Photo: Marine Capt. Duncan Hunter in Iraq. Credit: Hunter family
Posted on 01/31/2009 8:47:23 PM PST by pissant
One of the mysteries of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan involves the Medal of Honor, the nation's highest commendation for bravery.
Why have there been so few awards (four for Iraq and one for Afghanistan)? And why have all five been posthumous? In World War II, the posthumous figure for Medals of Honor was 57% and in Vietnam 38%.
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Alpine), who served in Iraq and Afghanistan as a Marine officer, sent a letter this week to President Obama asking for a "thorough examination" of the Medal of Honor selection process.
"I am concerned that either knowingly or inadvertently, the Medal of Honor awards process is becoming biased to only acts of valor that result in the death of the service member," Hunter wrote.
". . . The selflessness and combat heroism that is represented by the Medal of Honor must be preserved for future generations."
(Excerpt) Read more at latimesblogs.latimes.com ...
Photo: Marine Capt. Duncan Hunter in Iraq. Credit: Hunter family
ping
Duncan makes a good point.
Our country could really use a shole lot more like Congressman Hunter!
Whole lot more.
Hunter was my man in the Primary
Why would President Obama even seriously care about this? President Obama, along with the rest of his administration, is too busy forever ruining the entire country by turning it into a third world socialistic country. President Obama is also getting comfy with America’s enemies, while also attacking all of its friends, both inside the U.S. and out. What a never ending “mess” that President Obama is seriously creating for everybody!
Mine too.
ping
We’re in a very exclusive group (only 58 others in my whole county)
...’cause they are rarely awarded to HQ soldiers? Or are they? ;-)
1st. Lieutenant Brian Chintosh USMC
Hussein doesn’t care. Even though Capt Hunter’s heart is in a very good place to watch out for our fallen soldiers. The Hunters are a great American family.
After being shot six times in the leg and foot, 1st Sgt Brad Kasal jumped on another wounded Marine to shield him from the blast of a hand grenade, absorbing over sixty grenade fragments in the process, yet he still stayed on guard over his comrade until help arrived.
Accidentally shot in the back of the head by a fellow Marine, Corporal Rafael Peralta was lying on the ground when an enemy grenade rolled into the room. Reaching out, Peralta snagged the grenade and rolled on top of it, shielding his fellow Marines from the blast.
On September 17, 2008, Rafael Peralta's family was notified by LtGen. Richard Natonski that he would not receive the Medal of Honor, but the Navy Cross instead, the service's second highest award for valor. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates rejected the Marine Corps' recommendation, concluding that his appointed panel unanimously confirmed that his actions did not meet the standard of "without any possibility of error or doubt". The central argument posed relates to whether the already mortally-wounded Peralta could have intentionally reached for a grenade, shielding his fellow Marines from the blast. In a Marine Corps investigation of the attack, Natonski said, "I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt" that the gravely wounded Peralta covered the grenade. Since the announcement that Peralta would receive the Navy Cross instead of the Medal of Honor, numerous groups and individuals have spoken out in support of the Medal of Honor for Peralta. The Congressional delegations from California and Hawaii, as well as the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, have requested a Presidential review of Gates' decision against a Medal of Honor award. Although rebuked, efforts continue for elevation of the awarding.
I have mixed feelings about this...And my comments are in no way intended to insult or degrade the seriousness of this subject...
Anyone who joins the armed services these days is a volunteer...That type of person, for whatever reasons does so willingly and with a full understanding that we are at war, and are actively pursuing efforts to take the fight to the enemy and draw them to us in places far away from our daily lives here within our borders...
As for the actions of a servicemember, I do not believe anyone goes out thinking that if the situation arises that they will be thinking of what kind or level of decoration they would recieve if they perform some act of bravery or sacrifice above and beying the call of duty...
There is already a deep apreciation from our citizens and from those who have served before, knowing what bravery is, and the sacrifices they and their families make everyday they are out there protecting us...Most of it goes unsaid...
I may be wrong in my assumption, and I welcome any correction to my point that I do not believe it is important to dissiminate the ratio of living Medal of Honor recipients to the deceased recipients...
The criteria and process to determine a potential recipient is a good one, but it is a tough decision to make for those who are put into that process...It is not taken lightly, and it is humbling for every single person involved in that process, and not just for the person who could receive the decoration...
I have a tremendous amount of respect for Duncan Hunter, but of this one I would have to ask some tough questions as to why do we need to be concerned as to why there are no living recent recipients of this award in our current conflicts???
If the majority of people knew what military courtesies are required to be extended to recipients of this award, you would understand a small part of how humbling the experience is...
Like I said, I do not have a real problem with Mr. Hunter, it is just that I believe we have bigger fish to fry, than to whip an issue like this up...
Just my opinion...
The Medal Of Honor seems to have had various award rates, depending on what conflict was being fought. During the Civil War, there were around 1,527 awarded (more awarded in that war than any other by a long shot) with 32 being posthumous. World War I resulted in 124 awards with 33 posthumous. World War II had only 465 awarded with 266 posthumous.
Interestingly enough, a board of review was formed in 1916 to review the medals awarded up to that time. Of the 2,625 medals awarded, 911 (approximately a third were rescinded). The board also removed Buffalo Bill Cody’s medal, which was awarded to him as a civilian.
Congress awarded a special medal of honor to Charles Lingbergh for his flight across the Atlantic. Historically, one does not have to have been in the military to receive the medal.
You can see that the posthumous rate is rather all over the place as far as percentages are concerned. I was unable to find any reference in the current guidelines. Being killed in action does not seem to be a qualification, or disqualification, for the medal. However, putting your life at risk is required. Personally, I’m not sure what Hunter’s point is. Is he saying that there should be more awards? Should it be based on the individual surviving the action, versus being KIA (seems like that is his point)?
Given that there have been so few medals awarded recently (one in Afghanistan and four in Iraq), it would be difficult to attach any statistical significance to whether someone lived or died leading up to receiving the award.
This is his son.
They too would be dead...
In their situations - no one lived to report the heroism....
The investigation that is REALLY needed, it to look into the preponderance of medals of all types awarded to officers — especially officers “fondly” known as REMF. One would be shocked at the criminality in that area.. A number of our Congress Critters hold highly suspect decorations...
Rear Echelon Mother F*****?????
Exactly.
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.