Posted on 06/02/2005 2:00:14 PM PDT by Axhandle
I read today that the Army is now going to hand out the new "Combat Action" Badge. It was designed similarly to the Combat Infantryman's Badge. The Combat Infantryman's Badge has a musket with a wreath around it. The Combat Action Badge has a similar wreath, but it has a bayonet and a hand grenade in place of the musket. The Army is apparently still trying to hammer out the exact criteria for the new badge. Here is my recommendation: nobody.
This kind of reminds me of the Army's decision to make the black beret part of our uniform. It was once a symbol of excellence, when it was worn by the Soldiers of the 75th Ranger Regiment (and a handful of others). The thinking went that if we give all Soldiers a symbol of excellence to wear, then it will impact their performance - they will feel excellent and thus strive to achieve excellence. Yeah, okay. Another few million dollars well spent.
Now that we are at war, things have changed. Now everybody covets combat badges and combat patches. When this war began, we kind of paused to reflect when the Combat Infantryman's Badge was handed out to just any infantryman who happened to be in theater. It seemed to detract from those who actually fought and earned it. Blanket awards were handed out to entire units, rather than to individuals. The same was true of combat patches. You did not need to leave Kuwait, in order to get a combat patch. Any Military Occupational Specialty is eligible for a combat patch, if deployed in support of a war. People who never set foot in Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom were awarded combat patches. One would think that the patch is for those who were at least in harm's way. Apparently not.
With so many people wearing combat patches and Combat Infantryman's Badges, many of dubious merit, the entitlement mentality was allowed to fester. So many people had the awards and many, if not most, did not really need to do anything to earn them short of "being there." Most Soldiers have been to Kuwait, Iraq or Afghanistan since 2001, so most Soldiers have combat patches. Now, they want more. They want a badge, like the infantrymen who patrol cities and close with and destroy the enemy with direct fire. This entitlement is justified by pointing out that there are no front lines anymore, that all Soldiers are subject to danger or enemy fire, and that Soldiers other than infantrymen are fighting the enemy. Well, there are no "front lines" anymore, but there are certainly areas that more dangerous than others and there are certainly big differences in the roles of combat arms versus combat support and combat service support. Cities are more dangerous than supply routes. Whereas all units on supply routes are "in harms way" and may be hit with an IED (Improvised Explosive Device) or small arms fire at some point in their tour, every unit in certain cities can expect to engage in direct fire with the enemy regularly, if not everyday. More importantly, whereas units on supply routes just drive away when they make contact, it is the duty of units fighting in cities to close with and destroy or capture the enemy.
By lowering standards for award of the Combat Infantryman's Badge and combat patches, there is no longer any expectation of performing satisfactorily under direct enemy fire or even in harms way. Everybody thinks that they must simply show up to a certain area, for a minimum amount of time, and then get their award given to them. Some will justify their eligibility by pointing out that they have been on a convoy that was hit with an IED or received some small arms fire. According to the regulation governing awards, one must actually return fire to earn a Combat Infantryman's Badge. The standard battle drill of a logistics convoy is to simply account for everybody and speed away.
Had standards been enforced from the beginning, then only those who have engaged the enemy in direct fire would be wearing Combat Infantryman's Badges and only those who had served in harms way would be wearing combat patches. Now, everybody wants to plaster their uniform with awards that mean nothing. Does this bother me because it detracts from my awards? Hardly. My reward will be returning home with all of the Soldiers in my company, all of us unscathed, should that day ever come. I could not care less about my Combat Infantryman's Badge or combat patch or the other worthless ribbons and medals that I have been given. What does bother me is that we are actively promoting a mindset of entitlement for Soldiers.
Just to clarify, we only have three entitlements: the best training, best equipment and best leadership that the Army can provide. That is it. Awards are, by definition, not entitlements. But we are working hard to blur that distinction. Awards are for sacrifice and excellence. That is changing quickly. The blanket awards and loose criteria for the Combat Infantryman's Badge and for combat patches were a big step in the wrong direction. Awarding Purple Hearts for questionable wounds was another bad move. Everybody and his mother being awarded Bronze Star Medals for whatever was yet another bad move. If everybody has achieved excellence, if there are no average achievers, then perhaps we should be raising standards for achievement and sacrifice, rather than lowering them. Aside from the fact that Soldiers do not need to contribute anything to the Army or the mission in order to get awards, they can now be mediocre performers and do so in good conscience, because they continue to be given awards that signify excellence and sacrifice, regardless of their performance.
I hope that this new badge has some strict criteria regarding excellence or sacrifice. This will set the tone for the rest of this mission, in terms of Soldiers' expectations for performance in harms way. Hopefully, it sends the message that our expectations are higher. Unfortunately, the fact that this new award is even deemed necessary sends the opposite message. If we want to give proper recognition to Soldiers, then a much easier way would be to enforce higher standards for the awards that they are currently given. Make Soldiers earn awards and they will be proud of their achievements and they will be distinguished from the average performers. Blurring the distinction between excellence and average will not make everyone excellent. It will only foster mediocrity.
The thinking went that if we give all Soldiers a symbol of excellence to wear, then it will impact their performance - they will feel excellent and thus strive to achieve excellence.
That's absurd. It's like giving A's to all students to inspire them to study, or awarding a batter third base to inspire his swing.
I expected this from Clinton, and am disappointed that Rumsfeld would pull this kind of feel-good stunt.
It does, indeed.
As I head into theater this month, the talk in the tent cities is about this subject.
Most of us don't give a hang about the new awards. We despised the Lewinsky hats. And we also know there are a bunch of goofballs who jet into theater, stay for the requisite 60 days, and leave with a "pain patch".
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.