It’s kind of hard to understand Caleb’s injuries. Even doctors can’t say for sure
exactly why he has flashbacks, why he could be standing in a bookstore when all of a sudden he’s sure he’s in Ramadi, the pictures in his brain disorienting him among
the stacks, which could turn from stacks to rows of rooftops that need to be scanned
for snipers.

These few phrases contain a couple different types of claims. The first claim, the first sentence, is an evaluative claim. There is judgement of the comprehension of the injuries Caleb has. The next few phrases consist of an illustrative claim and an evaluative claim. The author illustrates an image for the reader to help he or she understand what these flashbacks are like. It is an evaluative claim because it is clear to see when he is going into a flashback.

They don’t know exactly why it comes to him in dreams, and why
especially that time he picked up the pieces of Baghdad bombing victims and that
lady who appeared to have thrown herself on top of her child to save him only to find the child dead underneath torments him when he’s sleeping, and sometimes awake. 

The first part of this phrase is an attributive claim. They author can not back up the reason of the dreams, because it is unknown. The next part of the phrase consists of an illustrative claim. The author makes the reader feel like he or she is next to Caleb while he is picking up the pieces of the bombing victims. The following phrase is an illustrative claim. The reader feels like they have watched the lady throw herself on top of her child. The last type of claim comes in the bottom line. It is a comparative claim. It is a comparison because the author said the dreams not only torment him while sleeping, but also when he is awake.

Whatever is happening to Caleb, it’s as old as war itself. The ancient historian Herodotus told of Greeks being honorably dismissed for being “out of heart” and “unwilling to encounter danger.” 

The first sentence here is a comparative claim. The author compared the trauma going on in Caleb’s head right now as old as war itself. The second sentence here is an evaluative claim. The author called Herodotus out of heart and unwilling to encounter danger.

Civil War doctors, who couldn’t think of any other thing that might be unpleasant about fighting the Civil War but homesickness, diagnosed thousands with “nostalgia.” Later, it was deemed “irritable heart.” In World War I it was called “shell shock.” In World War II, “battle fatigue.” 

This entire phrase is one big definition claim. In each sentence the terminology used to describe what PTSD is being changed.

It wasn’t an official diagnosis until 1980, when Post Traumatic Stress Disorder made its debut in psychiatry’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

This sentence is a factual claim. The author declared that is became a real diagnosis in 1980.

In 1943, when Lt. General George S. Patton met an American soldier at an Italian hospital recovering from “nerves,” Patton slapped him and called him a coward. In 2006, the British Ministry of Defence pardoned some 300 soldiers who had been executed for cowardice and desertion during World War I, having concluded that many were probably just crippled by PTSD.

The first sentence here is a factual claim. It states that in 1943, the incident between Patton and the soldier took place. The same form of claim made by the author is in the second sentence. The factual claim made is that the British Ministry sent around 300 soldiers home due to their actions during World War 1. The last line of this phrase is an evaluative claim. The author said it had been concluded that the soldiers were being crippled by PTSD.