PDA

View Full Version : The Mission, Above All Else



thedrifter
09-06-06, 06:45 AM
09-05-2006
The Mission, Above All Else

By John Olson

Recently SFTT has addressed the topic of Medals of Honor and what combination of valor and performance is needed to have one awarded because, even after five years in our war on terror and going on four years of combat in Iraq, only one has been awarded to date.

The days are long gone when vague descriptions of actions justify awarding a MoH such as contained in Major Smedley Butler's entire citation: "For distinguished conduct in battle, engagement of Vera Cruz, April 22, 1914, was eminent and conspicuous in command of his battalion. He exhibited courage and skill in leading his men through the action of the 22nd and in the final occupation of the city." In retrospect this reads more like the standards of every battalion commander for which the reward would be a glowing evaluation.

No, today's MoH winner has to be far more than "eminent and conspicuous". Anyone reading through the hundreds of modern citations will see that they generally fall into four categories of primary action, though they are often mixed:

1) Leadership
2) Direct combat against the enemy
3) Aiding others
4) Self sacrifice

Regardless of the category, I think the specific actions which earn a MoH must contain the following elements:

1) exemplary performance of duty under extremely trying circumstances during combat
2) exhibition of extraordinary bravery or leadership at great risk under same
3) clearly undertaking the actions by free will, not forced by circumstances or direct authority
4) the individual effort contributed to mission accomplishment despite the circumstances

The first point is a two-fold attempt at avoiding the use of the current definition of combat which seems to have been broadened to include any general enemy-caused hazard, and emphasizing duty, not just bravery.

The MoH should be reserved for intense actions or episodes, critical times of contact with the enemy beyond the normal nightly three rounds of incoming mortar rounds, the convoy which receives scattered rifle fire, or subjected to an unsupported IED attack.

The second point is self-explanatory. We want this medal, the highest the nation can give, to go to those who exposed themselves to great risk in the service of that nation's goals. I have no problems with the fact that Douglas MacArthur would have been disqualified under this set of rules from receiving his MoH for his great contribution to our victory in World War II. Yet we also don't want this to be come a badge of martyrdom, only placed into the hands of surviving family members. Risk and bravery can be recognized without a person making the ultimate sacrifice.

The third is an attempt at separating the motivated self-starter who acts by choice, obeying a call to love or duty, and not acting when ordered to do so. or solely out of a desire for individual self-preservation.

The first three points are less than controversial, but the last is new and likely to cause discussion. We have a series of medals we can award for bravery, actions of devotion, effectiveness, and other reasons.

The MoH, though, should be given for the ultimate of military reasons - mission accomplisment. What difference does bravery and self-sacrifice make if the actions are futile? Do we want our military members to think that individual effort which does not contribute to success is better than success itself? I want the MoH to mean that not only was the recipient brave, resourceful, skillful, and put personal safety at a lower priority, I want all those elements to add up to a winning effort.

I don't mean to imply that the stated mission which caused the combat to be joined in the first place has to be accomplished, because we all know that plans and goals change as the battle progresses, but that the overall task at hand was enhanced and helped to a favorable conclusion by the direct heroic actions of the service member.

Gordon and Shughart, despite their heroic efforts in Mogadishu, failed in their mission which was to prevent the crew of Super Six Four from being killed or captured and in essence sacrificed themselves for nothing.

The pilots of TB-8 at Midway earned a Presidential Unit Citation even though each of their aircraft were shot down before launching a single torpedo, yet their unswerving devotion by pressing their attack in the face of impossible odds pulled the Japanese CAP out of position and gave the SBD dive bombers a tactical edge which allowed them to destroy the cream of the Imperial Feet's carrier force. This medal has to be about more than attempts, it has to be about results.

It is not impossible to meet the four demanding conditions I've outlined. Our rich military tradition provides plenty of evidence.

June of 1966 brings us Sergeant Morris who individually battled, deployed his platoon, treated the wounded, and carried on the fight despite wounds which led to the disruption of a larger enemy operation, thereby accomplishing his primary mission.

June of 1971 has Staff Sergeant Cavaiani, a 4F who enlisted anyway, performing yeoman duties in first defending his platoon's position, but then directing its evacuation. During this evacuation he chose to act as a final rear guard which resulted in the escape of the bulk of the platoon, and accomplishing the mission forced by events -- even though he was taken prisoner.

In March of 2002 Tech Sergeant Chapman was among those shot down behind enemy lines. He performed his duty as a combat controller, directing steel on target as his team fought for its life, but then volunteered to be part of a rescue force for a missing team-mate, during the conduct of which he was killed in direct combat with the enemy.

In January of 1945 and April of 2003, small unit leaders found their units attacked by larger enemy formations. In both cases the leaders both directed and directly contributed to the defense. Both leaders manned exposed .50 caliber machine guns, each killing up to 50 of their respective enemies with their heavy machine guns. Both were wounded in the course of their actions, accomplishing their missions. 1st Lieutenant Audie Murphy and Sergeant First Class Paul Smith both earned Medals of Honor in their fights, but I'd hate to think that SFC Smith would have been awarded less if he had survived his wound as did Murphy.

At the same time, I wonder why T/SGT Chapman was awarded an Air Force Cross instead of the more appropriate MOH?

John Olson, Gunnery Sgt., USMC (Ret.)
2/9
MACS-7
MCTSSA
HQBn 1st MarDiv
Nuclear Ordanance Platoon
Supply Bn pistol-rifle team
MCCESS, MCAGCC pistol-rifle team
NMCC, JCS
1st CEB

Ellie