PDA

View Full Version : The medal muddle



thedrifter
10-17-06, 12:52 PM
October 23, 2006
The medal muddle
Technology, opinion affect awards process as much as troops’ valor

By Charles V. Mugno

Given the risk, hardship and sacrifices undertaken by our military men and women in support of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is critical that we recognize the valor, heroism and meritorious service they demonstrate in the performance of their duties.

Our system of military decorations is not perfect. It never was and never will be. It is a highly subjective process that evolves over time. Policy guidelines may be updated based on changes in warfare, battlefield strategies, constructive reviews and other factors. We need to be careful in drawing conclusions about “trends” based on emotion or a shallow comparison of facts.

Two different commanders — given the same act — can express opposing views as to the appropriate level of award. It begins at the small-unit level, where troops observe the actions of their peers or subordinates who are engaged in combat. Although an entire platoon can display extraordinary heroism in action, it is impractical and unwise for everyone in the unit to be recommended for a Medal of Honor or Navy Cross. The most appropriate level of award is based on the individual’s performance relative to the performance of other troops under the same or similar circumstances. Our awards system is highly nuanced and requires a great deal of interpretation and careful consideration; anything less would diminish the validity of the awards that are ultimately presented.

The war in Iraq is largely an insurgency. It is conducted by small numbers of irregular enemy forces who avoid direct contact, operate independently and use improvised, command-detonated weapons. This is a far different operational environment than we encounter when engaging a uniformed army of an opposing nation. That is why valor awards should not be viewed as a comparative measure of performance over time or as part of a quota system.


Consideration also needs to be given to the advancements in military technology that allow offensive operations in Iraq and Afghanistan to be conducted without always exposing troops to direct hostile action. Although all combat action carries a degree of risk, the level of intensity based on the direct engagement of opposing forces should be the key in assessing the number of gallantry awards troops receive.

Two other factors play a significant role in determining award recommendations. The first is the willingness to assume risk beyond what is normally expected. The second is perseverance under hardship or injury. It is the level of risk and perseverance that distinguishes conduct of service members on the battlefield.

For example, the Marine who leaves a protected position, such as a foxhole, to actively engage the enemy assumes a much higher degree of risk than one who remains protected in a fortified position. By the same token, a grunt who is painfully wounded yet continues to fight instead of immediately seeking medical treatment displays a higher degree of perseverance than those who were not wounded. That’s how one service member may be distinguished from his peers.

The Defense Department is conducting an in-depth review of the military awards system. I am confident the results of this review will provide thoughtful recommendations to our senior leadership that will ensure that military personnel continue to receive appropriate levels of recognition.

The writer has studied the history and development of military awards for more than 20 years and is a published author. A retired Marine colonel, he now is director of the Army Institute of Heraldry. The opinions expressed are solely his and should not be considered as endorsed by the Defense Department.

Ellie