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
In both Korea and Viet Nam there was a perception that
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.
Similar misconceptions....
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