The Medal of Honor is a perplexing thing - trying to scry out the why's and wherefore's of who gets one.
Among our allies in the Long War, the Brits, the Aussies, and the Kiwis all have something in common - they have living recipients of the Victoria Cross, awarded for actions that occured during their participation in the Long War. The Victoria Cross is the Commonwealth equivalent to the Medal of Honor.
The United States has none.
The Brits have a living recipient in the person of Lance Corporal Johnson Beharry, and a posthumous recipient, Corporal Bryan Budd. The Kiwis have Corporal Bill Apiata and the Australians recently awarded the VC to Trooper Mark Donaldson. In the Commonwealth armies, with only one less VC awarded than the United States has awarded Medals of Honor, 75% of their VCs went to living recipients.
The United States has five posthumous recipients. Army Sergeant First Class Paul Smith, Marine Corporal Jason Dunham, Navy SEAL Lieutenant Michael Murphy, Navy SEAL Master at Arms 2nd Class Michael Monsoor, and most recently, Army Specialist Ross McGinnis
I would note that three of these men earned their awards diving on grenades to save their buddies, in light of this weeks Army Soldier-Warrior, Staff Sergeant Atkins.
Because of what I do for a paying job, I see the Army Soldier-Warrior of the Week about a week before it actually gets released. When I saw this week's edition, honoring Staff Sergeant Travis Atkins, I found myself wondering - "Why wasn't this a Medal of Honor?" The other thing I wonder about when I think about the Medal of Honor is "What is it about this war that has made it seem like we have, if nothing else, at least a sub-conscious policy of "The Medal of Posthumous Honor." Representative Duncan Hunter must read this blog - he's asked the same question.
I don't believe that the per-soldier exposure to intense combat of our Commonwealth allies is greater than that of our soldiers - with the possible exception of the Kiwis, whose participation has been largely with SAS troops performing SOF missions. Yet they each have managed to have one living recipient, and among them, they have 4 to our 5, and we have a *lot* more soldiers in the fight than they have. I don't believe they have substantially less stringent requirements, either.
The vetting process for the Medal of Honor is extensive, and there is a lot more data there to consider than we see in the distillation of it that is released in the form of the citation. And I know that Holders of the Medal are involved in the process. The irony of the way things seem to be going is that there may not be any living Holders the next time we find ourselves in a big shooting war (not that this one is over yet). But, for example, only 37% of the Medals awarded during the Vietnam era were posthumous awards. For WWII, the figure is 57%. For Korea, the number is 70%. For the Global War on Terror? 100%.
When the article on SSG Atkins was released yesterday, it hadn't been in my inbox five minutes before I got another ping, from AFSis;
Well, as noted earlier, I didn't either. So I asked an expert. Secretary of the Army Peter Geren.How could this NOT be a MoH??!!!!!????
i don't get it. I just don't....
Mr. Geren kindly took time out of what has to be a very busy day as a new administration takes the reins and starts imprinting the budget process, and policy shifts, and settles in, to answer my missive.Mr. Secretary, allow me to abuse the privilege of your email address one more time.
Incidental to my "pays the bills" duties, I see the Warrior-Soldier of the Week articles as they are being staffed, and I saw the Warrior-Soldier of the Week proposed for SSG Atkins last week.
And I find, as I waited for it to be officially released, that the question I had last week remains.
How is this functionally different from the actions of MA2 Monsoor and PFC McGinnis? Honestly, I don't expect you to have an answer, I'm sure it's been a much-discussed issue - but I will use this to express one item of discontent.
That the Medal of Honor has seemingly become the Medal of Posthumous
Honor.
I read DSC cititations for this war, and I see several recipients who would have been wearing the MoH were this Vietnam, Korea, WWII.
The devil is in those details, and I will defer to a man who has been in the middle of it. But I do think we've either broken the code, and have warriors, kit, and tactics that simply allow us to avoid Medal of Honor situations, and our Allies don't have that kind of kit and tactics (because in my personal experience, their warriors match ours qualitatively) that allows them to avoid those situations.I appreciate your input and observations-cannot speak to Monsoor, but
can to McGinnis. I did consider the SSG Atkins award in light of PFC
McGinnis.
Without going into detail,it was a very difficult decision, but I found them to be distinguishable.
I understand your concern, and it has been expressed to me by others, that we hold those who survive to a different standard than those who perish. I do my best to consider each award based on the individual circumstances and strive for
consistency in my decision-making. I value your input.-PG
Perhaps.
I don't know the answer. But in my heart of hearts, I suspect we're being too hard on ourselves, in context.
Which is better than the other way around, but still...
I hope that your question, and Duncan Hunter's questions, will provide answers and results. Our guys are out there performing incredibly heroic acts, and they're not being honored the way they should. This needs to be fixed.
You pose the 64 thousand dollar question and I did not find Secretary Geren particularly convincing probably because his answer is basically, "Trust me."
But I agree with the concern that there is in place a de facto policy that the Medal of Honor will not be presented to a living recipient. I have my own suspicions why this is so.
"I found them to be distingquishable'", "The devil is in the details"...
I say this is a BS. Rafael Peralta was denied his MOH for being 'too wounded' to make a conscious decision and SSG Atkins' sacrifice had what wrong 'detail'?? Did not let the guy with a suicide vest go in a first place so the guy did not have to detonate his vest??
On the 'post-humous' issue, I agree with you, John. There is something going on here, I just can't put my finger on it. I do not believe that the issue of surviving should negate the level of bravery and sacrifice accorded to the person who covers a live grenade/suicide vest with his own body to save his buddies and other innocent people...
There aren't that many Medal holders who've found themselves on the wrong side of the law after getting their Medals. And when they do, it tends not to be a big deal.
If, as Frank and others suggest, that's a logic being applied - Shame On Them Who Think That Way. Not Frank, but people who are concerned about future behavior in Medal recipients.
MoH holders have a mystique about them, people listen when they talk. That's not the kind of person you want leading a protest march against the government, or even writing a letter to the editor of a major newspaper stating they feel the government is going the wrong with with their trillion dollar pork-bill (and no doubt the military would be punished by more severe cuts than the 11% they're already loosing were that to happen).
So we're not talking "the wrong side of the law", just the wrong side of some congresscritter or cabinet parrot who holds the keys to the DoD budget.
Something that might of course end up being against the law if things in the US go as I fully expect them to go over the next few months to a year.
Again, if you guys are correct, and I don't yet accept that - shame on them.
So, at best (I know at least one MOH awarded came from OEF), that means 4% of the (guesstimated) MOH nominations for Iraq resulted in an actual award.
Anyone know the success rate of nominations for other wars in the last 100 years?
Oh, and for the record, I think SSG Bellavia may very well hav sabotaged his nomination by running for Congress.
I see two driving forces.
1) Dead people don't inconvenience or embarass either the Government or the Military. I'm thinking here more in political or bad behaviour lines.
2) There's a diseased cultural undercurrent of respecting heroes for their death rather than their deeds. The 'ultimate sacrifice' worshippers. It reminds me of Matyrdom actually.
I agree, Argent.