SSG Sal Guinta is most likely going to be the first living recipient of the Medal of Honor for actions occuring after Vietnam.
Well done, Staff Sergeant, regardless of how it actually transpires!
And yes, I do think the collective we - milblogs and our readers - beat this drum until others heard it and took up the issue of the Medal of Posthumous Honor.
And I think it made a difference, once the questions started coming from Congress.
I understand fully vetting this Medal. But years? No. Not years. That's just Courtney Massengale at work in the Pentagon. Sam Damon should go kick his bureaucratic butt.
Well done, Staff Sergeant, regardless of how it actually transpires!
And yes, I do think the collective we - milblogs and our readers - beat this drum until others heard it and took up the issue of the Medal of Posthumous Honor.
And I think it made a difference, once the questions started coming from Congress.
I understand fully vetting this Medal. But years? No. Not years. That's just Courtney Massengale at work in the Pentagon. Sam Damon should go kick his bureaucratic butt.
Well done, indeed, Staff Sergeant Giunta, well done, indeed.
Of course, it doesn't hurt the war effort to have our own heroes instead of just body counts.
I swear sometimes these guys are so far behind on the concept of media warfare sometimes, its a wonder how we got this far.
Not to detract from this fellows bravery. The good Lord knows he rocked some Taliban's preconceived notions about American Soldiers.
For all that I supported Bush's work, his administration and the folks in his DoD never once managed that for eight years.
Because from where I stand that kind snark does -in fact- take away from what that soldier accomplished, since you're saying in so many words that the current DoD is considering the award for PR purposes.
If the previous administration had presented an award to a living recipient, I don't doubt the loyal opposition on the Left would raise a stink, claiming "politicization" of the war effort. In fact -given the overall performance of the Bush team- I expect "avoiding a stink" was their highest priority, instead of convincing US citizens that their cause was just .
In other words, Dubya pretty much couldn't award the MOH to a living recipient because the opposition would claim it was "politically motivated." Sad thing is, some conservatives are now returning the favor, even though they are supposed to be the folks who "support the troops." Can you really support the troops if you claim their awards for valor are cheap publicity stunts for the current administration?
Why do some people feel the need to bust the President's chops at every opportunity, up to & including his choice of necktie? Why not focus on (oh...) the important stuff, like ensuring Petraeus can win the Afghan war, avoiding the socialization of one-sixth of our economy, or out of control immigration? I smell an outbreak of ODS coming on, and it ain't pretty.
Fight smart, not hard.
I'm not sure who you're aimed at Casey - but I put the finger directly on the Pentagon. The Presidents only get to choose if the Pentagon puts someone forward.
And yes, I *do* think the process is politicized.
And I do think the only reason some medals have moved forward is because we essentially bitched long and loud about it.
The problem is in the Pentagon.
It almost sounds to me like you're suggesting we should all just shut up, and just let it ride for 50 years, like the Nisei soldiers from World War II, who got their awards, if they lived long enough, in 2000.
2008 (?)
I don't believe that there were NO deserving nominations. I think that the REMFers looked at the parade of MoH people coming out of Vietnam and though to themselves "I can stop that", and they did. The shame is theirs, not the warriors.
oh.
IT'S ABOUT DAMN TIME.
I mind that guy on Iwo Jima who smothered not one, but two grenades with his pale tender body, lived to tell about it, and then went home and finished high school.
I've followed your complaints here, and you aren't (as you no doubt know) the only milblogger out there bitching about this. It is ludicrous that the Pentagon (as you say) during Bush's administration couldn't find one single soldier (Marine, sailor, etc) who qualified for the MOH.
What I don't understand is why Bush didn't send a memo along the lines of "Excuse me, after several thousand deaths, dramatic rescues and other heroism, and you goobers can't find one single candidate for the MOH!? Was he worried about political blow-back? Was he concerned that any award would be pilloried as a "glorification of war?" Or should I ask that of the Pentagon bureaus?
No, I don't want everyone to shut up, and let it ride. The more I read of what some of those young men & women have accomplished, the more pissed I get that we haven't seen any living MOH recipients to date.
My remarks with respect to the Bush administration were that I had the feeling they avoided MOH nominations so they might avoid controversy. From what you tell me the blame lies more elsewhere.
The first part of my complaint addressed my frustration with the Bushies; see above. Still, I don't doubt liberals would have claimed any MOH nominations 2002-2009 as politically motivated. They just can't help themselves. If Bush did it, it's wrong.
The second part of my frustration lies with conservatives/hawks today who seem intent on damning the Obama administration. They are making the same claim, but in reverse.
Sometimes, even President Barry gets it right, and if that takes some subtle nudging to get the Pentagon butt-nuggets off their cans, then good for him!
My further frustration lies with those who vocally disparage the nomination of SSG Guinta just because it came from the Obama administration.
So, no, I don't think we should all shut up, and let it ride. I do think we should speak up, and advocate honest vetting with respect to awards for valor (which, if I understand correctly, is what you've been going for), and not complain when the Pentagon and White House take you at your word, and actually nominate suitable candidates. Not only that, I would like to hear "thank you Mr. President, at least you got that one single thing right.," Apparently that's too much for some folks.
I hope that cleared up my last mini-rant. :)
You nailed it when you asked, "Or should I ask that of the Pentagon bureaus?"
Change "bureaus" to "bureaucrats" and you'll have answered the question, too.
And you're right, Casey - but that's how politics are played these days.
Meanwhile, over at the Pentagon the current process of awards review is a legacy of Rumsfeld, I think. His penchent for neverending quests for more detail and more analysis coupled with centralized decision making set up a climate hostile to the recognition of the soldier out there on the cutting edge. His generals, selected for their willingness to do his bidding, carried out what they believed to be the desires of the Sec Def. They investigated each nomination to death. No stone was left unturned, and what began as an exercise designed to protect the integrity and standing of the award became an obscession to protect the Pentagon from any embarrasment or any distraction from their political goals.
Rumsfeld wanted to deny that a real war was going on. In his mind, it all ended when the 3ID tanks rolled into Bagdhad. To allow a steady stream of valor awards ran counter to the story he wanted to tell. By the time he was gone, the bureaucrats had created a process capable of running by itself.
The bloggers, not the Generals, and certainly not the politicians have forced this change, if indeed it is a change. Time will tell.