Yes, was keeping it to a broad hypothetical starting point. From that point there are as many examples as there are soldiers. Didn't mean to imply anything's simple or easy.Originally Posted by MikeF
Hypothetically, is there a situation where a guy could get a Silver Star for actions under fire and a reprimand for 'allowing' his unit to be attacked?
Exactly right, says I. But that part of the conversation is countered (in media reports and elsewhere) by claims that we're confusing young soldiers with mixed signals, sprinkled with quotes re: "this 'courageous restraint' award will only be given posthumously" then wrapped into the "ROE are getting our troops killed" narrative, and met with exclamations about the "wussification of the military."
More likely an ongoing discussion ("are we sure we're rewarding the 'right' behavior?" - one that should be held at all levels) made public BECAUSE it can be wrapped into the ROE/'wussification' story line. (Which, btw, can also be blamed on Obama - see Limbaugh, Rush.)
But whether ongoing or inexcusably late, I don't think the discussion itself is "bad."
Hopefully it's clear I agree with your second paragraph. To the first: ouch. Actually I caught that via Matt Gallagher, who has his own story from experience at that link. Knowing him I doubt he's a Rush listener either. But an awful lot of people are, so like it or not, he's influential.Why, Greyhawk, I'm surprised you listen to him. Never heard the guy speak, m'self.
But then I tend to ignore all the taking heads as they rarely contribute much.Perhaps you're correct but I'm more inclined to blame sloppy main stream media reporting and editing added to civilian lack of knowledge...
And here's more of what his listeners heard this week:
Of course "we have to say that" because of people like Rush Limbaugh, but that irony is likely lost on most of his listeners."US troops in Afghanistan could soon be awarded a medal for not doing something, a precedent-setting award that would be given for 'courageous restraint' for holding fire to save civilian lives. ... 'The idea is consistent with our approach,' explained Air Force Lt. Col. Tadd Sholtis. 'Our young men and women display remarkable courage every day, including situations where they refrain from using lethal force, even at risk to themselves, in order to prevent possible harm to civilians. In some situations our forces face in Afghanistan, that restraint is an act of discipline and courage not much different than those seen in combat actions.' Soldiers are often recognized for non-combat achievement with decorations such as their service's commendation medal. But most of the highest US military decorations are for valor in combat. A medal to recognize a conscious effort to avoid a combat action would be unique. ... 'We absolutely support the right of our forces to defend themselves,' Sholtis said."
We have to say that? We're not talking about a basketball team is not allowed to go to Arizona here, folks! We're talking about the US military. We have to say this? We've got this guy saying, "We absolutely support the right of our forces to defend themselves." Well, that's comforting. Is that in the policy manual someplace, somebody have to take a test on that? "'We absolutely support the right of our forces to defend themselves,' Sholtis said. 'Valuing restraint in a potentially dangerous situation is not the same thing as denying troops the right to employ lethal force when they determine that it is necessary.' A spokesman for the 2.2 million-member Veterans of Foreign Wars, the nation's largest group of combat veterans, thinks the award would cause confusion among the ranks and send a bad signal.
Bookmarks