Posted on 02/12/2005 5:47:14 PM PST by neverdem
WASHINGTON, Feb. 12 - Army troops assigned to combat units that come under fire will be eligible for a new badge that recognizes their efforts separately from ribbons for all who serve in Iraq or Afghanistan or who support the Pentagon's antiterrorism missions based in the United States, a senior Army official said Saturday.
The new medal, called the Close Combat Badge, was unveiled to a private conference of four-star generals convened in Washington this weekend by Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, the senior official said.
Army and Pentagon officials discussed the badge on the condition that they not be identified by name.
The badge was requested by field commanders and reflects their desire to distinguish the efforts of soldiers whose units are "organized to routinely conduct close combat operations and engage in direct combat," the Army official said.
Previous decisions that created ribbons to honor military efforts in the Bush administration's global campaign against terrorism have been harshly criticized by members of Congress, veterans and even some current service members.
The Army officer said on Saturday that the new badge was, at least in part, meant to answer some of those concerns.
The first military honor created after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, was called the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, and frustrated some in uniform who wanted ribbons that were awarded for specific deployments in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Some leading members of Congress, in fact, accused the Bush administration of creating one generic medal to ensure that the effort to topple Saddam Hussein of Iraq would be viewed as part of the larger antiterror campaign. That effort began with the war to unseat the Taliban government in Afghanistan and rout leaders of Al Qaeda there.
Last May, legislation creating separate campaign medals for Iraq and for Afghanistan was approved by Congress, but even the new ribbons did not differentiate between front-line combat troops and those assigned to support missions.
"The previous ribbons are awarded for service - for just being physically in the theater of operations," said a Pentagon official. "There is a ribbon now for being in Afghanistan or Iraq, and also a ribbon awarded for those based in the United States who support the mission."
In contrast, the Close Combat Badge "will be presented only to eligible soldiers who are personally present and under fire while engaged in active ground combat," the Army official said.
It will not be given to members of support units attacked while performing their missions, even though supply convoys have been a regular target of the insurgency in Iraq.
In particular, the badge will be for soldiers who serve with armored, cavalry, combat engineering and field artillery units at the brigade size or smaller that come under attack and "close with and destroy the enemy with direct fires," the Army official said.
While the Army has the authority to approve and issue the badge on its own, senior Army officers were notifying members of Congress on Saturday of the decision to issue the award to combat troops.
Not only that, but it distinguishes between the trooper on guard duty who comes under fire, and the trooper who goes after the bad guys.
Actually, the reg was for 6 months in a free-fire area. However, with the short durations of Power-Pack, Urgent Fury, Just Cause & Desert Shield, the 6 months was waived by Congress.
Not only that, but it distinguishes between the trooper on guard duty who comes under fire, and the trooper who goes after the bad guys.
All this fuss is why I like the Marines way of awarding medals and ribbons---you don't get jack unless you really do something--and even then you might not get it!
I submit that being caught in the kill zone of an ambush and fighting your way out of it is as close combat as you can get. The bad guys and their bullets don't give a damn if your a grunt, a cook or a mechanic, but our Army leadership does?.
Why should the Army come up with a close combat badge with specific criteria for earning it, then make a blanket discriminator that it's only eligible to those who serve in combat arms units? What happens when a female truck driver assigned to the FSC of a combat arms battalion gets caught up in a close combat situation? Is she more deserving now than her male counterpart in a truck company of a transportation battalion caught in similar circumstance? This has all the makings of the Army shooting itself in the foot at a time when it can ill afford to.
How about a badge, medal or ribbon for spouses, parents and children?
http://citizenshelpingheroes.org
Thats right.....MACV itself was very small, but many many thousands of Vn Vets wear/wore it after serving there. Come to think of it, the same was so for USARV.
A combat patch, combat hash marks, and combat theatre service/campaign ribbons are sufficient. We don't need a medal in addition to all of those!
"I submit that being caught in the kill zone of an ambush and fighting your way out of it is as close combat as you can get."
I agree and would suggest that the individuals who established the criteria for this award be given an option of riding from Baghdad to Fallugia in an M1A1 Abrams or a 5 ton S&P.
There is one medal that always commands repect, the "Combat Infantryman's Badge"
http://www.3ad.org/desertstorm/awards_badges/combat_badges/badge_cib.gif
In my day, ONLY guys with an Infantry (Primary) MOS (11 B etc.) could get a CIB.
Always kind of made me jealous that because I was Commo, I couldn't get one, even though I did all the same stuff the 11s did PLUS having additional responsibilities.
The Army has so many new ribbons I can't keep up. A couple of years ago I hired a guy who's wife had his ribbons mounted in a shadow box. I asked what one was and he says it's for serving over seas ........ in Hawaii!!!
how long will it be until they establish a ribbon for not "telling", LOL?
I always considered close combat to involve hand-to-hand.
I failed to use the sarcasm tag. I would not minimize the risks that truck drivers have faced in Iraq, however. From accounts, we have had a significant number of casualties from roadside IEDs and conventional attacks on convoys. Given a choice, I would ride in a Bradley rather than the cab of a 5 ton truck.
I guess the USN/USMC CAR (Combat Action Ribbon) isn't shiney enough for the Army?
Does this mean the NAV will start to issue Brown shoe/ Black shoe/Bluewater/Gator/Brownwater/USMC/???? versions of the CAR now?
Jes curious.
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.
