The Shooter's account in Esquire is important to help us understand what happened that night, as is Bissonnette's account.

A good deal of the Esquire piece concerns the Shooter's worries about his future now that he has left the military.

"When he leaves after sixteen years in the Navy, his body filled with scar tissue, arthritis, tendonitis, eye damage, and blown disks, here is what he gets from his employer and a grateful nation: Nothing. No pension, no health care, and no protection for himself or his family."

In fact, pretty much any veteran who leaves before 20 years of service is not going to be eligible for a pension.

So should the Shooter be treated any differently? Indeed, should other members of key Special Operations units like SEAL Team 6 or the Army's Delta Force who have been at war almost continuously since the 9/11 attacks be given greater benefits given the inordinate amount of combat they have seen?

It's an idea that may be worth exploring for those who have seen extensive combat, but the fact is that once you start making such exceptions, the floodgates will open. After more than a decade of war, many veterans in conventional military units would also qualify for such preferential treatment.

In a time of budget crisis and large cuts at the Pentagon it is hard to make such a case. After all, what about the thousands of Marines who have also been fighting for many years in tough places like Anbar in western Iraq and Helmand in southern Afghanistan? Should they get a cushy early retirement deal, too?

If the Shooter had wanted to get the full benefits that follow 20 years of service he had a choice: Stay in for another four years to qualify for the pension he clearly deserves.

It's a choice he didn't make.

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.