Too Many Medals Bestowed in Iraq?

[Kodiak]

MSNBC Web Article

From the article: "More than 69,000 awards and other honors have been handed out by the Air Force for the Iraq war, according to Air Force Capt. Richard Johnson. The list also includes four Air Force Crosses, one step below the Medal of Honor, plus 21 Silver Stars and over 1,900 Bronze Stars.

The Army trails just behind with 40,000 medals issued and approved, including 111 Silver Stars and more than 13,000 Bronze Stars.

“It’s absolutely outrageous,” says retired Army Col. David Hackworth..."


I agree that too many medals are being awarded too easily.

[Segnosaur]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kodiak
I agree that too many medals are being awarded too easily.

I remember hearing (many years ago) that more medals were given for the invasion of Grenada than soldiers who actually invaded the island.

Not sure of the validity of the site, but I did come across the following: http://www.couplescompany.com/Featur.../metalgate.htm

[mummymonkey]

That doesn't surprise me.
I served for 9 years in the RAF; including tours of The Falkland Islands (1985) and Operation Pulsator (Lebanon). I received exactly the number of medals I deserved. (Bugger all)
A standing joke was that US personnel were awarded medals for going without relish on their burgers.
US medals are not held in high regard. That is a shame, there are a great many US personnel who have carried out heroic acts and have been awarded medals which are devalued.

[Cain]

There's no stopping the self-esteem movement.

[pgwenthold]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kodiak
MSNBC Web Article

From the article: "More than 69,000 awards and other honors have been handed out by the Air Force for the Iraq war, according to Air Force Capt. Richard Johnson. The list also includes four Air Force Crosses, one step below the Medal of Honor, plus 21 Silver Stars and over 1,900 Bronze Stars.

The Army trails just behind with 40,000 medals issued and approved, including 111 Silver Stars and more than 13,000 Bronze Stars.

“It’s absolutely outrageous,” says retired Army Col. David Hackworth..."


I agree that too many medals are being awarded too easily.

I hear the Pope is about to canonize a few of them.

[Kodiak]

Quote:

Originally posted by Cain
There's no stopping the self-esteem movement.

I wish you were wrong.

When was the standard of heroism redefined to include almost any action taken while in combat?

Soldier gets lost and is captured = Bronze Star?

Soldier falls out of chow truck and breaks leg = Purple Heart?

Airman successfully refuels 20 aircraft in a row = Bronze Star?

Pilot successfully carries out 50 bombing sorties under complete air superiority = Air Force Cross?

Guys in WWII flew scores of missions in severly contested skys and through dense AAA and never received this kind of official recognition and more importantly, they didn't think they deserved any special recognition for simply doing their jobs, let alone failing a mission (as when PFC Lynch was "medaled" for getting lost and captured).

[Garrette]

I don't know the cause of it, but the medal-environment has been crap my entire career in the military. Leaders give lip-service to giving awards for performance, but end up giving them out:

1. Because everyone should get something
2. On a hotly-denied but still obvious quota basis
3. Based on rank
4. Inconsistently

When a unit leaves, they make sure everyone gets something for 'service'. Bronze Star is standard now, and means nothing.

Just below Bronze Star is the Army Commendation Medal which is given out for specific accomplishments. In my unit, several people have gotten ARCOMs with V device (for Valor) which in itself is supposed to mean something but was basically given out because they came across some looters and fired warning shots.

Others, with no tactical sense at all, have gotten the same thing.

I argued for giving Bronze Stars with V device for two particular NCOs in my unit who provide security on patrol nearly every day and haven't fired a shot since they've been here. The reason is that they do it right, with all the right preparations and tactics, techniques, and procedures. They present the right kind of face so they avoid trouble before it starts. That's the best way. But because of that, they'll get little or no recognition.

111 Silver Stars? That appals me. Silver Stars should be rare. Extremely rare.

A Purple Heart for falling and breaking a leg? Are you sure? That incenses me, if true. Hell, I've been shot and I'm not getting a purple heart.

[a_unique_person]

Can I postulate a ROT.

The less worthy a war, the more medals will be handed out.

[corplinx]

Remember when they gave the entire army berets?

This didn't start recently though, even in vietnam there were "warm fuzzy" medals.

[LW]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kodiak

Guys in WWII flew scores of missions in severly contested skys and through dense AAA and never received this kind of official recognition and more importantly, they didn't think they deserved any special recognition for simply doing their jobs, let alone failing a mission (as when PFC Lynch was "medaled" for getting lost and captured).

Even then some of the medals probably went to persons who wouldn't have deserved them. There was a saying in Finland: "Rear area medals are like Russian bombs. They only hit the innocent."

[Crossbow]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kodiak
MSNBC Web Article

From the article: "More than 69,000 awards and other honors have been handed out by the Air Force for the Iraq war, according to Air Force Capt. Richard Johnson. The list also includes four Air Force Crosses, one step below the Medal of Honor, plus 21 Silver Stars and over 1,900 Bronze Stars.

The Army trails just behind with 40,000 medals issued and approved, including 111 Silver Stars and more than 13,000 Bronze Stars.

“It’s absolutely outrageous,” says retired Army Col. David Hackworth..."


I agree that too many medals are being awarded too easily.

Well, what did you expect?

They cannot afford to give pay raises.
They could not send people home at the end of war, which they originally promised to do.
Winning the war has not been nearly as easy as they said it would be.
It took a very long to find Saddam.
No WMDs have been found even though they originally said that they knew that there were vast numbers of them.
There is very little international support for the war, in spite of the protestations to the contrary.

They have to something to keep morale up, so the cheapest thing they can do is give out medals.

[Bottle or the Gun]

I think medals and service awards are getting confused. No one will confuse a Purple Heart with a service ribbon for being in Iraq. One is for being wounded in combat, the other is credit for being in the armed services during war-time. If someone is in combat and gets a Bronze Star, then no one else has anything to say about it.

I have several medals, the one I'm proudest of was recognition for stopping an arson on a building full of people. My other medals do not mean as much to me as that one.

[Kodiak]

Quote:

Originally posted by Crossbow


Well, what did you expect?

They cannot afford to give pay raises.
They could not send people home at the end of war, which they originally promised to do.
Winning the war has not been nearly as easy as they said it would be.
It took a very long to find Saddam.
No WMDs have been found even though they originally said that they knew that there were vast numbers of them.
There is very little international support for the war, in spite of the protestations to the contrary.

They have to something to keep morale up, so the cheapest thing they can do is give out medals.

I think your anti-war bias may be coloring your evaluation.

If what you're saying is true, then why didn't the same thing happen during the American Civil War, WWI, and WWII?

Pay has always been a soldier's gripe.
Soldiers had gotten homesick then too, and were forced to endure long tours. WWII lasted four years. How does that compare to Iraq?
Winning the Civil War, and both World Wars was easy!
We got Saddam in under a year.
Intelligence concerning WMD was wrong. This is peculiar because intelligence has always enjoyed 100% accuracy in the past.
International support has no affect on our sovereignty and does not determine whether a course of action is correct or wise. Let lesser countries govern by committee. Do you think the Shia and the Kurds care that the invasion of Iraq doesn't have the UN seal of approval??

[Hutch]

When it comes to medals, I am most reminded of an aynonmous quote from some GI in WW II:

"If blood was brown, we'd all have Purple Hearts"

Oftentimes, the simplest and earthiness is also the most eloquent.

I had two uncles, one a bombadier in a B-24 and the other a soldier in the Bulge, my Dad led convoys all over the Mideast to move Lend-Lease to the Russians. He got a Bronze Star, but I found that none of them ever wanted to talk much about the experience. And now two of them are gone, and one is in his 80's.

Sorry, this is probably off-topic, but reading this thread it was just something that came out.

[Bottle or the Gun]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kodiak
Soldiers had gotten homesick then too, and were forced to endure long tours. WWII lasted four years. How does that compare to Iraq?

Thinking the war in Iraq will be over in a matter of month's is typical video-game mentality. This is reality, not a Return to Castle Wolfenstein Clan-Match.

[LW]

Quote:

Originally posted by Hutch
He got a Bronze Star, but I found that none of them ever wanted to talk much about the experience.

My grandfather got Vapaudenmitali classes 1 and 2 ("Medal of Freedom"). He never spoke anything about his war experiences to anybody. One of his platoon mates told once (while drunk) how: "Jussi was always the first man in attack".

I tried to find the citations for the medals but I couldn't find them from the Finnish Military Arcives. From dates I have guessed that he got them from the attacks to "Mount Babylon" (a large hill near Rytty NW of Lake Ladoga) and to Lempaala in Karelian Isthmus.

[Crossbow]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kodiak


I think your anti-war bias may be coloring your evaluation.

If what you're saying is true, then why didn't the same thing happen during the American Civil War, WWI, and WWII?

Pay has always been a soldier's gripe.
Soldiers had gotten homesick then too, and were forced to endure long tours. WWII lasted four years. How does that compare to Iraq?
Winning the Civil War, and both World Wars was easy!
We got Saddam in under a year.
Intelligence concerning WMD was wrong. This is peculiar because intelligence has always enjoyed 100% accuracy in the past.
International support has no affect on our sovereignty and does not determine whether a course of action is correct or wise. Let lesser countries govern by committee. Do you think the Shia and the Kurds care that the invasion of Iraq doesn't have the UN seal of approval??

No, I do think that my anti-war stance is coloring my evaluation.

I would have to say that this war was the first war since Vietnam where the US went in with such an overpowering sense of confidence, and now that confidence has seriously eroded (case in point, Gen. John Abizaid the US military commander in Iraq was attacked yesterday) it is causing a serious morale problem.

Just after the war started, I remember hearing officers telling their troops (many of whom were reserves called up to active duty) things like "The way home is through Baghdad!". By the same token, people like Rumsfeld were quite optimistic in how fast the war would be won, how the Iraqis would welcome the Americans as liberators, how the Americans would find WMDs, and that everything was going to be just peachy. I responded by telling my radio and TV by saying things like "Don't say that kind of crap! If things turn out to be a good bit tougher, than you will have some serious credibility and morale problems", but of course that did no good, so here it is months later and they are still there, still fighting, still have not found any WMDs, and there are some serious credibility and morale problems.

And it looks like those in charge are trying to stem the morale problems with medal inflation. That is something they can do on their own and that does not cost very much.

As for the Civil War, WW I, and WW II, one did not see such high-level optimism. In fact, those in charge (on the US side anyway) usually went out of their way to say things like the war would be long and tough, but that eventually we would win. Not a terribly cheerful thing to be sure, but at least it was an honest assessment.

[Kodiak]

Quote:

Originally posted by Crossbow
...confidence has seriously eroded...causing a serious morale problem.

People keep pressing these "serious" points, but I've been given no evidence of this by any one. Can you?

[Zero]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kodiak


I think your anti-war bias may be coloring your evaluation.

If what you're saying is true, then why didn't the same thing happen during the American Civil War, WWI, and WWII?

Pay has always been a soldier's gripe.
Soldiers had gotten homesick then too, and were forced to endure long tours. WWII lasted four years. How does that compare to Iraq?
Winning the Civil War, and both World Wars was easy!
We got Saddam in under a year.
Intelligence concerning WMD was wrong. This is peculiar because intelligence has always enjoyed 100% accuracy in the past.
International support has no affect on our sovereignty and does not determine whether a course of action is correct or wise. Let lesser countries govern by committee. Do you think the Shia and the Kurds care that the invasion of Iraq doesn't have the UN seal of approval??

I don't think any of that matters...is it your pro-war bias showing?

In the past, troops didn't have MTV to come home to, so of course their suffering in combat is worse than in the past!!

[Zero]

Part of me thinks that the medals have more to do with promotions than anything else. When I was in, a few years back, there was already a problem with inflated fitness reports and proficiency and conduct marks being handed out. By the time I left, it was getting to the point that just getting "average" or "above average" wasn't enough to get promoted and stay in. If 4.0 is supposed to represent "average", how can 90% of the people score a 4.6 and up?

A few years later, and I'm thinking that the only way to differentiate between the really good troops and the ones with inflated marks, is to hand out medals and awards.

[King of the Americas]

...the medals we gave to our troops were actual 'precious' metal, and not aluminum painted the right color.

It seems to me that the problem is the valueless character of the medals. I mean they WOULDN'T be handing them out like candy IF they actually cost something to make. Moreover, I've seen hundreds of these things in antique shops: Purple Hearts, Iron Crosses, Bronze Stars, you name it it can be BOUGHT for the price of a cheap watch.

I think what we are seeing is inflation, among military awards.

I think that IF someone in Congress where to stand up and offer up the idea that we should give truly valued awards to servicemen, those who'd oppose would quickly be shouted down.

I say REAL awards for sincere heroism, and everyone wins.

[Crossbow]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kodiak


People keep pressing these "serious" points, but I've been given no evidence of this by any one. Can you?

Er, OK.

Have you forgotten that orders have been issued that have extended enlistment terms and deployments in order to stop thousands of people from leaving the service once their time is up?

Have you also forgotten about the dozens of fraudulent letters that were sent to various newspapers which discussed how well the troops were doing, how everyone was in such good spirits, and so on?

Actions such as this indicate to me that there is a serious morale problem.

However, if you want documentation on the point, then here are three articles to get you started.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Feb12.html
Most Think Truth Was Stretched to Justify Iraq War

A majority of Americans believe President Bush either lied or deliberately exaggerated evidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction in order to justify war, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

...
But the president's declining ratings related to Iraq were the most striking. Approval of his handling of the situation there has fallen to 47 percent, down 8 percentage points in the past three weeks. About half of Americans -- 51 percent -- said they would prefer a report evaluating the accuracy and use of prewar intelligence before the election, while 35 percent favor what Bush has ordered: a broader study of the overall accuracy of U.S. intelligence-gathering operations that will report its findings after the election.

...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Feb9.html
Army Policy To Reduce Soldier Relocations

...

The change is also meant to make military life more attractive to families by letting them set deeper roots in their communities, buy homes and keep children in the same school longer. The fast pace of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and their danger have caused concern that the Army could start losing troops in large numbers as spouses balk at the strain of repeated deployments there or elsewhere.

...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true
Letter From Army Capt. James F. Adamouski
... You probably know more about what is going on than I do and I'm right in the middle of it. I guess it is not going quite as expeditiously as we originally thought, however I think we are making progress. ...

[Kodiak]

Quote:

Originally posted by Crossbow


Er, OK.

Have you forgotten that orders have been issued that have extended enlistment terms and deployments in order to stop thousands of people from leaving the service once their time is up?

Have you also forgotten about the dozens of fraudulent letters that were sent to various newspapers which discussed how well the troops were doing, how everyone was in such good spirits, and so on?

Actions such as this indicate to me that there is a serious morale problem.

However, if you want documentation on the point, then here are three articles to get you started.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Feb12.html
Most Think Truth Was Stretched to Justify Iraq War

A majority of Americans believe President Bush either lied or deliberately exaggerated evidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction in order to justify war, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

...
But the president's declining ratings related to Iraq were the most striking. Approval of his handling of the situation there has fallen to 47 percent, down 8 percentage points in the past three weeks. About half of Americans -- 51 percent -- said they would prefer a report evaluating the accuracy and use of prewar intelligence before the election, while 35 percent favor what Bush has ordered: a broader study of the overall accuracy of U.S. intelligence-gathering operations that will report its findings after the election.

...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Feb9.html
Army Policy To Reduce Soldier Relocations

...

The change is also meant to make military life more attractive to families by letting them set deeper roots in their communities, buy homes and keep children in the same school longer. The fast pace of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and their danger have caused concern that the Army could start losing troops in large numbers as spouses balk at the strain of repeated deployments there or elsewhere.

...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true
Letter From Army Capt. James F. Adamouski
... You probably know more about what is going on than I do and I'm right in the middle of it. I guess it is not going quite as expeditiously as we originally thought, however I think we are making progress. ...

Sorry, but none of this is evidence of soldier's eroding confidence or seriously poor morale.

[Crossbow]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kodiak


Sorry, but none of this is evidence of soldier's eroding confidence or seriously poor morale.

OK then!

Perhaps, you should examine the issue you raised about the high volume of medals being awarded in the meantime.

[Kodiak]

Here is a very fair and unbiased recent look at morale in Iraq.

No surprise: Full-time soldier's morale is fine to better than expected. Guard and reserve unit morale flagging.

[pgwenthold]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kodiak


Sorry, but none of this is evidence of soldier's eroding confidence or seriously poor morale.

Of course it doesn't, because the military will control every single word of what comes out about the soldiers. As well they should.

It is fairly disingenious to put a burden on that you know cannot be met. Sure its an extrapolation from non-direct evidence, but given that there is no direct evidence, it is the best we can do.

[Kodiak]

Quote:

Originally posted by pgwenthold


Of course it doesn't, because the military will control every single word of what comes out about the soldiers. As well they should.

It is fairly disingenious to put a burden on that you know cannot be met. Sure its an extrapolation from non-direct evidence, but given that there is no direct evidence, it is the best we can do.

See my post and link above.

[Crossbow]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kodiak
Here is a very fair and unbiased recent look at morale in Iraq.

No surprise: Full-time soldier's morale is fine to better than expected. Guard and reserve unit morale flagging.

Whew!

At least you made some degree of a concession to the facts. Thanks much!

[Kodiak]

Quote:

Originally posted by Crossbow


Whew!

At least you made some degree of a concession to the facts. Thanks much!

I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong, imprecise, or inaccurate.

That said, higher than anticipated morale by the full-timers and flagging morale by the guards and reservists isn't "seriously eroded confidence and a serious morale problem".

I can attest to the ribbing and harrassment inflicted on part-timers by the regular Army. But when I was still on active duty, all that ended once the bullets started flying. Maybe this occupation/peacekeeping is a "grey area" between war and peace which might be why we're seeing this "second-class citizen" treatment of the guards and reservists.

The military leadership in Iraq and the DOD at home shouldn't be tolerating it.

[Crossbow]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kodiak


I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong, imprecise, or inaccurate.

That said, higher than anticipated morale by the full-timers and flagging morale by the guards and reservists isn't "seriously eroded confidence and a serious morale problem".

I can attest to the ribbing and harrassment inflicted on part-timers by the regular Army. But when I was still on active duty, all that ended once the bullets started flying. Maybe this occupation/peacekeeping is a "grey area" between war and peace which might be why we're seeing this "second-class citizen" treatment of the guards and reservists.

The military leadership in Iraq and the DOD at home shouldn't be tolerating it.

This study sounds to me that it will end up being used as just another CYA document.

When I was in the Navy (1980 to 1984), there not any hot wars to fight, but there was a very real problem in getting people to re-enlist. Eventually, they decided to do a survey and find out why this was occurring.

Sure enough they did the survey and asked if you were planning on leaving the Navy, then why were you doing so?
Reasons stated were:
poor living conditions,
poor pay,
poor medical care,
long working hours,
bad food,
extended deployments,
yes-man mentality,
and so on.

However, they also asked if you were planning on staying in the Navy, then why were you doing so?
Reasons stated were:
no lay-offs,
guaranteed medical care for themselves and dependents,
re-enlistment bonuses offered,
20 year retirement plan,
and so on.

Well, they concluded that since the people who were planning on leaving the Navy were not going to stay in the Navy, then their comments should not be considered. But since those who were going to stay in the Navy were doing so for things that were already in place then there was no need to further improve things.

To paraphrase: this study shows that we are doing everything right and that we do not have to change anything!

Rather convenient, eh? Do a study to find out what is wrong; find out what is wrong; then do nothing to fix what is wrong since the ones who are complaining will be the ones who will be leaving while the ones who will be staying are not the ones complaining and this study proves it!

By the way, the only reason why I know of the results of this survey was that I happened to be one of the lucky people who got to serve snacks and drinks to all of the E-7s, E-8s, and E-9s on the ship that attended he briefing. They did make the survey results known to the crew.

[Kodiak]

Quote:

Originally posted by Crossbow


This study sounds to me that it will end up being used as just another CYA document.

When I was in the Navy (1980 to 1984), there not any hot wars to fight, but there was a very real problem in getting people to re-enlist. Eventually, they decided to do a survey and find out why this was occurring.

Sure enough they did the survey and asked if you were planning on leaving the Navy, then why were you doing so?
Reasons stated were:
poor living conditions,
poor pay,
poor medical care,
long working hours,
bad food,
extended deployments,
yes-man mentality,
and so on.

However, they also asked if you were planning on staying in the Navy, then why were you doing so?
Reasons stated were:
no lay-offs,
guaranteed medical care for themselves and dependents,
re-enlistment bonuses offered,
20 year retirement plan,
and so on.

Well, they concluded that since the people who were planning on leaving the Navy were not going to stay in the Navy, then their comments should not be considered. But since those who were going to stay in the Navy were doing so for things that were already in place then there was no need to further improve things.

To paraphrase: this study shows that we are doing everything right and that we do not have to change anything!

Rather convenient, eh? Do a study to find out what is wrong; find out what is wrong; then do nothing to fix what is wrong since the ones who are complaining will be the ones who will be leaving while the ones who will be staying are not the ones complaining and this study proves it!

By the way, the only reason why I know of the results of this survey was that I happened to be one of the lucky people who got to serve snacks and drinks to all of the E-7s, E-8s, and E-9s on the ship that attended he briefing. They did make the survey results known to the crew.

Well, unlike the study you described, the one talked about in the link I provided does offer some recommendations for improvement.

From the web article I linked:

"Recommendations sent to Army chief

Moskos had a series of recommendations he forwarded to the acting secretary of the Army:

• Consider producing a video/DVD similar to the famous "Why We Fight" movies directed by Frank Capra in World War II. He said themes could include "serving a just cause, the evils of the Hussein regime, stepping into history, the new Greatest Generation. (This) is a shaping experience that they will look back upon with pride for the rest of their lives."

• Have incoming non-commissioned officers and junior officers take a three-week course on Arab culture and learn a few Arab expressions. This could be akin to the three-week German course for new company commanders in the old U.S. Army Europe.

• Military police should be given a combat medal equivalent to the combat medal given to medics in hostile fire zones.

• Establish an Iraq Combined Action Program modeled after the Marine program that put squads of Marine riflemen with a Vietnamese platoon living in a village. Moskos recommended that in Iraq the locally recruited Iraqis be offered "extraordinary inducements" such as high pay, guaranteed pensions and perhaps even American citizenship.

• Consider permitting alcohol use on a limited basis in Iraq. Limited official drinking, now allowed at leave centers in Qatar, "would reduce illicit drinking."

• Explore the use of short-term 15-month active-duty enlistments to perform duties currently done by reserve component forces."

[Luke T.]

Quote:

Originally posted by Garrette
I don't know the cause of it, but the medal-environment has been crap my entire career in the military. Leaders give lip-service to giving awards for performance, but end up giving them out:

1. Because everyone should get something
2. On a hotly-denied but still obvious quota basis
3. Based on rank
4. Inconsistently

As a retired vet, I have to agree, especially on number 2. There is a quota of Achievement Medals and Commendation Medals given to every CO in the Navy. They are allowed to give out a set number of them each year. I don't think it is denied the quota exists, though. It's written policy, so you can look it up.

Quote:

When a unit leaves, they make sure everyone gets something for 'service'. Bronze Star is standard now, and means nothing.

If that is true, I would be sick to my stomach. I hope it isn't.

Quote:

111 Silver Stars? That appals me. Silver Stars should be rare. Extremely rare.

The Silver Star is just one step below the Medal of Honor. You're damn right they should be rare.

Quote:

A Purple Heart for falling and breaking a leg? Are you sure? That incenses me, if true. Hell, I've been shot and I'm not getting a purple heart.

If you were shot in the line of duty, write your Congressman. Seriously. You deserve a Purple Heart.

[Zero]

I got a medal for enlisting in the Marines while there were still troops in the Gulf...isn't that just silly?

[Crossbow]

Quote:

Originally posted by Zero
I got a medal for enlisting in the Marines while there were still troops in the Gulf...isn't that just silly?

I have a brother who was in the Army for less than six months during the First Gulf War and he got a General Discharge and a medal for being in the military during wartime even though he only went to Boot Camp, then to his training school for a few weeks.

[Crossbow]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kodiak


Well, unlike the study you described, the one talked about in the link I provided does offer some recommendations for improvement.

From the web article I linked:

"Recommendations sent to Army chief

...

Yes, I saw that as well.

I would like to see if such recommendations are actually implemented though.

[Zero]

Quote:

Originally posted by Crossbow


I have a brother who was in the Army for less than six months during the First Gulf War and he got a General Discharge and a medal for being in the military during wartime even though he only went to Boot Camp, then to his training school for a few weeks.

LOL! Yeah, if you managed to graduate from Boot Camp, you got the National Defense medal...which we called the Crackerjack prize. I knew another guy who sat on a ship in the Gulf and came home with 2 rows of ribbons. He wasn't in the Navy, working; he was a Marine admin clerk with a broken ankle.

[Garrette]

Quote:

Luke T.

If you were shot in the line of duty, write your Congressman. Seriously. You deserve a Purple Heart.

Read PM.

It was "line of duty", but not deserving of Purple Heart. I think you'll agree when you read the details.

[Hypocolius]

The enthusissm of US forces for dolling out medals willy-nilly is nothing new. I have a photo of my great-uncle taken in 1943, the year before he was killed, the only decoration he is wearing is the ribbon for the Africa Star, and that after joining up in the first weeks of the war (1939 in case you're confused). The only reason that the ribbon was even issued then (the medal didn't come until after the war) is that the allied troops in North Africa were incensed when the Americans arrived in 1942, already laden down with medals.

[Crossbow]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kodiak


People keep pressing these "serious" points, but I've been given no evidence of this by any one. Can you?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Mar25.html

In Army Survey, Troops in Iraq Report Low Morale

Kodiak (or anyone else still interested),

Please take a look at this news story because a while back you were asking for evidence regarding low troop morale.

[The Fool]

Quote:

Originally posted by Zero
I got a medal for enlisting in the Marines while there were still troops in the Gulf...isn't that just silly?

Zero...
Yes...and no. You did what you did and you took your chances. Life (and war) is a big lottery... You enlisted in a time of war and deserve whatever decorations are given to you.

[drunken rant]...
You deserve every damn decoration you are entitled to wear.

you wear them with pride.

I spent 23 months and 17 days in the Australian Army and got one medal from Australia (that everyone got) and one medal from a south Vietnamese puppet government (that everyone got). Plus I am entitled to wear an american presidential unit citation given to the unit I worked with (now isn't that bizzare...considering my opinion of US presidents...) I wear them all once a year when I march in a parade in australia called "anzac Day" I don't care if peope think I deserve them or not..... F**k them all. (admins please edit that word)....
[/drunken rant]

<table cellspacing=1 cellpadding=6 bgcolor=#666699 border=0><tr><td bgcolor=white><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color=#666699 size=2>Moderation Action by Luke T.: Your wish is my command. </font></td></tr></table>