Posted on 05/15/2009 10:08:35 PM PDT by pissant
The U.S. military appears to have toughened its standards for bestowing the Medal of Honor, the nation's highest award for valor in battle, to exclude troops who survive their heroic acts, a California lawmaker charged Thursday.
Either troops are "not as brave as they used to be, which I don't believe is true," or the criteria for the award have been amended "so that you have to die" to receive it, Rep. Duncan D. Hunter, R-Calif., told the Army's top civilian and uniformed leaders.
Hunter's assertion during a House Armed Services Committee hearing drew a rebuke from Gen. George Casey, the former U.S. commander in Iraq who now serves as Army chief of staff. "There has been absolutely no effort" to limit the award to troops who've perished, Casey said.
Five Americans, all killed in action, have been awarded the Medal of Honor for service in Iraq or Afghanistan. The total is far lower than that of past wars; 244 troops received the Medal of Honor for heroism in the Vietnam War, for example.
A Marine veteran who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, Hunter said he's aware of several living vets whose acts in combat merit the award and who've been recommended for it by field commanders. Because those cases are still pending, he won't discuss specific details, he said.
Casey said he has reviewed several Medal of Honor recommendations for living soldiers. "I have seen some heroic acts, but "in my own mind they haven't risen to the level of the Medal of Honor," he added.
Hunter wrote President Obama in January to urge a thorough examination of the military's review processes for battlefield awards. His questioning of Casey on the subject Thursday punctuated an otherwise routine hearing on the Army's 2010 budget plan.
Casey and Army Secretary Pete Geren said that the $142.2 billion proposal provides enough money to continue the Army's recovery from strains imposed by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
By early next year, the service will end its use of "stop-loss" provisions that allow it to retain troops beyond the expiration of their enlistment contracts, Casey said. The Army is on course to lengthen "dwell times" -- the intervals between overseas deployments -- so that by next year troops returning to the United States will spend at least twice as long at their home posts as they spent deployed.
Casey said Army leaders are rethinking plans for a new series of manned combat vehicles in the wake of the Obama administration's decision to cancel development of an $87 billion vehicle program that was part of the service's planned Future Combat Systems.
A new vehicle "concept" should be developed by Labor Day, Casey said.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced termination of the vehicle portion of the $160 billion FCS last month, saying he wasn't convinced that the Army's designs had incorporated lessons learned from successful attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan on the Army's current personnel carriers.
Duncan Hunter is one of the best. Who was his Dad?
The man who should be President now.
the Army’s recovery from strains imposed by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. <<<
Leave them boys alone......
Let them sing their songs.........
Must have been because of beliefs...
But I don't see that happening anymore..the numbers I mean.
(other then that....MOTT was cool..as we knew it...*W*)
It costs 20,000 dollars for every Medal of Honor that they give out every year for the rest of the “honored” life. They receive 1200 dollars a month forever after they receive it. I think it might be a cost reason why they are not giving them to living people. We don’t have the money in the military yet and we have not even had an Obama budget yet. They are not mentioning this as a reason, but I bet it is. It is too embarassing to use this as a reason but the truth hurts.
“The U.S. military appears to have toughened its standards for bestowing the Medal of Honor”
Well, that may be. The rate of award has gone all over, from too many (civil war) to some saying too few (now). I don’t know that it should be based on a quota system either.
What isn’t discussed, by the Congressman, is that this award is also called the “Congressional Medal of Honor”. There are two avenues for awarding it. One is through the chain of command in the military, and the second is by an act of Congress. That’s right, the congressman, that is squawkin’ about too few being awarded by the military, can actually vote on awarding them directly. If there are not enough of these awards coming up through the military, what’s stopping Congress from doing it themselves (they can do it)? If Hunter thinks it’s such a problem, he should simply take it upon himself to ramrod these awards from the legislative side. Seems to make more sense than harassing a military that has a war to fight.
One do wonder.
How about some evidence for your "embarrassing" claim. You labelled it as "truth", where is the evidence?
It was a much larger engagement. The Union lost about 100 tomes more troops in the same period of time
...I have to say, I’ve noticed that few of our servicemen seem to receive recognition of the kind we frequently saw during Vietnam, etc., the kind of White House ceremonies, etc. Either they are not publicized as the used to be, or DDH is right, and they’ve become stingy.
“Above and beyond the call of duty” is a very high standard to meet. In order to qualify, the deed under consideration must not only have been done spontaneously, without orders of any sort, but of a nature such that the awardee could not have been blamed for refraining from doing it.
What usually gets a MOH recommendation turned down is the without orders part. Doing your job, however heroically, isn’t enough.
In the civil war it was the main award for bravery. Same in the indian wars. In the modern era, WWI forward, standards have tightened. But its very fair to say what he did. Since Vietnam, it is almost never awarded.
I think its fair to say that the current senior officer staff has become unreasonable in its awarding. Fits well with the way they generally betray the troops these days.
I think we have a winner. I didnt know there was a lifetime cash payment.
I also think there is a culture among the combat deprived upper echelons to see the MOH as a quasi-religious award, only to be bestowed upon perfect, lucid, deliberate suicidal actions of special forces types. It was intended to award bravery beyond the call, which would likely result in death.
A lot of regular grunts and Tankers earned it. But they won’t get it. I think politics enters in too. They dont want us to have heroes, and they dont want to overglorify the fighting. That might inflame arab sensibilities, cant have that!
Better for Hunter to straighten out General officers who rose up during the Clinton post-tailhook era. Bravery is clearly not being rewarded as deserved, ask any grunt.
But those Legion of merit officer medals and admin-style bronze stars sure get awarded with regularity.
How on earth can he possibly prove that? Its a reasonable idea to kick around as a possible reason. Thats not exactly the kind of thing discussed in a DOD memo. Motivations of that sort usually remain unknown. Its pretty well known that they didnt like giving them out to blacks in WWII. Thats not in memo form either, but was very real when comparing the end product.
Thats a good point. But if that was the only problem, we should be seeing the awarding of Navy Crosses, Siver Stars, and other very high awards.
They are too rare. While unjustly awarded medals are wrong. It is just as wrong for our modern Officer corps to refuse to award decorations when they are fully deserved.
CMOH awardees are also exempt from federal income tax, and ALL other soldiers (including officers) have to salute them - if they are still in uniform ...
I didn't ask that it be proved, I demanded some evidence, there is a big difference, you have to have something to base that accusation on.
" Its pretty well known that they didnt like giving them out to blacks in WWII."
I would like to see some evidence on that too.
B4DDH
There is no such animal as a “Congressional Medal of Honor”. That is a myth. It is a Medal of Honor, and each service has their own design.
There is no such creature as “CMOH” or “Congressional Medal of Honor”. It is simply Medal of Honor, and each service has its own design. It is true that Medal of Honor recipients are entitled to a hand salute, regardless of rank, among other military courtesies.
There is no such animal as a “Congressional Medal of Honor”. That is a myth.
All Medals of Honor are given on behalf of Congress.
It is, therefore, perfectly proper to call it the Congressional Medal of Honor.
From the site you posted, it is clear that the Medal of Honor was created by Congress and is always given on behalf of Congress. It is not a “military” Medal of Honor nor is it a “presidential” Medal of Honor. Congressional Medal of Honor is accurate and appropriate.
Which is a mistake.
It's the Medal of Honor not the Congressional(sic) Medal of Honor.
Only by the ignorant. You'll note that the certificate refers to the award as the Medal of Honor not the Congressional(sic) Medal of Honor. The Medal of Honor is presented by the President in the name of Congress, it is not the Congressional(sic) Medal of Honor.
In addition to these, Lance Corporal Matthew Croucher GC, Captain Peter Norton GC and Trooper Christopher Finney GC, have survived earning the George Cross, which is considered a decoration requiring equivalent courage, along with a posthumous award to Corporal Mark Wright GC.
The Commonwealth of Nations has bestowed its highest decorations for Valour and Gallantry to six living recipients during the current war, despite much smaller troop commitments than those of the US. There does seem to be something out of balance going on with regards to awards of the Medal of Honour. Having read all the citations for Victoria Cross and George Cross awards, I do not believe the standard of heroism of these awards has been diminished which serves to support the idea that the United States is bestowing the Medal of Honour on different standards to those of the past.
I totally agree with you. I saw it myself in Iraq many times. The argument was, "Yes, it was outstanding work in terribly dangerous conditions, but it was his job."
When my unit first went to Iraq, the senior leadership of the BDE thought that there was more than enough outstanding work to get Platoon Sergeants and up a Bronze Star. The commanding general of the AO agreed that PSGs should probably get it, but, "No damn lieutenant is going to get a Bronze Star."
Makes you all warm inside.
So what makes him right on this and the generals wrong?
I'm willing to bet that the number of soldiers that served in Vietnam is in the millions whereas the number of troops that have served in Afghanastan is in the thousands. Therefore, I would expect a significantly larger number of MOH awards for service during the Vietnam War.
I agree with your points. The Victoria Cross is for all practical purposes the equivilent of the Medal of Honor.
By the ratio above, even correcting for the factors that half of the VCs have gone to special operations troops, the US still should have awarded 4 or 5 Medals of Honor for the current war.
Right, those ignorant dopes like President Eisenhower who signed legislation creating the “Congressional Medal of Honor Society” and the ignorant Medal of Honor recipients that belong to the “Congressional Medal of Honor Society”.
Sheesh.
“There is no such animal as a “Congressional Medal of Honor”. That is a myth. It is a Medal of Honor, and each service has their own design.”
This is a distinction without a difference, and you know it. It is called the Congressional Medal of Honor or the Medal of Honor, and that is a simple fact (Congressional Medal of Honor Society). The names refer to the same award and are commonly used to describe it. Do not be so bound up in minutiae that you lose sight of the points of the discussion. It marginalizes your point, if indeed you were contributing anything of worth to the conversation at hand.
I’ve no reason to disagree with you. My point was that it is passing strange that a congressman (who has the ability to vote on, and award the CMOH/MOH directly from Congress) does not seem to be “lighting a candle” if he perceives there is an injustice occurring. The rather pregnant point is, Congress has the power to award these directly. Since that is a stone cold fact, why isn’t Hunter introducing legislation to correct the problem instead of “grandstanding”? Now, perhaps there is not a will within Congress to do such a thing. If that is the case (and I don’t know that it is), an increase in these awards might be viewed as politically incorrect within the military as well. Unfortunately, there are those that are more concerned about appearing PC, than doing the appropriate thing for their subordinates.
If Congress thinks there are not enough CMOH/MOH’s awarded by the military, they can and should fix it themselves by using the legislative authority they have under an act of Congress. Again, light a candle instead of whining about it.
Nothing, if you are as ignorant as you are.
In one instance, he has tried mightily to do so.
You never were any good at answering questions, were you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.