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.

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 always enjoy a civil discussion, contrary to the arrogant commentary by whomever Father Time is

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.

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

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

“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!

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.”

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?

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?

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.

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.

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

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?

Our President, Congress and the Pentagon are neither infallible nor sacrosanct,

Remember, “We the people….”?.

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.

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