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
Afghanistan
The smiley face medal
2010-05-14
This is the fourth posting of this issue. AoS.
U.S. troops who overcome their natural urge to slaughter civilians will get awards for showing heroic restraint - at least that's the message being sent by a proposed new service medal.

The proposal circulating around the headquarters of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan would establish a decoration to be awarded in those situations in which troops refrain from using lethal force, even at risk to themselves, so as not to endanger civilian lives. An ISAF spokesman said that, "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."

Medals for saving lives are nothing new. Many recipients of the Medal of Honor received the award for preserving the lives of others in noncombat situations, such as rescuing people from drowning. An existing award, such as the Bronze Star, could be applied to cases where troops make extraordinary efforts to save Afghan lives. Adding a new decoration to the swollen list of ribbons and awards that festoon our troops is unnecessary.

A separate award for "heroic restraint" or "courageous inaction" or "gallant self-control" - or whatever it winds up being called - would simply be a public relations stunt, part of the campaign that ISAF has been waging to improve the image of coalition troops in Afghanistan. It smells of politics. And the fact that it is being given serious consideration is testament to a military establishment that has run out of ideas.

As a public relations ploy, the medal sends a strangely mixed message. The United States is saying that when our troops don't take out dozens of civilians during normal operations, it is worthy of commendation. This award sends a message to the Afghans that when Americans do the right thing, it is so rare, so exceptional, so noteworthy that we have to come up with a medal to celebrate it.

The current rules of engagement in Afghanistan, adopted in July, were meant to decrease civilian casualties and help win hearts and minds. But an ABC News poll taken in Afghanistan last December showed 43 percent of Afghans saying ISAF's record of avoiding civilian casualties has gotten worse, against 24 percent saying it has improved. Afghan Interior Ministry data from March 21 to April 21 show almost six civilians a day being killed in Afghanistan, a 33 percent increase over the same period in 2009. Meanwhile, U.S. troop fatalities in Afghanistan for the first three months of 2010 were double the number over the same period in 2009. Since April, they have been triple. All of those statistics are moving in the wrong direction, and a smiley face medal is not the solution.

Training and discipline will ensure that troops do the right thing and make the best decisions in stressful situations. Sometimes, that will mean taking extra risks to keep civilians out of harm's way. Other times, that will mean making the much harder choice of doing what needs to be done to complete the mission and preserve the lives of American soldiers, even if that means noncombatants will be placed at risk. Adding this medal to the already complex calculus troops face in those tense moments is a needless complication - and it could wind up getting Americans killed. We can only hope this award will never be awarded posthumously.
Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC

#6  "Between 1919 and 1942, the Navy issued two separate versions of the Medal of Honor, one for non-combat bravery and the other for combat related acts.

"Official accounts vary, but generally the non-combat Medal of Honor was known as the Tiffany Cross, after the company that manufactured the medal.

"The Tiffany Cross was first issued in 1919, but was rare and unpopular, partly because it was presented only for non-combat situations, while combat award remained the previous version.

"As a result, in 1942, the United States Navy reverted to a single Medal of Honor, awarded only for heroism."

In other words, military personnel haven't changed much, and know a poofter award when they see one.

Again, I suspect that privates will vie with their First Sergeant for LOTS of extra duty, rather than to be branded with the POS.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2010-05-14 14:46  

#5  This is just another way to emasculate and "metro-sexualize" our military.

SPIT.....
Posted by: WolfDog   2010-05-14 11:45  

#4  When I enlisted in the Navy I automatically got a medal for enlisting in time of War since it wasn't for anything heroic, many other enlistees threw it away, I only wore it once at full dress inspection (To prove I enlisted, to an especially obnoxious Chief who insisted I was drafted), never again.
This looks about as Pointless.

Now my Dad was an army Officer (Got up to full Colonel) he had several rows, all well earned, he wore his proudly Bronze star, Silver star, Occupation of Japan, etc nothing worthless like this Pretty trinket.
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2010-05-14 11:37  

#3  They gonna start giving medals for letting the Talibunnies get away scot free?
Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305   2010-05-14 11:33  

#2  situations in which troops refrain from using lethal force, even at risk to themselves, so as not to endanger civilian lives.

This is the STUPIDEST MOST IDIOTIC....couldn't do it. Time for me to go. Shit's changin' too much
Posted by: armyguy   2010-05-14 11:28  

#1  We can only hope this award will never be awarded posthumously.

...it'd be acceptable as long as it requires the relief of the entire chain of command above the recipient.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2010-05-14 10:53  

00:00