Some readers occasionally comment that some of our contributors write or comment more frequently and extensively on events or news items that support their own political views or their own opinions on issues.
Without admitting that my colleagues do such, and speaking strictly for myself, I find that this is a natural tendency, but one that I try to “control,” periodically.
For example, I believe that way too few Medals of Honor have been awarded to our heroes from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars—a total of six thus far. Those that have been awarded have all been presented posthumously. I believe that there certainly must be some living heroes deserving our nation’s highest award for valor in combat in those wars. Finally, I believe that, at least in one case, the Medal is being unjustifiably withheld from one of our heroes.
And I have written extensively about it. Recently, here, here, here, and here.
And I have been severely criticized for such opinions.
Thursday, Ed Hooper, an author and journalist from Knoxville, Tenn., who has reported on military affairs, wrote a powerful column in the Washington Post, one that pretty much rebuts everything I have written on this issue.
In “Leave the Medal of Honor Alone,” Hooper says that “unfortunately, some are pushing for this decoration to be awarded more generously because they believe the number of recipients is too low.”
He criticizes the more than a dozen groups and lawmakers who are lobbying the Defense Department to award the Medal of Honor “more frequently,” and he also criticizes efforts “to upgrade to the Medal of Honor other decorations that soldiers have received.” (Note: If Hooper is referring to the case of Marine Sgt. Rafael Peralta, I personally would describe that case more as “restoring” the award of the Medal of Honor to a hero recommended for that Honor, but where the award was “downgraded” to the Navy Cross, and not a case of “upgrading.” Let me hasten to add that it is not my intent to diminish the tremendous honor and recognition bestowed by the Navy Cross)
He singles out Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) for inserting a conference report in the authorization act “to review the current trends in awarding the Medal of Honor to identify whether there is an inadvertent subjective bias amongst commanders that has contributed to the low numbers of awards of the Medal of Honor.
Hooper gives us an excellent historical background on the Medal and eloquently explains and defends the uniqueness and exclusivity of this honor:
The Medal of Honor is a combat decoration not limited to a past battle or present circumstances; it is also about how succeeding generations will view the individuals on whom it was bestowed and why. Most Medals of Honor have been posthumously awarded, and the citations justifying its presentation are Homeric stories of bravery that centuries from now are likely to stand unrivaled beside the stories of great warriors and citizen-soldiers throughout history.
The uniformed men and women of the U.S. Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, Marines and Navy will tell you that the Medal of Honor is a warrior’s award and that it is their decoration to present only to those whom they regard as fit to wear it. Politicians, pundits and civilian organizations — however well-meaning — should have little say in who receives it.
And,
This honor is not about quotas or statistics; nor does the number of presentations reflect on the modern soldier’s valiant service on the battlefield. The Bronze Star, the Silver Star and the Distinguished Service Cross are prestigious decorations of valor, not to be taken lightly or dismissed.
The strict standards for the Medal of Honor are meant to keep it credible. It is wrong to pressure the Defense Department to lower its standards of individual courage, nobility and self-sacrifice on a battlefield. The department should make its own decisions on this award so Americans will know that when it lauds someone as a “hero,” we should all take notice.
Some of our readers have expressed very similar feelings and opinions.
I am glad to share Hooper’s opinions—which I respect—with them.
Please click here to read the entire article.
