The Medal of Honor: A Medal Too Far?
Aug 2nd, 2009 | 20 responses
Almost five years into the Afghanistan war and three years into the Iraq war, something started to nag at me, something just didn’t seem right.
In spite of the high number of casualties (killed in action and seriously maimed and wounded); in spite of the heroic deeds we knew our brave troops were accomplishing; and in spite of the importance of those wars to the security of our country, a woefully small number of Medals of Honor, our nation’s highest military award for battlefield valor, were being awarded.
In letters to the editor and in other articles, I questioned this troubling phenomenon, and in my own small way I urged our military and national leaders to look into this issue.
For example, in August 2006, in a letter, ”Recognize Our Heroes,” and commenting on an Op-Ed by Joseph A. Kinney on this very same issue, I wrote in part:
In a war touted by our president as being for such a noble cause, I cannot think of a more noble gesture than for him to recognize what surely are instances of “conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of life,” as the citation for the [M]edal [of Honor] reads.
At the time, our nation had seen fit to award the Medal of Honor to only one hero of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq: Sgt. 1st Class Paul Ray Smith (Sgt. Smith received his Medal posthumously).
At that time, we had already lost more than 2,800 of our brave troops in the two wars.
At the time, I was hoping that many more of our heroes were being considered for our nation’s highest military decoration—I was hoping that many more recommendations were “in the pipeline.”
But this was not to be.
Three months later, the second Medal of Honor was awarded.
In a December 11, 2006, letter in the Air Force Times, I wrote how inspiring the heroic actions that earned Marine Cpl. Jason Dunham the Medal of Honor were, and commented:
Not so inspiring is the fact that the Medal of Honor for this hero is only the second awarded in the war on terrorism. After five years of combat in the Afghanistan-Iraq theater, it is baffling that only two Medals of Honor have been awarded to our war heroes. In contrast, there were 245 Medal of Honor recipients during the Vietnam War, and 27 Medals of Honor were awarded for the single World War II battle of Iwo Jima.
Of course, I was not the only one who noticed such dearth of recognition.
Joseph Kinney—mentioned above—was one of them. Several others have done likewise.
But perhaps the most factual and seminal account of this breakdown in respect and recognition for our heroes was written by Brendan McGarry, staff writer at the Military Times, in March of this year.
McGarry starts his column, “Death before this honor,” with these words: “The number of Medal of Honor recipients from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan can be counted on one hand.”
Keep in mind; it is now March 2009, more than seven years into the war in Afghanistan, six years into the war in Iraq. Almost 5,000 of our troops have been killed and more than 32,000 have been wounded in the two wars.
And the number of those considered worthy of our nation’s highest military award for battlefield heroism “can be counted on one hand.”?
In “Mr. President: The Medal of Honor, Why a Measly Five?” I discussed McGarry’s superb column, including these cold, hard facts:
From World War I through Vietnam, the rate of Medal of Honor recipients per 100,000 service members stayed between 2.3 (Korea) and 2.9 (World War II). But since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, only five Medals of Honor have been awarded, a rate of 0.1 per 100,000 — one in a million.
McGarry’s article also disputes the often-heard excuses about bureaucracy, red tape, the lengthy approval process, etc.
For example:
It took just 6½ months for the Clinton administration to posthumously award Medals of Honor to Army Master Sgt. Gary Gordon and Army Sgt. 1st Class Randall Shughart for heroic action in Somalia on Oct. 3, 1993.
By contrast, during the Bush years, the speediest Medal of Honor approval took 18 months. One took as long as three years.
McGarry also asks whether the process has been “politicized,” and discusses many other factors, statistics, and examples of the kind of heroes who have been awarded—and not awarded—the Medal of Honor.
Last month, President Obama announced that he would be awarding the Medal of Honor to Army Sgt. 1st Class Jared C. Monti, who was killed by enemy fire on June 21, 2006, while trying to rescue wounded comrades in the mountains of Afghanistan.
Sgt. 1st Class Monti thus becomes the first hero awarded our nation’s highest honor under the Obama administration, and only the sixth soldier to receive the Medal of Honor after almost eight years of combat in Afghanistan and more than six years of combat in Iraq.
Mr. Obama has been in office for almost seven months—more than enough time to prime and get that “pipeline” flowing again.
When it comes to our heroes, I am an equal opportunity critic. I have decried the dearth of Medals of Honor awarded to our heroes during the Bush administration and I will continue to lament, under our new president, what I feel is a continuing injustice.
Fortunately, those of us who have been a lone voice in the wilderness are no longer alone.
An article in this morning’s New York Times gives me new hope.
In, “Lawmaker Questions Low Medal of Honor Count,” we finally hear, in reference to the six Medals of Honor, that “For some veterans and members of Congress, that last number simply doesn’t add up. They question how so few Medals of Honor — all awarded posthumously — could be bestowed for two wars of such magnitude and duration.”
Again, Pentagon officials attempt to blame this on the changed nature of war, roadside bombs, the lack of firefights and close combat, etc., etc.
Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., son of Duncan L. Hunter, and a former Marine officer who served two tours in Iraq and one in Afghanistan, doesn’t accept those explanations. He has sponsored legislation “that directs the secretary of defense to review current trends in awarding the Medal of Honor to determine what’s behind the low count. The bill passed the House. If Senate negotiators go along, Secretary Robert Gates would have to report back by March 31.”
While, in my opinion, this is too much time to review something that is so flagrantly wrong, it is a start.
Hunter has it right when he says:
It seems like our collective standard for who gets the Medal of Honor has been raised…The basis of warfare is you’ve got to take ground and then you’ve got to hold it. That takes people walking into houses, running up hills, killing bad guys and then staying there and rebuffing counterattacks…That’s how warfare has always been no matter how many bombs you drop and how many predators you have flying around.
Kudos to Congressman Hunter and, also, to AMVETS, a veteran’s advocacy group, that supports Hunter’s efforts.
The author of the article, Kevin Freking, also says that it’s unclear exactly how many soldiers have been nominated for the Medal of Honor from the two wars. “But, seven have made it all the way to the secretary of defense, and six were approved. The exception is Sgt. Rafael Peralta of San Diego, Calif.”
Freking is referring to Marine Sergeant Rafael Peralta, a Mexican immigrant who became a U.S. citizen while in the Marine Corps and who gave his life to protect his Marine buddies during a firefight in Fallujah, Iraq.
For his “undaunted courage, intrepid fighting spirit, and unwavering devotion to duty,” Sergeant Peralta was nominated for the Medal of Honor by the Commandant of the Marine Corps and by the Secretary of the Navy.
Regrettably, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, for some yet-to-be-determined reason, rejected the Marine Corps’ recommendation for Sgt. Peralta to receive the Medal of Honor. Instead, Peralta would be receiving the Navy Cross.
I have written extensively on this case, for example in “Stolen Valor at the Highest Levels: The Case of Sgt. Rafael Peralta.”
It is about a travesty that cries for redress. Several California lawmakers, including Congressman Bob Filner, Representative for California’s 51st Congressional District (Sgt. Peralta’s district), have petitioned President Obama to order a review of Peralta’s case.
Hopefully, Marine Sergeant Rafael Peralta will become the seventh, or the eighth, or even the 20th recipient of the Medal of Honor for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
20 Responses to “The Medal of Honor: A Medal Too Far?”
test
I'm all for honoring our heroes. Does the Pentagon keep (or publish) statistics on how many of each type of medal is awarded each year? Are the number of silver stars and other awards for valor also lagging behind historical standards? I'm curious.
adesnik:
Good questions.
I am sure the Pentagon/each Service keep detailed track of their awards and decorations.
The site “Medal of Honor Statitstics,” (http://www.history.army.mil/html/moh/mohstats.html) has detailed statistics on the Medal of Honor, and so do others. I believe I have seen sites that keep track on the Navy Cross, etc..
The Military Times “Hall of Valor” (http://militarytimes.com/citations-medals-awards/) has extensive statistics including indivdulas' names, etc. on several awards. There probably are others
As to your second question: the same afrticle I quote (Death before this Honor”) says:
“A similar disparity occurs on the second tier of valor awards: Distinguished Service Cross, Navy Cross and Air Force Cross.
Throughout the 20th century, the rate of service cross recipients per 100,000 troops ranged from a low of 19 in Korea to a high of 167 in World War I.
But for the post-9/11 wars, it’s only one per 100,000. do some research on the other awards”
Dorian
There are people far more qualified to determine what decoration someone receives. I think the media should stay out of it completely. We don’t need public opinion deciding decorations. This is practically sacred and certainly not for sale.
As much as everyone wants to meddle, let the President, Congress, and, the Pentagon make these decisions. That’s one of the reasons we pay them.
No one is even implying that “this is for sale.”
Our President, Congress and the Pentagon are neither infallible nor sacrosanct,
Remember, “We the people….”?.
Dorian -
I have heard of some complaining that medal awards had become too prevalent at the lower levels, and was diminishing their perceived value.
Perhaps, and this is just speculation, that was determined to be a concern, and in standard government fashion, rather than address the actual problem at the lower levels, they just decided to reduce the awarding of medals across the board?
Thanks, AR.
This topic (The lack of Medals of Honor) is very hot today, it has been discussed on Fox, and the Washington Times has an artcile on it, too. I'll try to get back on your comment later
Dorian
AR:
This is what I was looking for, from the Washington Times:
The lack of recognition is not caused by a lack of living heroes. Descriptions of actions in recent Silver Star and Distinguished Service Cross citations demonstrate that the spirit of valor is alive and well in our fighting forces. Determining which heroic act merits what degree of recognition is highly subjective. It is not a matter of simply checking boxes. In addition, the overall number of medals being awarded has declined sharply. Data published in the Army Times indicate that Service Cross and Medal of Honor awards are down 97 percent compared to the average rates of awards during World War II, Korea and Vietnam.
We do not think medals should be handed out without discretion, but we also think valor should be recognized. The military awards system is plainly broken, and appropriate actions should be taken to find out how to fix it. We hope that soon we will witness the Medal of Honor being presented not to grieving family members, but to a service member selected by a grateful nation to be given that distinction. America is the home of the brave, and our heroes should be able to live to inspire future generations.
You guys should read some of them. Read them all from Korea and WWII, go over what it really takes to win one of those and see if maybe the dearth of them has to do with something else. Its not just sacrificing your life or throwing yourself on a grenade. You've got guys repeatedly braving open enemy fire to take out enemy installations with hand grenades, or in one case a solo marine routing an entire company of enemy. From what I've read about the ones we've issued its all of the hopping on a grenade type, which while certainly heroic is not necessarily the criteria for the Medal of Honor.
We fight different now, our guys stand off and call in air strikes on any fortified enemy positions, I think the chance to prove yourself enough to win one of those just doesn't present itself in the modern battlefield like it used to. What I do know is its not something we just dole out cuz we feel like making people feel better.
Slamfu:
This is the eligibility requirement for the Congressional Medal of Honor.
“[Conspicuous] gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in an action against any enemy of the United States; while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force; or while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.”
This is why, for example, Corporal Dunham received his:
For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while serving as Rifle Squad Leader, 4th Platoon, Company K, Third Battalion, Seventh Marines (Reinforced), Regimental Combat Team 7, First Marine Division (Reinforced), on 14 April 2004. Corporal Dunham's squad was conducting a reconnaissance mission in the town of Karabilah, Iraq, when they heard rocket-propelled grenade and small arms fire erupt approximately two kilometers to the west. Corporal Dunham led his Combined Anti-Armor Team towards the engagement to provide fire support to their Battalion Commander's convoy, which had been ambushed as it was traveling to Camp Husaybah. As Corporal Dunham and his Marines advanced, they quickly began to receive enemy fire. Corporal Dunham ordered his squad to dismount their vehicles and led one of his fire teams on foot several blocks south of the ambushed convoy. Discovering seven Iraqi vehicles in a column attempting to depart, Corporal Dunham and his team stopped the vehicles to search them for weapons. As they approached the vehicles, an insurgent leaped out and attacked Corporal Dunham. Corporal Dunham wrestled the insurgent to the ground and in the ensuing struggle saw the insurgent release a grenade. Corporal Dunham immediately alerted his fellow Marines to the threat. Aware of the imminent danger and without hesitation, Corporal Dunham covered the grenade with his helmet and body, bearing the brunt of the explosion and shielding his Marines from the blast. In an ultimate and selfless act of bravery in which he was mortally wounded, he saved the lives of at least two fellow Marines. By his undaunted courage, intrepid fighting spirit, and unwavering devotion to duty, Corporal Dunham gallantly gave his life for his country, thereby reflecting great credit upon himself and upholding the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and the United States Naval Service.
Good enough for you?
D. E.Rodriguez–No one is even implying that “this is for sale.”
Yes you are. Just not openly. You are looking for a popularity contest. A popularity contest equals sales one way or another. Just stay out of it. We don't give decorations by consensus or popular vote.
“Our President, Congress and the Pentagon are neither infallible nor sacrosanct”-
In this matter they are far more infallible than you or any media or “the people”. You are depredating military decorations for what purpose…so everybody can get one? So you can say that you are helping those that serve? So you, by stirring up opinion, can obtain notoriety?
The new since 911 GI bill is far more important to veterans than medals. Why don’t you just support that? What, the GI Bill is not your own bandwagon?
Rather than risk damaging a long established process with “popular“ opinion meddling, why not investigate how the decorations process takes place? Or is that too difficult with little popular reward?
One more question, slamfu.
Would you think “this hero” should be awared the Medal of Hponor?
“Clearing scores of houses in the previous three days, this hero asked to join an under strength squad and volunteered to stand post the night of 14 November, allowing fellow Marines more time to rest. The following morning, during search and attack operations, while clearing the seventh house of the day, the point man opened a door to a back room and immediately came under intense, close-range automatic weapons fire from multiple insurgents. The squad returned fire, wounding one insurgent. While attempting to maneuver out of the line of fire, this hero was shot and fell mortally wounded. After the initial exchange of gunfire, the insurgents broke contact, throwing a fragmentation grenade as they fled the building. The grenade came to rest near this heroe's head. Without hesitation and with complete disregard for his own personal safety, this hero reached out and pulled the grenade to his body, absorbing the brunt of the blast and shielding fellow Marines only feet away. This hero succumbed to his wounds. By his undaunted courage, intrepid fighting spirit, and unwavering devotion to duty, this hero reflected great credit upon himself and upheld the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and the United States Naval Service.”
Father Time says:
“Just stay out or it”
Just who in the hell do you think you are to tell me not to discuss an issue that is important to the American people?
Just search the news items and you'll see this very issue is right now being discussed in Congress, and elsewhere.
Why don't you stay out, for example, out of the health care discussion?
“Yes you are [implying that the Medal of Honor for sale]. Just not openly.”
How about supporting your allegation.
“The new since 911 GI bill is far more important to veterans than medals. Why don’t you just support that? What, the GI Bill is not your own bandwagon?”
I have written several articles on TMV fiercely supporting the new GI Bill. Why don't you do your reserach before you start making accusations.
Nough said!
AR: Back to your question, whether awards and decorations in the military are becoming too prevalent.
My personal answer, which is very subjective, would be, that when it comes to the highest decorations, as I have been writing, and especially with respect to the Iraq and Afghanistan “conflicts,” we are not being “generous” enough.
From my own time in the service and from reading a lot of military articles and letters to the editor in such publications as the Military Officers Association of America magazine, Air Force Times, the Stars and Stripes, etc., the feeling is that there are too many of them, awarded just about for every occasion.
I just came across a short article in Newsweek that is perhaps relevant to what we are discussing. It says:
“Compared with their World War II counterparts, today's senior U.S. military officers are so weighed down with medals that they appear in danger of listing to port. The military at first disdained all decorations as undemocratic. Not until the Civil War did it hand out medals, and then there was only one kind: the Medal of Honor. In World Wars I and II, the list grew—the Navy Cross, the Distinguished Service Cross, the Silver Star and others—and after World War II came a great expansion of good-conduct decorations. There's been little talk of reducing the list. “It would be like starting employee-of-the-month and deciding you don't want to do it anymore,” says Doug Sterner, a medals expert who runs a Web site called HomeOfHeroes.com. Medals still have meaning. A chestful of them is a kind of walking résumé. But there is something slightly opéra bouffe about lieutenants wearing more than Ike on D-Day.
being .”
I am sure that I can find articles diametrically opposed.
By the way, the site mentioned above, Homeofheroes,is a delightful and very informative site.
Perhaps other can weigh in…in a constructive way
Thanks
Dorian
Father Time:
By the way, thanks for your motivation.
I'll be writing a lot more about the subject that you are asking me “to stay out” of. Sorry. (Not really).
Dorian de Wind
Dorien – I hope you didn't take what I said wrong.
I agree we have become too stingy wit our highest honors. My only point was that because perhaps we did get too overboard with lower-level awards, the 'simple' solution became to just give less across all levels. Bureaucratic think, in other words, to the detriment of those who do deserve high honors.
Not at all, AR.
I always enjoy a civil discussion, contrary to the arrogant commentary by whomever Father Time is
D. E.Rodriguez–
Well I'm a combat veteran jackass, That’s who the hell I am.
You offend the hell out of me with your self righteous BS. You are the self proclaimed media “professional”. Get YOUR friggen facts straight. Mine are on my DD214.
I don't give a freaking rat's ass what you are or who you are . No one, understand, NO ONE, tells me what to say or what to write, or about what.
You offend the hell out of me with your arrogant, uninformed, “stay out of this” attitude.
If you are the hero you say you are, you should know better than anyone to attempt to keep someone from expressing his opinions (idiotic as they may seem in your mind) on an issue.
At least that's why I gave twenty years of my life to our military.
Disagree with them ridcule them, if you wish–as I am doing with yours—but don't you ever tell me to shut up.
Expect many more posts on this and other isssues that are important to me, and feel free to spew your rancor.
Those who were there know what they saw. There word is good enough for me, Peralta does not need a medal from some guy in DC, although it would have been nice. His valor is a far stronger testiment than any hunk of metal. Thanks for letting more folks know of his story.