Military awards system broken

[dick thompson]

Thursday, March 26, 2009 The military awards system is broken  Why has the GWOT not produced a living Medal of Honor recipient? Although numbers don’t tell the whole story, America’s 20th-century wars produced highly consistent rates of Medal of Honor heroism. From World War I through Vietnam, the rate of Medal of Honor recipients per 100,000 service members stayed between 2.3 (Korea) and 2.9 (World War II). But since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, only five Medals of Honor have been awarded, a rate of 0.1 per 100,000 — one in a million. A similar disparity occurs on the second tier of valor awards: Distinguished Service Cross, Navy Cross and Air Force Cross. Throughout the 20th century, the rate of service cross recipients per 100,000 troops ranged from a low of 19 in Korea to a high of 167 in World War I. But for the post-9/11 wars, it’s only one per 100,000. Why? Well, apparently, it's not a war. It's an Overseas Contingency Operation. And we're not fighting terrorists, anyway, but Man-Made Disaster Facilitators. Splash, out Jason Labels: soldiers' issues, War on Terror [CLICK HERE TO ENTER THE NET] posted by Jason : 11:13 EST, Thursday, March 26, 2009 5 transmissions this net Comments: Actually, I think the problem is more reflective of the yawning gap between civilians and the military. The lack of understanding and appreciation of the job the military performs coupled with the overload of over-the-top movies and video games has lead to a generation that deems the incredible actions of the "bravest of the brave" as nothing more than to be expected. In other words, you guys are supposed to fall on grenades or take sniper fire for your fellow soldiers/marines because that's what they do in the movies. And aren't the movies based on real life? Seriously. I've actually heard that from people. # posted by  tankerswife : 12:03 PM   <<“I think we’re going to see more Medals of Honor,” he said. “I think [President Barack] Obama will push it.”>> If the president (any president) is pushing for it, that's politicizing the award and will call into question why anyone receives it under his watch. It's best for the president to remain above this fray so recipients don't have their valor questioned due to inappropriate 'command influence'. BTW, Tankerswife, well said. LTC D. # posted by  Anonymous : 5:25 PM   I think this also dishonors those who were the recipients of and witnesses to the heroism of their comrade. Without clear and convincing evidence that the witnesses were lying, we have no business running a CSI forensic investigation to determine the exact nature of the wound of someone who jumped on a grenade. Heroism will not be served by xrays and blood spatter projections, but rather by the testimony of those who owe their lives to this man. Having read the accounts of Army Sgt. Cashe, and Marine Sgt. Peralta, I am astounded that neither was awarded the MOH. It's as if staffers at the Pentagon are saying "You gave your life to save others,...but, sorry, we need more." Mark L. # posted by  Anonymous : 6:59 PM   I wonder what Hack would say. # posted by  Jason : 11:44 PM   The real question is how many have been nominated? # posted by  ParatrooperJJ : 7:33 AM