Monday - December 04, 2006

Heavy Medal

After failing to report or under-reporting medal winners for heroism in the war on terror for the last five years, TIME magazine now wants to know why more medals haven’t been given out. According to TIME, it’s obviously Rumsfeld’s fault, of course ...

Iraq: The War Without Honors
_{(TIME) Sunday, Dec. 3, 2006}

Are there fewer heroes in the Iraq war than in previous wars? That’s the message the Pentagon is sending, say critics, by not awarding today’s soldiers nearly as many of the nation’s highest military honors. Three and a half years of combat in Iraq, for example, have produced only two winners of the Medal of Honor, the country’s highest military award for bravery in combat. There were, by contrast, 464 Medals of Honor handed out during America’s involvement in World War II, which lasted the same amount of time. If the government had been as stingy then as it is now, adjusting for the number of Americans who served, there would have been only 30 Medals of Honor won in the fight against fascism. The same applies to the second highest honor, the service crosses: there were 8,716 of those given out during World War II and just 26 so far in Iraq.

So what’s different in this war? For one thing, the process for getting medals has become more cumbersome. Some commanders are reacting against what they see as medal inflation in recent wars, especially Gulf War I. And there may be fewer opportunities for Audie Murphy--style heroics when your enemy is planting improvised explosive devices (IEDs) or driving a car bomb. But the nearly 3,000 war dead testify to the peril of those fighting in Iraq, and a growing chorus has been speaking out against the Pentagon’s parsimony. They’re asking why there have not been more élite medals and why there have been huge disparities in the number of awards given by different branches of the military. “We need to look into the criteria used and the timing. There are obvious inequities,” says Congressman John McHugh, a Republican from New York.

The House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel that McHugh chairs is launching an inquiry this week into the way medals have been awarded in Iraq. The Department of Defense may be required to issue new standards or even reopen cases in which medals have been turned down or downgraded. The Pentagon, meanwhile, says it needed its own review to consider how combat--and how the military quantifies heroism--has changed since 9/11. It is considering whether there should be new guidelines set for consistency across the services. The Army, for example, has displayed a stunning generosity in handing out the mid-level Bronze Star medals: it has given out an astonishing 52,000 since 9/11, compared with fewer than 1,500 for the Marines.

Some critics think a kind of political correctness may be at play in the military. Says retired Lieut. Colonel Steve Russell, an infantry officer who served in Iraq: “Many senior officers who decide these awards have succumbed to the notion that every soldier is doing a great job and no one should be held out as better than another.” At the same time, some commanders have raised the bar for the highest awards because they say they have seen medals handed out too easily in the past. Army Lieut. General Tom Metz says he remembers clearly how a few soldiers in Vietnam took advantage of the system and won “air ribbons” often simply for taking flights in country. “[In Iraq] I was an award approver for all but the top two awards, and I was tough,” says Metz, who authorized a handful of Silver Stars during his two years in Iraq. “I am confident those who got an award with my signature on it earned it.”

- More ...

Posted by The Skipper     on 12/04/2006 at 09:46 AM   
Filed Under: • Media-Bias • Military •  
• Comments (10) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner