thedrifter
02-10-04, 12:13 PM
Issue Date: February 09, 2004
Troops should be wearing new medals now
The armed forces never have done more for this nation than today.
American troops are coping with a difficult occupation and insurgency in Iraq, pulling tough duty in Afghanistan and other trouble spots and making daily sacrifices at home.
“I wish I could have everybody in the armed forces over to my house for dinner,” one of my relatives said.
Polls show that the public admires and likes service members.
So why can’t Pentagon bigwigs and Washington bureaucrats straighten out the medal situation?
Why are the bosses unable to come up with proper medals to recognize the wartime contribution that service members are making today?
More than two years after the nation came under attack on Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush administration has settled on a policy for awarding medals but hasn’t authorized anyone to wear them. The policy is controversial and unfair. The failure to fully implement any policy amounts to downright neglect.
The Bush administration plans to issue a single expeditionary medal for those who serve abroad in what it calls the global war on terrorism.
Supporters say it’s all one conflict, regardless of geography. Critics argue that campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq warrant separate awards and that lumping them together is a political ploy to justify U.S. intervention in Iraq.
The fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq took place in different locations, against different foes, with different strategies, tactics and weapons. Some service members participated in both efforts.
The administration also plans to issue a global war on terrorism service medal to those who defend the United States at home. While the argument rages over whether Afghanistan and Iraq add up to one war or two, the war also came to the United States. At any given time, more than 50,000 service members, guardsmen and reservists are direct participants in the defense of America.
By custom and tradition, troops who fight overseas or who serve in a war zone abroad get an expeditionary medal. Those who participate in the conflict at home customarily receive a different medal and have a different status. They are not, for example, eligible to join the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
In my opinion, there should be three medals, one each for Afghanistan, Iraq and what I would call the American campaign, the homeland-defense mission also known as Operation Noble Eagle.
While the word “expeditionary” may or may not be suitable for my proposed American campaign medal — some active-duty, Guard and reserve members have been uprooted and are serving hundreds and even thousands of miles from home when defending U.S. soil — I would want each medal to enjoy the same status.
Troops who served in more than one campaign would receive more than one medal.
Others disagree. Ed Essertier, a World War II veteran and past commander of the VFW post in my neighborhood, said Afghanistan and Iraq don’t rate separate recognition.
“They’re very close together and the purpose was similar,” Essertier said.
Troops who served in North Africa during World War II and never set foot in Europe were awarded a campaign medal for the European theater of operations, not separate recognition for Africa duty, Essertier said.
Whether you agree with two medals or three, you’re going to have to wait a while before you can pin them on.
As of Jan. 21, the Pentagon still had not released guidance for the issuance and wear of the campaign medals it has authorized, according to officials.
This is outrageous. More than twenty-eight months have passed since we were attacked. That is long enough for our leaders to sort out the medal situation and begin authorizing wear of the medals.
The writer, an Air Force veteran, is the author of numerous books on Air Force topics, including “Air Force One.” His e-mail address is robertdorr@aol.com.
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story.php?f=0-MARINEPAPER-2594528.php
Sempers,
Roger
:marine:
Troops should be wearing new medals now
The armed forces never have done more for this nation than today.
American troops are coping with a difficult occupation and insurgency in Iraq, pulling tough duty in Afghanistan and other trouble spots and making daily sacrifices at home.
“I wish I could have everybody in the armed forces over to my house for dinner,” one of my relatives said.
Polls show that the public admires and likes service members.
So why can’t Pentagon bigwigs and Washington bureaucrats straighten out the medal situation?
Why are the bosses unable to come up with proper medals to recognize the wartime contribution that service members are making today?
More than two years after the nation came under attack on Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush administration has settled on a policy for awarding medals but hasn’t authorized anyone to wear them. The policy is controversial and unfair. The failure to fully implement any policy amounts to downright neglect.
The Bush administration plans to issue a single expeditionary medal for those who serve abroad in what it calls the global war on terrorism.
Supporters say it’s all one conflict, regardless of geography. Critics argue that campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq warrant separate awards and that lumping them together is a political ploy to justify U.S. intervention in Iraq.
The fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq took place in different locations, against different foes, with different strategies, tactics and weapons. Some service members participated in both efforts.
The administration also plans to issue a global war on terrorism service medal to those who defend the United States at home. While the argument rages over whether Afghanistan and Iraq add up to one war or two, the war also came to the United States. At any given time, more than 50,000 service members, guardsmen and reservists are direct participants in the defense of America.
By custom and tradition, troops who fight overseas or who serve in a war zone abroad get an expeditionary medal. Those who participate in the conflict at home customarily receive a different medal and have a different status. They are not, for example, eligible to join the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
In my opinion, there should be three medals, one each for Afghanistan, Iraq and what I would call the American campaign, the homeland-defense mission also known as Operation Noble Eagle.
While the word “expeditionary” may or may not be suitable for my proposed American campaign medal — some active-duty, Guard and reserve members have been uprooted and are serving hundreds and even thousands of miles from home when defending U.S. soil — I would want each medal to enjoy the same status.
Troops who served in more than one campaign would receive more than one medal.
Others disagree. Ed Essertier, a World War II veteran and past commander of the VFW post in my neighborhood, said Afghanistan and Iraq don’t rate separate recognition.
“They’re very close together and the purpose was similar,” Essertier said.
Troops who served in North Africa during World War II and never set foot in Europe were awarded a campaign medal for the European theater of operations, not separate recognition for Africa duty, Essertier said.
Whether you agree with two medals or three, you’re going to have to wait a while before you can pin them on.
As of Jan. 21, the Pentagon still had not released guidance for the issuance and wear of the campaign medals it has authorized, according to officials.
This is outrageous. More than twenty-eight months have passed since we were attacked. That is long enough for our leaders to sort out the medal situation and begin authorizing wear of the medals.
The writer, an Air Force veteran, is the author of numerous books on Air Force topics, including “Air Force One.” His e-mail address is robertdorr@aol.com.
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story.php?f=0-MARINEPAPER-2594528.php
Sempers,
Roger
:marine: