Courageous Restraint "Hold fire, earn a medal"

[Xenophon]

When I was in Iraq, my IA battalion was transferred from Diyala to Al Anbar (this was after we were transferred from Al Anbar to Diyala but before we were transferred from Al Anbar to Diyala). En route, we were ambushed at night by a group of insurgents who had stationed themselves in an apartment complex with numerous lights that shined in the direction of the road, washing out our NVGs. I had one Lance Corporal (gunning) who had the presence of mind to forego his .50 cal and use his M4 to engage targets so as to pose less of a risk to any civilians in the apartments and another Lance Corporal who refused to return fire at all for the same reason. Meanwhile, a lieutenant who was gunning in another vehicle lit the apartment complex up with his M240.

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.

[Rifleman]

Wonder if a lot of the awards will be posthumous?

[Majormarginal]

A medal for being timid? Our troops are going to be killed and wounded when they don't defend themselves.

[Kiwigrunt]

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.

Hey, I think that is a good point. Are most medals not already for good conduct, bravery etc.?
So in the context of “courageous restraint”, why should the ‘restraint’ bit be emphasized as a reason for a specific medal. If the restraint is in itself courageous than existing medals should be able to cover it; a bit like a medic saving lives under fire without firing a shot. If it is not courageous than it could well be going towards being criminal, or at least against ROE (identifying legitimate targets and all that).
It’s almost a bit like getting rewarded for not running over that pedestrian with the pram as opposed to being dealt with for doing the opposite.

I think I can see what they are trying to do here with regards to creating an environment where restraint counters a gung-ho attitude but I am not sure that this sort of incentive is the right way to achieve it.

[Chris jM]

Sometimes doing nothing is the right thing, and going for blood is the wrong thing. We should reward doing the right thing.

I think I can see what they are trying to do here with regards to creating an environment where restraint counters a gung-ho attitude but I am not sure that this sort of incentive is the right way to achieve it.

Restraint comes down to discipline and professionalism. Wearing the uniform and respective unit embellishments should be enough recognition of those qualities.

However, the article doesn't make it clear - could this just be a loosening of, say combat action badges or whatever they are known as? I don't know what is involved in their reward but it mightn't even be an actual separate medal but rather an action 'tab', as such, acknowledging you were in "combat" or "danger" even if you didn't fire back?

[William F. Owen]

Restraint comes down to discipline and professionalism. Wearing the uniform and respective unit embellishments should be enough recognition of those qualities.

Concur. Not doing something stupid is what you are trained to do. The idea behind this medal is moronic. The concept of "courageous inaction" needing to be rewarded is hopelessly impractical and the thin edge of slippery slope, - to mix a metaphor.

[Kiwigrunt]

Added to all of the above, most medals are in recognition of going above and beyond the call of duty. I fail to see how restraint is above and beyond……..that’s not to say it’s beneath and below, its just part of the job.

[Bob's World]

I will provide some ground truth on this as I was there when this was presented to the task force commanders in Regional Command South.

This does not mean that soldiers are expected to simply "take one for the team." A better example is one I personally know of where a SEAL patrol with their ANA partners entered a village and a small engagement ensued with 2-3 insurgent fighters. Two were put down quickly, and one turned and ran. 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."

To be honest, this resonates better with the British military than it does with the Americans. The Americans see more utility in simply ensuring that you have your most experienced decision maker at the most likely critical time and place; and to ensure that you have worked through situational pre-combat drills to wargame in advance likely dangers and how to best address them within the tactical directives and guidelines for the escalation of force.


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.

[Entropy]

BW,

Why does the action you describe require some unique award instead of what we already have?

[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.