I was just going to mention SGM Kasal and I saw your post.
Posted on 07/07/2009 5:18:01 PM PDT by pissant
Over the last seven years of combat operations in the War on Terrorism, more than a million brave servicemen and women have faithfully served in Afghanistan and Iraq. Nearly 5,000 have died; thousands of others bear the scars of war. All of them, regardless of their individual experience or contribution, were exposed to some level of risk.
For those soldiers and Marines on the front lines, many of whom carried the brunt of the security responsibility in Iraq or continue to lead the fight in Afghanistan, dangerous confrontations with the enemy are a daily occurrence. While many have been recognized for their heroism, others have not. Thousands of combat citations have been presented to these heroes but, among these well-deserving individuals, only five have received the Medal of Honor - each one awarded posthumously.
The Medal of Honor is our nation's highest military award for combat heroism. It has been awarded to both surviving and deceased servicemembers since 1863. In World Wars I and II, as well as Vietnam, more than half of the Medals of Honor awarded went to living recipients. After three years of fighting in the Korean War, 133 medals were awarded to surviving service personnel.
The five recipients of the Medal of Honor in Iraq and Afghanistan are all worthy, without question. However, the fact that there has not been one living recipient from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrates that a new standard - whereby action worthy of the Medal of Honor must result in death - has been created.
Earlier this year, I wrote to President Barack Obama about the lack of living Medal of Honor recipients. My letter not only reflected the viewpoint of a newly elected member of Congress but also a Marine combat veteran of both wars. Specifically, I questioned the apparent inconsistent criteria for determining award recipients.
The response to that letter, written by Acting Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Gail McGinn, suggested that electronic warfare might be the reason why so few Medals of Honor have been awarded for service in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, including none to a living recipient. "Technological advancements have dramatically changed battlefield tactics, techniques and procedures. Precision-guided, stand-off weapons allow our forces to destroy known enemy positions with reduced personnel risk," according to McGinn. These factors, she goes on to say, "could reasonably explain the smaller number of Medal of Honor nominations by the Military Departments."
I couldn't disagree more with this reasoning. It's true that some aspects of warfare have changed in recent years but troops continue to move from house to house, street to street, village to village in order to take ground from the enemy. These actions - like they were in World Wars I and II, Korea or Vietnam - are no different today.
Most certainly, there have been actions performed by surviving service personnel that are consistent with the tradition of the Medal of Honor. Individuals such as Marine Corps Capt. Brian Chontosh and Sgt. Maj. Bradley Kasal - both of whom were awarded the Navy Cross - are worthy candidates. Others demonstrated similar acts of heroism and, like Chontosh and Kasal, deserve to be considered for our nation's highest military honor.
There have also been several cases were posthumous recommendations have been downgraded at the final stages of the review process. The most notable involves Marine Corps Sgt. Rafael Peralta, who was killed in Iraq when he absorbed a grenade blast with his body, saving the lives of his fellow Marines. Peralta received the Navy Cross despite being recommended for the Medal of Honor by his chain of command.
That decision was reached by an independent review panel composed of two pathologists, a neurosurgeon and several other so-called "experts." The panel determined that Sgt. Peralta could not have consciously performed the actions witnessed by those Marines at his side and acknowledged by Marine Corps leadership.
Altogether, these inconsistencies prompted me to offer an amendment to the 2010 Defense Authorization Act that directs the secretary of Defense to review the Medal of Honor award process and report to Congress by early next year. This amendment, which was accepted during consideration of the legislation by the House Armed Services Committee, is an important first step in the effort to ensure American servicemembers who perform extraordinary and often unexplainable acts of bravery are rightly recognized for their actions.
The stories of Medal of Honor winners continue to inspire millions of Americans. They define the meaning of selflessness. They serve to strengthen the history and tradition of our military, calling others to service and reminding us all that freedom comes at an extraordinary cost. For these reasons alone, it is important that the combat heroism represented by the Medal of Honor is preserved for future generations.
Rep. Duncan Hunter, a California Republican, serves on the House Armed Services Committee.
B U M P
Another good man.
As for dad, he could benefit from some of Sarah Palin’s notoriety and she could benefit from his experience. They should appear together to support conservative candidates.
There is a Navy Corpsman sitting next to me at the moment that pulled four of his Marine buddies from a burning Hummer in Ramadi. Saved ALL of them and then return and killed three terrorist trying to capture a NYTimes reporter, one in hand to hand where he dispatched the terrorist with his knife. All while having a shrapnel wound that nearly cut his calf in half and a broken elbow. The Navy gave him a Purple Heart. Guess what - he is not bitter and would do it all over again.
His message to all FReepers - Semper Fi.
>>The stories of Medal of Honor winners continue to inspire millions of Americans. They define the meaning of selflessness. They serve to strengthen the history and tradition of our military, calling others to service and reminding us all that freedom comes at an extraordinary cost.
That answers the question why. These are qualities that are the polar opposite of the “qualities” possessed by most of Congress and the DC bureaucracy.
I’ve seen enough stories of extreme bravery to agree.
Duncan Hunter for President! No affirmative action candidates (who all want more money for big government social programs and public education in their states), no free traitor candidates, no compromises...just Duncan Hunter!
BUMP
Sounds about right.
I’ve wondered about this. There has to be a number of worthy, living recipient candidates. But the standard should be maintained that the action cited was under the risk of imminent death and selfless disregard for that risk in order to accomplish a mission or save another life.
We don’t want Medals of Honors awarded under affirmative-action or sympathy or cronysm or anything other than pure heroism and selflesness.
There has been lots of heroism at the risk of death in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some very fierce fighting has taken place.
Yes, Sir, I agree. I’m just saying that “heroism at the risk of death” should be the only consideration.
For example, I don’t necessarily agree that General Douglas MacArthur or Colonel Theodore Roosevelt - great Americans as they were - should have gotten the Medal of Honor.
They are worthy of many honors, but not just this one.
SGT Peralta, SGM Kasal (USMC) and SSG Bellavia (USA) are clear examples of worthy recipient-candidates. I’m sure there are many others that held the line and were not barking orders from just behind the line.
Another worthy living candidate is Major Richard Winters (WWII). I don’t know what happened there, but he’s the classic hero.
We have a homegrown hero from Korea, SGT Modesto Cartagena, who’s also worth taking another look.
I’m sure that there are many others. But again, they must have “seen the elephant” and conquered it.
I’m just saying.
“But the standard should be maintained that the action cited was under the risk of imminent death and selfless disregard for that risk in order to accomplish a mission or save another life”
Even by that standard we have been stingy.
The UK, Austrailia and New Zealand have combined awarded 5 Victoria Crosses (3 Living, 2 posthumous), an award whose standards are the equal of the Medal of Honor. In addition, the UK has awarded 5 George Crosses (same standard as the VC, except not under fire).
Given the ratio of troops alone, we should have several more Medal of Honor awards.
Any combat veterans on that panel?
It’s been said (and I agree) that the Medal of Honor has become a de facto posthumous-only award and that’s a big, big mistake.
That is one tough Corpsman!
He is one of the toughest guys I know. We go hunting together and he is like a terminator. Dude never gets tired or slows down. He has trained with Marines almost his whole career and has even done a round at the Mountain Warfare Center in the Sierras. Just back from Afghanistan for the second time and loves playing in the mountains there.
Good for him. I was interested in the ‘medic and hand to hand ‘ inthe same para. THe stuff of SOF magazine stories.
May the good Lord continue to protect him in his good work.
I was just going to mention SGM Kasal and I saw your post.
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.