Courageous Restraint "Hold fire, earn a medal"

[Schmedlap]

I guess the key is that the Commanders are recognizing that there is valor in protecting the mission, just as there is in protecting one’s self and fellow soldiers.

I'm not disagreeing in any way with what your wrote. But, if Commanders are "just now recognizing" valor in actions like this, then something is wrong. That would be another of many examples to demonstrate how clueless we were nine years ago and how slowly we've figured things out.

Regardless of the valor aspect, the notion of handing out awards for this stuff amplifies one of many poor messages that have been sent to Soldiers over the past nine years. Namely: "Do your job and get rewarded as though you've done more." Enough with the awards. I know guys who never left a FOB and have 3 BSMs. Even the Purple Hearts are out of hand.

... The SEAL nearest to the man was within every aspect of the ROE and the tactical directive at that point in time to simply kill the runner. Instead he took off after him, ran him down and tackled him, taking him prisoner. It is this type of assumption of greater personal risk in the name of avoiding potentially avoidable casualties that is at the essence of "courageous restraint."

For what it's worth, if you replace "SEAL" with "20-year old Infantryman" then it would describe at least three similar instances that I am aware of - including one that I witnessed - five years ago in Iraq. In the one that I witnessed, we brought the shooter (a 15-year-old who was paid 10,000 dinars to shoot at us) to his home and told his father what happened. His father went back into his home, re-emerged with a wooden rod, and then commenced one of the most vicious ass-whoopings that I'd witnessed in a long time. We restrained him because we thought he was going to kill the kid.

I hope that we're not "just now recognizing" the value of actions like this. And if the creation of this new award is an indicator of that, then once again I am concerned that senior leaders are just coming around to understanding what many younger Soldiers figured out years ago. And, even worse, they're addressing it in the wrong way. If the only way that leaders can influence Soldiers is to promise them awards for doing their jobs, then they're not really leaders.

[Ken White]

I hope that we're not "just now recognizing" the value of actions like this. And if the creation of this new award is an indicator of that, then once again I am concerned that senior leaders are just coming around to understanding what many younger Soldiers figured out years ago. And, even worse, they're addressing it in the wrong way. If the only way that leaders can influence Soldiers is to promise them awards for doing their jobs, then they're not really leaders.

but this comment by Schmedlap bears repeating -- 'cause it's the truth.

[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.....

[Greyhawk]

A quote from the first news story I saw on the topic:

NATO commanders are not planning to create a new medal or military decoration for "courageous restraint," but instead are looking at ways of using existing awards to recognize soldiers who go to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties, Hall said.

And a more recent one from General McChrystal:

Q General... Is it true that you are contemplating -- awarding some sort of special honor for soldiers who make a special effort to avoid civilian casualties?
GEN. MCCHRYSTAL: ...The issue of courage -- we have a number of ways to recognize courage in uniform. And I think courage in uniform can come under enemy fire in the most traditional ways, or it can come under actions that may not be as expected or as traditional -- involve killing the enemy; it may involve protecting civilians.
There's a great photograph from the Marja operation. I think it's a U.S. Marine shielding an Afghan man and an Afghan child with his own body. He wasn't shooting anyone; he didn't kill any Taliban; but I would argue that he showed as much courage as any that I've seen on the battlefield.
So when we talk about courage, I think -- I don't think we need a different medal to differentiate different kinds of courage.

And one from Rush Limbaugh

I'm up to speed on it now. So we're going to have courageous military medal for showing restraint... I can just see the ceremony. Obama at the White House presenting the Distinguished Yellow Cross.

That last one included here as only as explanation why this is suddenly getting attention a week after the first stories appeared.

I think it might be getting over played and twisted a bit by those who have heard the words, but lack the context.

I've heard that same point made by others over there, even before Rush chimed in...

If the only way that leaders can influence Soldiers is to promise them awards for doing their jobs, then they're not really leaders.

True.

So... Company Commander A in village A engages local leaders, establishes rapport, gets through a tour pretty much unscratched. In fact, never fires a shot. Over in village B Company Commander B experiences constant kinetic activity, high casualty rates...

End of tour. You're the Btn Commander. Who went "above and beyond?" How do you recognize them for it?

[Schmedlap]

So... Company Commander A in village A engages local leaders, establishes rapport, gets through a tour pretty much unscratched. In fact, never fires a shot. Over in village B Company Commander B experiences constant kinetic activity, high casualty rates...

End of tour. You're the Btn Commander. Who went "above and beyond?" How do you recognize them for it?

Is this really a quandary? Again, five years ago, a platoon in my battalion caught heat... not for restraint, but for over-aggressiveness. I'm not kidding when I say this: they were put on "time-out" (the CO's exact words). They were stood down for three days to review their SOPs, do maintenance, and pull PB security. The PL never lived it down. It was a black mark. Once again, five years ago.

Who went "above and beyond"? Whomever got the best results, given the situation that they were handed. Kind of similar to what, in the financial world, they call "alpha".

[Ken White]

And one from Rush Limbaugh

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.

That last one included here as only as explanation why this is suddenly getting attention a week after the first stories appeared.

Perhaps you're correct but I'm more inclined to blame sloppy main stream media reporting and editing added to civilian lack of knowledge. As Bob's World said, out of context...

So... Company Commander A in village A engages local leaders, establishes rapport, gets through a tour pretty much unscratched. In fact, never fires a shot. Over in village B Company Commander B experiences constant kinetic activity, high casualty rates...

End of tour. You're the Btn Commander. Who went "above and beyond?" How do you recognize them for it?

Not nearly enough info. Did the rapport actually accomplish anything or did it just exist? How kinetic was it, who initiated most of the contacts and how well did he do in the fights he had?

The real questions that Bn Cdr must answer have little to do with those two variables which are really sort of meaningless, rather they have to do with how well each did his job in totality for the deployment given the situations (plural) with which he had to deal. Their Cdr has all sorts of methods of rewarding -- or punishing, if warranted -- performance ranging from OERs (unimportant to some, vital to others) to hero badges (same discrimination criteria apply) to a slap on the back (always appreciated unless the Cdr is an @$*hole). Hopefully he knows his people, knows where their buttons are, knows what's important and does not have too much "help" from above...

And, most importantly; is fair.

Or we could use the simple or Ranger solution -- Bronze Stars for both and a "V" for the more kinetic locale.

Added: Apologies to Schmedlap, somehow I missed his intervening post. I coulda just said "What he said."

[MikeF]

So... Company Commander A in village A engages local leaders, establishes rapport, gets through a tour pretty much unscratched. In fact, never fires a shot. Over in village B Company Commander B experiences constant kinetic activity, high casualty rates...

That sounds so simple in a classroom. It is logical and rational. It makes sense. I would caution that there are so many other scenarios. I will give you mine as a company commander. This is one of the times that it's good that I use my real name. Others can verify or just say he's full of crap .

As a commander, I had a wealth of contacts and friends within the villages. I engaged in and out everyday with the various elders. As it were, I was in a highly kinetic area, and I became one of the most violent commanders in Diyala Province. The Iraqis called my IA CDR and I the Lions of Diyala. The Americans called us the War Machine. In that area, we had the fewest casualties.

There are so many different scenarios in war.

[Greyhawk]

That sounds so simple in a classroom...There are so many different scenarios in war.

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.

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?

Sometimes doing nothing is the right thing, and going for blood is the wrong thing. We should reward doing the right thing, whether that is charging an enemy machine gun nest or refusing to let the enemy bait you into harming innocents.

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."

...if Commanders are "just now recognizing" valor in actions like this, then something is wrong... I hope that we're not "just now recognizing" the value of actions like this.

Is this really a quandary? Again, five years ago, a platoon in my battalion caught heat...

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."

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...

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.

And here's more of what his listeners heard this week:

"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.

Of course "we have to say that" because of people like Rush Limbaugh, but that irony is likely lost on most of his listeners.

[82redleg]

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?

You're being fascetious, right?

That is EXACTLY what happened to CPT Matt Myer following our VICTORY in the battle of Wanat in 2008.

[Ken White]

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."

I submit we are now as we have for a great many years confusing young soldiers with mixed signals. Mostly because we don't train them adequately but partly because the leadership is often hypocritical and inconsistent -- that mostly the fault of poor selection but also due to inadeqaute training (and education...).

The quotes you cite and the influence you mention of the Limbaughs and other talking heads in this country are due to the poor education proffered by the bureaucracy of this nation...

The ROE issue is problematic due to a lack of clarity in order to allow loopholes and a lack of candor by DoD in this as many other things. Not only the ROE issue but this unnecessary award kerfuffle could be avoided if they were more forthcoming and rejected reaction for pro active public affairs policies. I hate that 'pro active' phrase -- but here, it's appropriate.

The wussification issue is quite real (but then, I'm really old...) in many senses but certainly not in all. Suburban living trends that way. It was exemplified a few years ago when the Mountain Ranger Camp invited back a bunch of old, retired former Ranger Instructors to view current training. At a sit down afterward, they were asked for their opinions. The generic comment: "...place is full of wusses." The 4th Bn Cdr replied that, yes, the students were soft. The old guys responded "Yeah, them too..."

...BECAUSE it can be wrapped into the ROE/'wussification' story line. (Which, btw, can also be blamed on Obama...)

WHAT! He replaced Clinton? Why wasn't I informed...

I had just gotten clear that it was Clinton and not Carter as I long suspected...

[Schmedlap]

The wussification issue is quite real (but then, I'm really old...) in many senses but certainly not in all. Suburban living trends that way. It was exemplified a few years ago when the Mountain Ranger Camp invited back a bunch of old, retired former Ranger Instructors to view current training. At a sit down afterward, they were asked for their opinions. The generic comment: "...place is full of wusses." The 4th Bn Cdr replied that, yes, the students were soft. The old guys responded "Yeah, them too..."

Aint' that the truth. I went through the last hard class. I hear that they now allow the students to wear boots. When I went through the mountain phase (in January), we learned that the best way to deal with the cold was to wait for your extremities to go numb. We didn't even have boots in our rucks, let alone on our feet, because that was precious space that could be filled with something heavier, like more 7.62 ammo.

[Ranger94]

I held fire in '05. Was ridiculed by the team that replaced mine, by my 1SG and had to explain my actions to the XO (Acting CO; CO was on leave). I asked "Sir, if I ordered SPC Joe ####head to shoot, would it have been legal?".

Three days later they came back with a "Yes". If we shot, for 72hours, we would have not known if we were going to Ft. Leavenworth for 30years.

Most of you on this site advocate a new (or at least a redefined) type of war (This includes Gentile). Yet, most of you also fail to advocate for a new type of recognition.

This is a failure of leadership

[Ken White]

in Viet Nam and even in Korea. METT-TC. Nothing new in that, either. There have been races between punishments and rewards for showing -- or not showing -- restraint during combat actions for a great many years.

Most notably and within the memory of some, a few people involved at My Lai in Viet Nam refused orders to fire on civilians and / or tried to stop that criminal stupidity; most got in trouble initially and were only later properly vindicated and rewarded.