Do They Really Believe So?

The July 4th edition of Stars & Stripes had an opinion article by Rep. Duncan Hunter in which he expressed concern that an unstated standard has been created for awarding the Medal of Honor to soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan; only the dead can receive the Medal. He wrote a letter to President Obama about this and Acting Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Gail McGinn responded with a letter.

The opinion article contains part of her reply, a paraphrase then a continuation of her reply: '"Technological advancements have dramatically changed battlefield tactics, techniques and procedures. Precision-guided, stand-off weapons allow our forces to destroy known enemy positions with reduced personnel risk," according to McGinn. These factors, she goes on to say, "could reasonably explain the smaller number of Medal of Honor nominations by the Military Departments."'

I have not read Sec. McGinn's letter to Rep. Duncan. I looked for it on the net and couldn't find it so I only have this article to go on. That being said, from her tone I get the strong impression that she really believes that the wars we are in are somehow cleaner, more antiseptic and safer because of all the nifty machines we have. It is quite astonishing to me that somebody holding an opinion even close to that could get so high up in the Defense Dept.

Am I reading her meaning right? Can she really believe that? And if she does, are there many others high up in the "Gates knows my name" strata who believe as she appears to believe? I figured you guys would know.

Here is a link to the article:

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?s...&article=63576

I decided to run some simple comparative statistics on MOH recipients (I guess that's what bored geeks do on holidays). Here are the number of recipients per 1000 casualties in the conflict (Killed and wounded and NOT including noncombat deaths):

WWI: 0.48
WWII: 0.48
Korea: 0.97
Vietnam: 1.23
OEF: 0.28
OIF: 0.11

So in WWI and WWII there was approximately 1 MOH recipient for every 2000 casualties. For OIF there was/is approximately 1 MOH recipient for every 9,000 casualties.

Looking only at battle deaths, the rates change a bit:

WWI: 2.32
WWII: 1.59
Korea: 3.95
Vietnam: 5.19
OEF: 2.10
OIF: 1.16

So in Korea, there were about 4 MOH recipients for every 1000 KIA on average.

Of course, one should not take these rates too literally since the rates for OEF and OIF would change dramatically with the addition of a single MOH recipient. Since there is, so far, only one MOH recipient for OEF, so an additional recipient would immediately double the statistical rates which would put OEF near WWI/II in terms of total casualty rates and near Korea in terms of KIA.

Also, rates per casualty may not be a good way to examine this issue. Anyway, just some food for thought.

a higher incidence of awards at all levels resulted from an effort to make unliked wars more palatable to the public (ala the large number of very high awards for Mogadishu...).

There were also a number of MOH awards late (after the winter of '44) in WW II for people leaping atop or rolling over on grenades to save others. I can't judge them but many who served during that period strongly disagreed with MOH awards for such actions even though most were obviously posthumous. That practice continued in Korea and Viet Nam. There aren't as many grenades in Afghanistan or Iraq as in those other wars.

There was also a considerable outcry within the forces over the excessive number of awards in Just Cause, Urgent Fury and Desert Shield / Desert Storm. All the service gave out awards with great abandon in those operations and many complained a mockery of the awards resulted. This led to a revision and tightening of standards after DS /DS. It was needed.

I'd also suggest that rate per casualty can be misleading. Many combat deaths in OEF / OIF have been from IED and such and there have been few multi day fire fights involving large numbers on both sides which were the norm in WW II and Korea and were quite common in Viet Nam.

On balance, I'd say the alleged and above quoted words of the AUSDPR were clumsy and ill chosen but her point was fairly accurate based on what I've seen, read, heard and been able to ascertain.

Short answer -- there have not been as many 'opportunities' in the current wars.

Also, as Entropy says, just one or two more would considerably change the ratios -- and sometimes those things take years to get through the system.

Agree with Ken completely.

All of the previous wars involved major actions against conventional formations. Beyond the initial invasion of Iraq, the scale of actions has been much smaller and quite different in character. It would be wrong to argue that the current wars are cleaner and more antiseptic than previous ones due to technological advances. One must also consider the sheer scale of carnage and suffering at Belleau Wood, Tarawa, Normandy, Chosin, the A Shau Valley, etc, etc and realize that the generally smaller scale actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, while just as terrible to those involved, have not presented the same opportunities for unmistakable heroism (the standard of proof for the MOH is extremely high) as have previous conflicts. That's my take anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken White

Also, as Entropy says, just one or two more would considerably change the ratios -- and sometimes those things take years to get through the system.

---

Good point. I know a guy who just finally got a DSC for actions that occurred two years ago. He was recommended for a Silver Star. I think that was about how long it took for the guys in Iraq who got the MoH for jumping on a grenade. Mansoor might have been quicker, but that got more publicity because it occurred soon after he appeared on the cover of a magazine.

Agree with the rest of Ken's post and would simply add that a better comparison, rather than Korea and WWII, might be the Philippines (a low intensity conflict is probably a better comparison).

The thing that bothered me about the AUSDPR's letter was one of the explanations she chose to use. The posts in this thread all cite historical precedent or show a full appreciation for the unique situations that exist in Iraq and Afghanistan. In my searching around for her actual letter, I saw that she did mention the prevalence of IEDs, so that was good as far as it went.

But the part about "precision guided, stand off weapons" etc. sounded as if it was part of a brochure promoting the Revolution in Military Affairs. If that hadn't been in there and her letter read like the things you guys have written that would have been much better. It was in there though, like a ghost from the past still stalking the halls and entering the minds of people in high places.

I think that the "push button, clean, techno war" idea has gotten us into trouble in the past and I worry when I see signs that it is around. Like Ken says, it might be just awkward wording but she seemed quick and handy with that bit of boilerplate.

I think that people a lot closer to the fight have similar misconceptions. I don't know that the Undersecretary really has the experience or purview to know better. In one of my PME classes, we had a Navy intel officer who was talking tough about "going in and killing people" and how we need to be tougher in X capacity with regard to the War on Terror. Another student said, "That's easy for you to say because all you know about it is mouse clicks and powerpoint briefs." Things seem pretty nifty from JICPAC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carl

The July 4th edition of Stars & Stripes had an opinion article by Rep. Duncan Hunter in which he expressed concern that an unstated standard has been created for awarding the Medal of Honor to soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan; only the dead can receive the Medal.

---

I just read the opinion by Hunter and it annoys me a heck of a lot more than the response from McGinn. Is this really the best use of his time? He's taking on an issue that is difficult to debate in the public domain rationally and I think he knows that. Anyone who disagrees with him on this issue can so easily be cast as someone who is trivializing the sacrifices of servicemembers that I am surprised anyone such as McGinn dared to respond.

This passage in particular really rubs me the wrong way:

Quote:

---

There have also been several cases were posthumous recommendations have been downgraded at the final stages of the review process. The most notable involves Marine Corps Sgt. Rafael Peralta, who was killed in Iraq when he absorbed a grenade blast with his body, saving the lives of his fellow Marines. Peralta received the Navy Cross despite being recommended for the Medal of Honor by his chain of command.

That decision was reached by an independent review panel composed of two pathologists, a neurosurgeon and several other so-called “experts.” The panel determined that Sgt. Peralta could not have consciously performed the actions witnessed by those Marines at his side and acknowledged by Marine Corps leadership.

---

That sounds like a perfectly legitimate finding to me. Hunter opts to rebut by mocking the people who came to that difficult decision. When is the last time that he made a difficult decision? He's in a solidly Republican district, got elected with his name recognition, a suspiciously well-timed mobilization from reserve status, and the backing of his daddy. He can pretty well say and do as he pleases.

This, too, seemed rather unnecessary:

Quote:

---

My letter not only reflected the viewpoint of a newly elected member of Congress but also a Marine combat veteran of both wars.

---

Okay, congratulations. You deployed a few times. You're so special.

I wish people like the Honorable Duncan Hunter would just STFU. McGinn probably doesn't even know what she is talking about and had someone else write the response for her. Even if she didn't, I don't detect any ill intent. Ignorance, maybe. Hunter, on the other hand, seems like a weasel to me. His populist politics BS is far more disgraceful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schmedlap

McGinn probably doesn't even know what she is talking about and had someone else write the response for her.

---

On the very narrow point about who wrote the letter, if she signed it, it's hers.

" mouse clicks and power points" (pjmunson) says it all IMO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pjmunson

I think that people a lot closer to the fight have similar misconceptions. I don't know that the Undersecretary really has the experience or purview to know better. In one of my PME classes, we had a Navy intel officer who was talking tough about "going in and killing people" and how we need to be tougher in X capacity with regard to the War on Terror. Another student said, "That's easy for you to say because all you know about it is mouse clicks and powerpoint briefs." Things seem pretty nifty from JICPAC.

---

Damn, I should not have low crawled through the trenches and thrown the grenades...Then, I could be much better at PPT. Or maybe I just imagined that in a dream while I was typing up my PPT slides...Damn, I get confused these days....

I find some of the Navy/AF guys as humorous as the reaction to Michael Jackson's death, but then again I've never landed a jet on a carrier at night...So much for PME.

Maybe we should all consider to reconsider warfare in its simpliest form- not how we wished it to be....

v/r

Mike

Mike F,
Not sure if you are agreeing with me or not, but just to clarify, my point is that there are a lot of people in the echelons between the big DoD policymaker realm and the actual trigger-pullers who should know better, but don't. A Navy intel officer isn't expected to have been "in the trenches," but just as you don't have to have landed on a carrier at night to know that it is incredibly challenging and even scary, military officers in all capacities should have a professional understanding of the reality of combat and should avoid childish tough talk or divorced-from-reality assumptions of technology making war antiseptic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pjmunson

Mike F,
Not sure if you are agreeing with me or not, but just to clarify, my point is that there are a lot of people in the echelons between the big DoD policymaker realm and the actual trigger-pullers who should know better, but don't. A Navy intel officer isn't expected to have been "in the trenches," but just as you don't have to have landed on a carrier at night to know that it is incredibly challenging and even scary, military officers in all capacities should have a professional understanding of the reality of combat and should avoid childish tough talk or divorced-from-reality assumptions of technology making war antiseptic.

---

PJ, I think we're on the same page-well said with this post....I wrote the last post in a cryptic manner for that purpose... Unfortunately, too many still believe that war can someday be antiseptic. To those, I would recommend that they study McNamara's memoir.

War is still war. It is as bloody as it was when Cain killed Able. No technology will ever cure that. I've only observed a small portion of warfare. Nothing I observed was romantic.

v/r

Mike