You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Fifth Column
Petraeus' 'ribbon creep'
2008-04-10
The 'creep' in the title refers to the author. Mr. DeBord is a loathsome asshat and one good reason why the Los Angeles Times is going down the drain.
A uniform full of medals and decorations clashes with his message

By Matthew DeBord

Gen. David H. Petraeus may be as impressive a military professional as the United States has developed in recent years, ...
... and that's all the praise you're going to get from Matthew, General ...
... but he could use some strategic advice on how to manage his sartorial PR. Witness his congressional testimony on the state of the war in Iraq. There he sits in elaborate Army regalia, four stars glistening on each shoulder, nine rows of colorful ribbons on his left breast, and various other medallions, brooches and patches scattered across the rest of the available real estate on his uniform.
He was summoned to Congress. He wore the prescribed uniform for the occasion. The medals are part of that uniform. He was required to be there and required to turn himself out properly.

And what a jerk Mr. DeBord is to describe a medal as a 'brooch'.
He even wears his name tag, a lone and incongruous hunk of cheap plastic in a region of pristine gilt, just in case the politicians aren't sure who he is.
Senator Levin wasn't sure, so it was good that the General had his ID tag on ...
That's a lot of martial bling, especially for an officer who hadn't seen combat until five years ago.
That's an despicable slur right there. The General has worn the uniform for a couple decades, and during that time Matthew scampered about doing whatever it was he did. The General hasn't complained about his duty, and Mr. DeBord should be grateful, not fondling his neuticles.
Unfortunately, brazen preening and "ribbon creep" among the Army's modern-day upper crust have trumped the time-honored military virtues of humility, duty and personal reserve.
That's just plain idiotic. You get an award, commendation or ribbon because of what you've done. Military people, and Mr. DeBord certainly isn't one of them, know how to read the ribbons and decide who the man is behind them. I understand that among the ribbons and medals are an Air assault badge, Master Parachutist badge, and a Combat Action Badge. I'll let a retired command sergeant major read these badges and tell me what he thinks.
Think about any of the generals you've seen in recent years — Norman Schwarzkopf, Barry McCaffrey, Wesley Clark (all now retired) and others — and the image you'll conjure no doubt includes a chest full of shimmering decorations.
Most of those ribbons earned the same way as General Petraeus. Whatever you might think of each of those men, they served us all honorably, in trying times, and each had to find the measure of himself at some point in his career. Mr. DeBord, the panty waist, has never done that.
In Petraeus' case, most of them don't represent actual military action as much as they do the general's devotion to the institution of the U.S. Army and vice versa. According to an annotated photograph produced by the Times of London last year, the majority of ribbons on Petraeus' impressive "rack" were earned for various flavors of distinguished service. As brave as he may be and as meritorious in general, is all that ostentation the best way to present the situation in Iraq to an increasingly war-skeptical public?
Again, DeBord is an asshat. The man is required to wear his ribbons. The ribbons are for distinguished service. Are we to want for generals who lack distinguished service? What DeBord is doing is, very simply, a character assault on an honorable man.
Of course, Petraeus' goal is not just to make simple, soldierly arguments before Congress — it is to dazzle, at least initially, with the blazing imagery of rank.
He was there because Congress summoned him. What's so hard about understanding that?
What, after all, are mere Brooks Brothers suits on the members of Congress in the face of a fighting man's laurels?
I'll just bet, if you measure those things in dollars, that those Brooks Brothers suits cost more than the uniform. My way of looking at it is, that uniform cost more than a suit of clothes ever could ...
Some of the showiness can be attributed to regulations: The official uniform of the Army is to be worn in a very specific manner, and the brass have an obligation to live up to their billing by showing plenty of ... well, brass. On the other hand, if you're wearing four stars, you surely have some say when it comes to matters of peacockery.
Again, this is character assassination, pure and simple. Assuming that DeBord ever won a major journalism prize (as well he might, considering the state of that profession today), would he be required not to mention it if summoned to give an address?
Medals and decorations have a long history with a slightly cynical tinge. This goes back to their inception, during the Napoleonic era, when the strategic genius from Corsica discovered that baubles handed out to the combatants helped ensure loyalty and ferociousness. "With a handful of ribbons, I can conquer all of Europe," he said.
Yet more character assassination. The awarding of medals substantially predates the Corsican. And in any case today, the issue isn't the traditions of the ancient world, it's the tradition of our military and country that matters: when we give a medal, that medal has a meaning. Most Americans understand what a Silver Star or a Purple Heart means. Most would understand, with a few seconds education and reflection, what a distinguished service medal means. That's the point. A medal isn't a shiny 'bauble', it's a symbol of the work and sacrifice.
In more contemporary times, decorations have suffered a fraught reputation among the rank and file: nice to get but awkward to display if the memories associated with them are of violence, loss and the ineptness of commanders. There have been isolated incidents of Iraq war veterans returning their medals, and, of course, Vietnam War vets were better acquainted with this kind of protest.
Here Mr. DeBord elevates John Kerry of all people above General Petreaus. Kerry threw his medals away, you see, even though he got them back later.
The greatest military leaders, in the age of organized national armies, have often conspicuously modified the official requirements of the uniform, even in the most public of settings. Ulysses S. Grant accepted Robert E. Lee's sword while outfitted in disheveled Union blue and muddy boots.
Grant did so because he was on the road that day, and didn't want to keep General Lee waiting, since the latter was prepared to surrender his army.
Douglas MacArthur presided over the signing of the Japanese Instrument of Surrender on the deck of the battleship Missouri without donning so much as a necktie with his khakis.
Which, according to Mr. DeBord, means that Doug MacArthur couldn't possibly have had an ego ...
George Patton was flamboyant, in his jodhpurs and riding boots, but he backed it up in battle after battle. His legend derived equally from brilliant tactics and an outrageous wardrobe.
General Petreaus is developing his legend for brilliant tactics today.
Perhaps the best example, however — and one that Petraeus and his cadre should look to for inspiration — was set by two of the most politically savvy generals America has produced: Dwight Eisenhower and George Marshall. In photographs following World War II, with Ike fresh from rescuing Western civilization while Marshall was working to rebuild it, both men appear victorious, yet somber, cognizant of the challenges met and the challenges ahead. Eisenhower wears a single row of ribbons, Marshall three.
General Marshall appeared before the Congress numerous times, and each time wore the required uniform. With his medals. Each of them earned.
When you've saved the world and managed the lives and deaths of millions, it obviously compels a certain level of modesty about showcasing your accomplishments, however monumental. Apparently when you're trying to explain why your war-fighting achievements are "fragile" and why the conflict you're running in a hot, dusty faraway place might never be won, it does not.

Memo to Petraeus: When you're making the case for more patriotic gore, go easy on the glitter.
No doubt if the General had rolled into Congress in a beat-up Hummer, skin sweaty and hair mussed, wearing BDUs covered with the grit of Iraq, Mr. DeBord would have complained about that.

Asshat.
Posted by:Steve White

#33  OS: if we didn't do the corfams we were not a team player,
and while wash khakis are great while crawling over, under and around your airplane d'jour, the CNT (Certified naval Twill,aka double knits) went south just looking at a can of grease. of course back then we just opened up a 5 gallon can of liquid freon and de-greased them, and poured the fluid overboard........had a rotorhead CO that went ballistic when this transplanted tailhooker came to work in wash khakis. we had a little talk and i promised to keep a set of CNTs in the car because i was not content to just sit behind the desk, but would 'help' the real wrench twisters. near as i remember they stayed in the car....
Posted by: USN,Ret.   2008-04-10 22:12  

#32  Corfams are for people that cannot master kiwi an cotton balls.

And for the most part I never wore Army "Class A" Greens other than for inspections. On occasion I did wear my dress blues (which basically require ALL the ribbons you've earned). Wonder why Gen Petraeus didn't wear his Blues? They are transitioning out those Class A Greens anyway.

At to the best of my recollection, I never had any situation where I could exercise any choice of ribbons or medals in the Army. Besides that, fatigues and BDUS were the rule for me and most every in the Army. Navy doesn't crawl in the mud, so I guess they do get to dress a bit snappier (to this day, I envy the chiefs and their khaki).
Posted by: OldSpook   2008-04-10 20:13  

#31  'S OK Pappy. no foul intended (I'm sure), nor perceived.

still wanna find the a-hole back on the uniform board that invented Corfam shoes (patent leather).
Posted by: USN,Ret.   2008-04-10 17:48  

#30  Ouch - forgot about enlisted being able to do that (JOs caught crap unless you were a mustang LDO and older than dirt).
Posted by: Pappy   2008-04-10 17:40  

#29  OS, The single row also goes to the enlisted as well; but as mentioned, for daily wear. Inspections and other full dress occasions call for all the lettuce.
DeBord is a santimonious shiteater.
any medals or other commendations handed out have to go through some level of sanity check, its not like the temporary tattoos you can buy from a vending machine. witness the 'Stolen Valor Act,' to punish those that wear unearned ribbons / medals.

To mhw and you comment re: paperwork: our squadron had an aircraft accident in which the enlisted crewmen in back died and the 2 aviators lived; they were ejected through the forward windscreens (night crash in a SH-60F helicopter while on final to the boat). the co-pilot a USN-R got the brunt of the blame by the HAC ( helicopter aircraft commander) and ultimately turned in his wings and resigned, but the true story was that the HAC was at the controls when they crashed, but he was an 'admiral's kid' and there was some sort of bs involved. at the end of his tour w/ the squadron, it was typical for the awarding of a Navy Achievement Medal. but 'Junior' didn't get one; the unstated reason was: you killed 2 kids and ruined a third.
this is the level of sanity checking i am referring to.
Posted by: USN,Ret.   2008-04-10 16:43  

#28  Pure case of salad envy.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge   2008-04-10 16:34  

#27  Didn't know Navy Officers had that flexibility - Flag Rank required, right?

I guess it lets them reduce the clutter. I know one SoF guy that had 6 rows, and a lot of them were foreign national awards - he looked like a Peruvian Admiral in full formal dress uniform.
Posted by: OldSpook   2008-04-10 15:33  

#26  For senior naval officers, it's acceptable practice to wear a single row of your highest-ranked ribbons for daily wear.

Thing is (based on experience) - going to Capitol Hill requires dress uniform. Showing up for a hearing (even as a flunky) requires/required the full ribbon display. And you get to be treated like crap as a reward.

Just another of those many 'incentives' that encourage shipdrivers to stay out of Beltway assignment.
Posted by: Pappy   2008-04-10 13:06  

#25  A fair number of military officials have been decorated for basically completing paper work

Actually its not a problem.

Those of us in the military know and can read the "ticket punchers". But when you see a combat award, or a commendation medal, you know the difference. And the difference between my joint service commendation medal and my army achievement medal is pretty large - and there are joint service achievement and army commendations in between. But my bronze star is far and above those others. So those are the ones that come first couple rows in my ribbon rack. But precedence isn't necessarily the same as importance to the soldier. A good example of that is my Saudi medal with the sabers and palm, and my kuwait liberation medal next to it. Although these are at the very bottom of my ribbon rack and below my "I graduated from boot camp" ribbon, they mean far more to me than almost any of the other awards.

Bronze star, JSCM, ACM, JSAM, AAM, GCM, NDSM (got that one for being called up), SWASM (DShield/Storm), etc. Those are most of the "earned" medals/ribbons I have. Plus the run of the mill things like the OSR for overseas service and "Rainbow Bright" ASR for bascially graduating boot camp (which is more than the punk writer has done).

Civilians may not know what those rows of colors mean, but I do - and so do my fellow soldiers and veterans. And they can read my ribbons and know where I have been (and also that I am old, since I don't have any awards post 1996).

The only thing I am proud but kinda embarrassed to wear are my jump wings. I earned them but only 8 total jumps my entire time, 5 of them in training (thus the title "5 jump chump" for people that go train just to get the wings).

Your first jump that "really counts" is the first one with your unit, your "cherry jump. Me and others made with panties on our helmets, pretty comical sight.
Posted by: OldSpook   2008-04-10 12:05  

#24  Obviously, a graduate of the Mr. Blackwell Scool of Political Commentary.
Posted by: charger   2008-04-10 11:56  

#23  DeBorg's attack on the general is a free shot. He cannot fight and will never know the result of battle, but he has a forum and he used it to attack another nam. This will and can go on unless and until he is confronted in the street. After pissing his pants he will respect his fellow men out of fear and doubt if not out of honor or position.
Posted by: wxjames   2008-04-10 11:32  

#22  So, basically this creep is asking for *more* wars, to allow our Officers to get *battle experience*, is that what I'm hearing?

As someone already mentioned, Gen. Petraeus came up through the ranks in an era that was generally *peaceful*. Thus, there wasn't much opportunity for him to see war action. That's pretty basic cause-meet-effect rationalization, which this yay-hoo has none of.
Posted by: BA   2008-04-10 11:23  

#21  the gap between awards given to officers and enlisted men was a travesty in Vietnam. Also, the differnces from unit to unit was amazing.
Posted by: bman   2008-04-10 10:50  

#20  Gen Petraeus may deserve all his decorations but there really is a problem.

A fair number of military officials have been decorated for basically completing paper work. Similarly some non-military officials have been awarded metals basically for attending meetings of some interagency group.
Posted by: mhw   2008-04-10 10:43  

#19  
And private life civilians displayed certain really high distinctions if they had them - IE French military veterans, out of uniform, still wore a Cross of the Legion of Honor on their civilian clothes.


I have never seen this (but I don't know people who got a Legion of Honor in combat). However I know people who got it for civilian achievements and what they wear is a red thread about 2mm wide and 1cm long extending between the upper "button eye" (don't know the english term) and teh rim of their vest

As an aside every year hundreds of people get the Legion of Honor. From actors to journalist, from doctors to majors. And most of them are not even first league figures in their field. Also it is more or less automatic for people who reach a certain rank as civil servants or in the military:
no general without a Legion of Honor.

For that reason the Croix de guerre (War cros) who is awrded only for combat feats has ended being more coveted by the French military despite being officially lower ranked than Legion of Honor.
Posted by: JFM   2008-04-10 10:41  

#18  Mickey Rooney attends the Oscars each year attired in a proper tuxedo with his Bronze Star and other citiations he received in WWII.

FDR personally awarded him the Bronze Star for entertaining the troops in combat zones.
Posted by: Seafarious   2008-04-10 10:10  

#17  FWIW - Many awards to civil servants (i.e., bureaucrats) are also in the form of medals. Unless the recipient is uniformed, they aren't worn and don't come with the ribbons this asshat refers to, but they are honest-to-goodness medals. That's just the way the government gives some awards.
Posted by: Spot   2008-04-10 09:55  

#16  "Which, according to Mr. DeBord, means that Doug McArthur couldn't possibly have had an ego ..."

LOL!!!!!!!! Thanks for that one, very good.

IIUC, some european states in the past had civil servants were uniforms, with medals for distinction, etc. And private life civilians displayed certain really high distinctions if they had them - IE French military veterans, out of uniform, still wore a Cross of the Legion of Honor on their civilian clothes.

Our society really doesnt do stuff like that - even the suit and tie, the mark of being white collar vs blue collar, has been in a long retreat against workplace casual. Civilian society, in this as in some other things, has become more distant from the military, and this certainly creates problems of understanding.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2008-04-10 09:37  

#15  DeBord realizes that when real men like Petraeus walk into a room, what little chance Debord had to get laid just went to zero.
Posted by: ed   2008-04-10 09:34  

#14  So he's a big Patton fan, eh?
Right. If Patton, or even MacArthur, were alive today today and running the show in Iraq, Matthew would be hiding under his bed with soiled pants.
Wonder what he'd think of Hugo if he showed up to testify with all his sashes and sprockets? He'd probably call him "resplendent".
Posted by: tu3031   2008-04-10 09:22  

#13  We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

W. Shakespeare, Henry V, Act 4, Scene 3

Bill says it all.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2008-04-10 08:42  

#12  I am convinced this fellow secretly hates himself.
Posted by: Besoeker   2008-04-10 07:26  

#11  A fine product of the public indoctrination school system. The man needs to relearn his history. I didn't get many ribbons during my short tour in the army, but I cherish every one of them since I received them after busting my ass in my job. They are a visual resume. Bragging rights. You can literally carry your honor on your chest (not that this mouth-twat knows anything about honor).

Oh, and Grant never took Lee's sword, as was pointed out. In fact, not only were personal side arms for the officers kept, Grant allowed everyone to take home a horse or a mule to begin planting their fields right away. And on top of that, fed the entire army BEFORE they surrendered since they were starving. That act right there kept the south from waging a guerrilla war for years. Too bad Grant and Sherman and the other officers of the Union had their work undone by shithead politicians who wanted to punish instead of incorporate.
Posted by: DarthVader   2008-04-10 07:24  

#10  "Ulysses S. Grant accepted Robert E. Lee's sword"
Grant did not take Lee's sword, and his terms offered included the stipulation that all Confederate Officers could keep their sidearms and personal belongings. He did not want it. Not that this clown would know American history. Or care...
Posted by: Greter tse Tung5885   2008-04-10 05:49  

#9  Despite the official surrenders of both Germany + Japan, fighting still went on various locales. Top Command Officers, as well as everyone else, still had valid fears of sniper potshots, inlcuding from NAVAL GUNS/RIFLES, finding their mark(s)- "SURRENDER" DID NOT MEAN AN AUTOMATIC END TO COMBAT.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2008-04-10 02:48  

#8  Bet DeBong nods with approval for the sash-n-sprocket set.
Posted by: Seafarious   2008-04-10 02:16  

#7  I volunteer to take my Bronze Star and jam it up this a-hole's nose to give him a lesson. Most of my medlas were peacetime to ya dumbsh*t. We won the cold war on those.

This stupid f**k obviously doenst realize the regulations REQUIRE the wear of your awards, in proper order of precedence. You can't just play fashion fag and say "oooh these 3 look good and that one clashes".

Goddmaned idiots in the press.
Posted by: OldSpook   2008-04-10 01:50  

#6  I googled Matthew DeBord and found a trail of mostly free alt-weekly bylines, rubbish for The Nation, and a gig as editor for Wine Spectator! He's also covered tennis.

Petraeus will be taught and discussed for fifty years; long after DeBord is completely forgotten, even by those who knew him.

Posted by: JDB   2008-04-10 01:38  

#5  #3 Righteous rant, Brother Steve. Testify!

Amen to that Seafarious,

The whole lot of them couldn't lift the jock strap of General Petraeus.

I'm thru and thru disgusted with these sons of Caligula...and I'm ashamed they are Americans..
Posted by: RD   2008-04-10 01:38  

#4  For most of the General's career, there weren't a lot of opportunities for an Infantry officer to gain "combat" experience. Grenada 1983 - ten days. Panama 1989 - two weeks. Gulf War I 1990-91 - length of time depends on what you count. Hard combat - maybe ten days. Somalia 1993 - again, duration depends on what you count.

But -Petraeus took a bullet through a lung as a Brigade commander, stateside - not that ass-wipe DeBord would think that meaningful.

In June of 1980, by a fluke of Social Security Number (randomly selected), I found myself - then an Infantry Lieutenant in the 82nd Airborne Division - appearing for two days before the House Armed Services Committee, Subcommittee on Military Manpower, in Washingtion. They were trying to figure out how to attract and retain soldiers in the face of the total gutting of the military by the Carter administration.

There were 12 of us - 6 officers, six enlisted - all ranks - summoned to Washington from all over the world. The first day, we just sat in two rows, as "decoration" - behind the Army Chief of Staff (GEN Edward Meyer) and the Secretary of the Army (Donald Alexander), as they testified for about four or five hours.

I will never, ever forget what I witnessed, first hand. While some of the the congressmen were respectful and thoughtful, a signifcant number of them addressed the SoA and CSA insultingly, with sneering contempt, disdain, and utter hostility.

I was just a dumb Lieutenant, but I knew that "Shy" Meyer had previously served as asst. Division Commander of the 82nd Airborne (my Division), and I just could not fathom the treatment that was dished out by the feral congressmen (and women - Patrica Schroeder was one who stood out to me).

The Secretary and Chief Of Staff never batted an eye - respectfully and professionally answered every query - and the contrast in professionalism between the congressmen, and the Pentagon representatives was like night and day.

The next day, just the twelve of us appeared - morning session for enlisted "witnesses" - afternoon session for the officers. The exact same congressmen - but this time they were all gushing honey and milk - fawning all over us, In asking each question, the speaker would precede the question with a fifty word "sound-bite" preamble, basically licking our asses - so that thy could get their comments quoted in news releases, "praising the troops" - one day after they had tried to gang-rape two of the top four individuals in our chain of command - right in front of us.

It was real eye-opener for a young officer.

The dignity of the Pentagon officials is just five orders of magnitude above the sniveling mutterings of the Legislative branch.
Posted by: Lone Ranger   2008-04-10 01:28  

#3  Righteous rant, Brother Steve. Testify!
Posted by: Seafarious   2008-04-10 00:41  

#2  He insulted every American veteran. If I remember correctly, Hackworth hated him.
Posted by: Penguin   2008-04-10 00:40  

#1  Better get ready for a positively cascading avalanche of this and similar insanity if the left wins in 2008.

And De Bord is just a tiny boil on the pimple pocked buttock of the American left, and as such wouldn't even make a pimple in General Petraeus' ass.
Posted by: badanov   2008-04-10 00:16  

00:00