beyond a shadow of a doubt, civilians are subject to, and victims of, active combat within active combat zones every bit as much as the military personel. The proof is that, in general, more civilians are killed, and wounded, in active combat zones, than soldiers. Clearly, civilians suffer PTSD as a result of being in active combat zones. To say that it is not combat PTSD is not logical. If there was no combat in those zones they(the civilians) would not have PTSD as a result of combat in those zones. We know that civilians are very much targeted in active, combat zones just like military personel. The examples are endless and legendary. That a civilian doesn't have the good fortune to have a weapon to defend themselves doesn't mean that they wouldn't if the opportunity presented itself. War history is replete with examples where civilians, who were combatants without weapons, became full blown combatants when they gained access to weapons. Who in their right mind wouldn't defend themselves if given the opportunity? Shalom.