The answer to your rhetorical device is: of course not..
because that guy isn't maligning missing a leg. And that's the point. The mil grifters use that predictable 'samurai class protectorate' talking point you highlight in your rhetorical question. The hostage-taking of a visible amputee's payments, to notch any and all criticism of their tragedy of the commons behavior. Furthermore, they appeal to that samurai authority to garner moral points with the civilian collective to not be critical of them, and essentially distinguish them from the civilian welfare abuser.
The issue with these fungible categories like PTSD and heck, even sleep apnea, is that they give the potential for high rating/payments vis a vis limb loss and other clear cut cases (and def no pun intended on that one) with a lot of plausible deniability. As such, [the former] are demonstrably one of the primary vectors for grift in the system, as
@Velocity173 highlights. And to add insult to injury, it's a system that encourages said abuse on both sides of the patient/provider spectrum, as your own initial post stipulates.