WTF, over?
Time to kick over my rants about awards policy in the era of the Medal of Posthumous Honor (there are rumors that one is working that might go to a living recipient, if they don't die of old age first). You laugh - some of the historical Medals that are listed as posthumous are because the recipient simply wore out before someone got around to making the decision, not because they died earning the Medal. There have been Medals awarded to living people in the last 20 years - but only because they lived long, full lives while the Pentagon played catch-up. There have been no living recipients of the award for actions later than Vietnam, however.
Because, we are assured, warfare is so different now.
Heh.
Others who hang out here have expounded on this, too.
Comes now the extended-in-the-'Stan Heartless Libertarian, who asks:
Indeed. In the absence of any sensical explanations of the process, one is left making assumptions.
About political correctness, excessive caution because don't want those stories like came out of Grenada, because, among other things, the service PAOs are unable to articulate the difference between an award and a decoration... one being for specific actions and the other for simply being there, but they're all medals to those who don't know the difference. Nor do we want anyone digging into the disparity between unit attitudes (and especially unit attitudes and resulting disparities where there are reservists embedded in Regular units). And heaven forbid someone with a high-level medal think about getting into politics or something. That would be bad. Note to non-Regulars - don't be a hero if, during the awards decision process, you might come off tour and run for an office. That might, um, influence the decision. Because we wouldn't want to influence the election, donchaknow. That last is a bit out there, but one can visualize the Courtney Massengale's advancing that logic, while the Sam Damons fume.
There's always going to be variation - between units, between services, between theaters. Got that and understand why it is.
But the system is excessively bureaucratic - and too many people are involved in the process.
Especially second-guessing fobbits. And it's not like I've got a personal dog in this fight.
Time to kick over my rants about awards policy in the era of the Medal of Posthumous Honor (there are rumors that one is working that might go to a living recipient, if they don't die of old age first). You laugh - some of the historical Medals that are listed as posthumous are because the recipient simply wore out before someone got around to making the decision, not because they died earning the Medal. There have been Medals awarded to living people in the last 20 years - but only because they lived long, full lives while the Pentagon played catch-up. There have been no living recipients of the award for actions later than Vietnam, however.
Because, we are assured, warfare is so different now.
Heh.
Others who hang out here have expounded on this, too.
Comes now the extended-in-the-'Stan Heartless Libertarian, who asks:
So the Germans can give our troops one of their highest awards for valor (not sure of the US equivalent) - the first time this medal has been given to non-Germans, even - less than a month after the action.
Yet for some reason it takes the US Army something like TWO YEARS to award a Silver Star. (Unless, you know, it's for a female soldier, when the award can be milked for PC points.)
Something is seriously wrong with our combat awards process.
Indeed. In the absence of any sensical explanations of the process, one is left making assumptions.
About political correctness, excessive caution because don't want those stories like came out of Grenada, because, among other things, the service PAOs are unable to articulate the difference between an award and a decoration... one being for specific actions and the other for simply being there, but they're all medals to those who don't know the difference. Nor do we want anyone digging into the disparity between unit attitudes (and especially unit attitudes and resulting disparities where there are reservists embedded in Regular units). And heaven forbid someone with a high-level medal think about getting into politics or something. That would be bad. Note to non-Regulars - don't be a hero if, during the awards decision process, you might come off tour and run for an office. That might, um, influence the decision. Because we wouldn't want to influence the election, donchaknow. That last is a bit out there, but one can visualize the Courtney Massengale's advancing that logic, while the Sam Damons fume.
There's always going to be variation - between units, between services, between theaters. Got that and understand why it is.
But the system is excessively bureaucratic - and too many people are involved in the process.
Especially second-guessing fobbits. And it's not like I've got a personal dog in this fight.
The truth is that no one sits around during one of these gunfights dispassionately recording events like its a final four showdown. Everyone is a player and they are usually busy. The citations get written later by the survivors and often by someone who was miles away at the time.
The level of award is usually determined by the senior commander within days of the action. Administrative wheels are thereafter set in motion to make it so. So, did the senior commander recommend Silver Stars all around, or were there one or two DSC recommendations made by the guy in a position to know? The Army seems to have some pinheads back in the five-sided building who like to second guess and knobdick award recommendations - given the political firestorm over COP Keating, someone may not want the publicity of a DSC award announcement.
All of this is pure speculation on my part.
Not sure if any of them left Div HQ as MoH noms...but by now, I'm pretty sure none were approved. And I think MoH's are running at 3-4 years to get approved.
With a timeline like that, they would have been awarding MoH's earned at Pearl Harbor during the V-J Day celebrations.