Courageous Restraint "Hold fire, earn a medal"

[Bob's World]

Like I said, it resonated with the Brits, but not so much with the Americans. I think it might be getting over played and twisted a bit by those who have heard the words, but lack the context.

The primary point the commander was conveying was that under the new tactical directives we are asking the soldiers to assume much more personal risk in order to preserve and advance the larger strategic goals of the operations; and that leaders needed to do a more effective job of recognizing those who did so.

[Schmedlap]

The difference between showing "courageous restraint" and showing gallantry under fire is that in the former situation you have more control over the degree of danger that you face. You can opt at any moment to not restrain your actions. In the latter situation - say, for example, braving enemy gunfire to save a wounded comrade - you don't have quite so much control over the situation. If things turn worse, you can't tell the enemy to stop shooting.

Maybe I'm "old school" having now passed a whole 2 years since ETS. Our Soldiers didn't kill people if they didn't have to. What is now apparently "new math" to our senior leaders (kill 2 gunmen and create 8 more) was "common sense" to our Soldiers at least five years ago and understood by many at least seven years ago.

Now if we can just rack our brains to try to remember how we influenced those Soldiers to do the right thing...

[VMI_Marine]

The primary point the commander was conveying was that under the new tactical directives we are asking the soldiers to assume much more personal risk in order to preserve and advance the larger strategic goals of the operations; and that leaders needed to do a more effective job of recognizing those who did so.

Ah, but in order to recognize we have to quantify.

It's so much easier to write an award for Cpl Jones, who killed XXX number of insurgents, than for Cpl Smith, who held fire because of the danger of killing noncombatants.

That said, I've seen awards for valor presented in the past for acts that did not involve an enemy body count. One of my Marines received a Navy Comm with V for pulling an Iraqi family out of the line of fire in 2003 (I take no credit for the writeup, he was in another battalion at the time of the action). Like others have said, there is no need to create another medal to recognize these acts, but leaders need to understand, appreciate, and recognize when their Soldiers or Marines go above and beyond the call by showing judgment and restraint.

[Red Rat]

Just to add fuel to the fire, this is the UK direction. Personally I have only just seen it and IMHO I think it is off the mark - but I cannot quite put my finger on what it is that disagrees with me.

Population-Centric COIN and protecting the people makes different demands and arguably requires a wider form of courage. Much of this we call ‘Courageous Restraint’ as you know. But we must now recognise this and redefine our interpretation of gallantry accordingly. It is no longer sufficient to accept gallantry in its current sense. A soldier who does not fire and gets killed by a SIED is the equivalent of the soldier who ‘took the hill’ in more contemporary operations.

I like the idea mooted on this thread for meritorious medals for restraint and good judgement and gallantry for gallantry.

[Infanteer]

A soldier who does not fire and gets killed by a SIED is the equivalent of the soldier who ‘took the hill’ in more contemporary operations

Wow - what kind of ridiculous statement is that (and who issued it). The guy who does not fire and gets killed by the SIED is dead - that's about it. I don't think "courageous restraint" is supposed to recognize those unlucky/unskilled individuals who don't recognize combat indicators.

[William F. Owen]

One of my Marines received a Navy Comm with V for pulling an Iraqi family out of the line of fire in 2003 (I take no credit for the writeup, he was in another battalion at the time of the action).

Courage above that shown by others. I think this one is easy. In the UK he might have got the George Cross.

...but leaders need to understand, appreciate, and recognize when their Soldiers or Marines go above and beyond the call by showing judgment and restraint.

OK, but don't you get paid to exercise restraint and judgement. When is there an option ever not to do it?
There isn't a minimum standard. You are either doing it or not. Restraint actually means doing nothing, and ROE exist to ensure that violence is used instrumentally and in line with policy.
Wouldn't you say that "Good judgement" is either there or not?

[Schmedlap]

Restraint actually means doing nothing, and ROE exist to ensure that violence is used instrumentally and in line with policy.
Wouldn't you say that "Good judgement" is either there or not?

I have comments on this issue already, so I hope it's clear that I think such an award is stupid. That said, restraint in the context of this issue is not necessarily "doing nothing." Doing nothing is what you do on a FOB.

If de-escalation occurs as a measured risk that you choose to take, in order to obtain an outsized reward, in the form of an outcome that can do more to advance the mission, then you are not "doing nothing." I think that is what is trying to be encouraged. Unfortunately, a bunch of senior leaders apparently think that issuing awards is the path to that objective, rather than the tired old method some of us once knew as "leadership."

[Seabee]

IMHO it would take a brave man to wear such a medal.

Lets be honest, there is a macho thing that would make someone like that an outcast.

2 short anecdotes come to mind.

1) The week before my unit went into iraq in Desrt Storm my platoon did a mock attack on an abandoned Saudi Border post. As we were approaching the door opened and a bootless scarecrow came up with his hands up... never has a platoon locked and loaded so fast... never has an LT run forward and stopped 40 men doing something silly so fast... 5 months of sand made everyone prety eager to get a shot in.... The LT was seen as a Wus.

2) When an operation in Africa finished so fast almost noone got to fire a shot... the devil makes work for idle hands... all over the town we were in guys were hatching plots on how they could instigate a fight

3) Once in Sarajevo 2 of our APCs were fired on from an apartment block. The 20mm AA Gunner was told by his sgt to fire at the building... he refused as there were probably/possibly women and kids in it. (I am not even sure the sgt was authorised to give the order). Was only light weapons fire anyway, just bounced off. The gunner became a pariah, not for disobeying orders or anything, simply because he gave up a chance to shoot in a city where everyone was hoping and praying that today would be their day to shoot.

Yup... with age and hindsight the LT did the right thing (was an iraqi deserter who had spend 3 days walking to get there, the guys looking to start a firefight were wrong, and the gunner did the right thing.....

back when I was 23 I saw it very different... yup indeed.....

[Kiwigrunt]

IMHO it would take a brave man to wear such a medal.

Lets be honest, there is a macho thing that would make someone like that an outcast......

So maybe it is more about the actual conversation that about the medal. Lets hope that the conversation educates people enough to avoid this sort of silliness from being as common place in the future as it was in the past. How else so we cut through the macho crap?

[Seabee]

How else so we cut through the macho crap?

Its difficult.... I can discuss it rationally now.... but make me 19 again, give me a gun, grenades and an attitude... and a section of other young guys all trying to prove they are harder than the next guy..... and its a different ball game.