# CF  Service Medals



## Dirty Patricia (15 Feb 2008)

ArtyNewbie said:
			
		

> it just seems that the focus these days is on the bling and not "service before self"



The Canadian soldier that deploys to Afghanistan is not any different in character than those that went before him in WW1, WW2 or Korea.  To see how well these young men perform in battle is an unbelievable experience.  They are not doing it for "bling", I can assure you that.  There is nothing wrong with recognizing their service with new awards (wound medal) or new badges (CAB).  Why are we so reluctant to recognize our troops?


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (15 Feb 2008)

> The phobia of Canada going the way of our US neighbours is just plain paranoia. The US have a different awards system, and it is part of their military culture. We shoud not knock it or make fun of it.



I respectfully disagree.  We _are_ going the way of the Americans, and I don't agree with it in 90% of cases.  In the past year, we have developed an attitude towards H&A that reflects much more of a US mindset than anything else.  This is because (IMHO) of a profound lack of education regarding the _Canadian_ honours system and by the pervasive influence of US-media and Americanized views of the military in general.  The public still has a difficult time distinguishing between US tradition and Canadian history and we see all sorts of "bright ideas" - not just H&A related - pushed to the fore because of it.  Witness:

-  an obvious change in criteria for Meritorious Service Decorations, to the point where some tours have awarded them for _every_ sub-unit commander
-  the so-called "Combat Action Badge" - a direct derivative of the US CIB and a (IMHO) tremendously flawed concept
-  the so-called "Sacrifice Medal" - a direct derivative of the Purple Heart (indeed somewhere on this site is the original idea that equates it directly to the PH)
-  a plethora of "double tap" medals that have resulted in two (or three! Op BRONZE Roto 0, anyone?) medals for one tour.
-  an obvious change in criteria for CDS and Command-level commendations (take a look at the vast array of activities for which they've been awarded lately - some obviously deserving, others not so much)
-  an increasing tendency towards commemoratives and Provincial medals that bear only oblique reference to military accomplishment or service

As for this specific idea, we don't need two LS awards.  Have one with clasps and be done with it.  If this means you get your CD at four years, so be it.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Feb 2008)

Dirty Patricia said:
			
		

> ........).  Why are we so reluctant to recognize our troops?



That is the crux of this whole topic.  Perhaps it is the way that it is being presented, almost like a demand.........."I am soooo deserving of this." rather than as an honest straight forward presentation.  It is almost as if someone went whining for recognition for something they had done.  I would say; Presentation.  It is the 'presentation' of the idea that was not done in a manner that wouldn't create some controversy.  Even here, people are degrading awards presented to others who have served previously, as if they meant nothing, as these new awards would mean so much more.  Presentation.  No one likes to have their Service cheapened by a new troop.


----------



## Greymatters (15 Feb 2008)

Dirty Patricia said:
			
		

> A bit bitter perhaps?  The "previous" generation received a medal for eating bratwurst and drinking beer, perhaps the "younger" generation should get something for combat.



Granted it was an easy tour of duty, but a tour out of country nonetheless... when put that way its hard to argue with having a four year service medal...


----------



## Royal (15 Feb 2008)

This adds good perspective and most of these comments will get back to the source, guaranteed!!  I even found a real live aussie who laughed and said somthing like" get yourself another whanker-bomb" from the US.


----------



## Dirty Patricia (15 Feb 2008)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> -  an obvious change in criteria for Meritorious Service Decorations, to the point where some tours have awarded them for _every_ sub-unit commander
> -  the so-called "Combat Action Badge" - a direct derivative of the US CIB and a (IMHO) tremendously flawed concept
> -  the so-called "Sacrifice Medal" - a direct derivative of the Purple Heart (indeed somewhere on this site is the original idea that equates it directly to the PH)



I don't have an issue with CAB or Sacrifice Medal.  Why not recognize soldiers with these awards?  We say it's "American", but so many other militaries have the same kind of awards.  The British are currently lobbying for their own version of a Sacrifice Medal.

I do agree with the criteria for MSDs.  It seems to be a guaranteed award for certain command levels.  It is for "professionalism", so why can't we recognizing the way junior officers, NCOs and soldiers are demonstrating extreme professionalism on operations?  We should be reading citations about Lts, Cpls and Ptes as well as Cols and CWOs.


----------



## Monsoon (15 Feb 2008)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> I respectfully disagree.  We _are_ going the way of the Americans, and I don't agree with it in 90% of cases.  In the past year, we have developed an attitude towards H&A that reflects much more of a US mindset than anything else.  This is because (IMHO) of a profound lack of education regarding the _Canadian_ honours system and by the pervasive influence of US-media and Americanized views of the military in general.  The public still has a difficult time distinguishing between US tradition and Canadian history and we see all sorts of "bright ideas" - not just H&A related - pushed to the fore because of it.



I can't agree. For a year spent in Italy in WWII, my grandfather was awarded the 1939-1945 Star, the Italy Star, the Canadian Volunteer Service Medal and the War Medal. If he had spent a single day of service in France, he would also have been given the France and Germany Star. I don't think of any of those medals as being cheap, even if they were essentially a "quadruple-tap". Someone deploying to Afghanistan today (up to nine months for some now) will be given the SWASM and the GSM/GCS. In future missions they will only be given a clasp to their GSM/GCS.

It's easy to hearken back to good old days that never really existed and there is tendency to adopt a hair-shirted mentality towards apportioning out H&A to as few people as possible. There's nothing distinctly Canadian (at least historically) about "one mission, one medal".


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (15 Feb 2008)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> I can't agree. For a year spent in Italy in WWII, my grandfather was awarded the 1939-1945 Star, the Italy Star, the Canadian Volunteer Service Medal and the War Medal. If he had spent a single day of service in France, he would also have been given the France and Germany Star. I don't think of any of those medals as being cheap, even if they were essentially a "quadruple-tap". Someone deploying to Afghanistan today (up to nine months for some now) will be given the SWASM and the GSM/GCS. In future missions they will only be given a clasp to their GSM/GCS.
> 
> It's easy to hearken back to good old days that never really existed and there is tendency to adopt a hair-shirted mentality towards apportioning out H&A to as few people as possible. There's nothing distinctly Canadian (at least historically) about "one mission, one medal".



You're not correct.  Pers deploying to Afghanistan right now qualify for one medal - the Campaign Star.  Pers deploying on OEF - the US-led mission - receive the SWASM.  Some have two because (a) they've done a US-led and an ISAF tour (the case in my instance) or (b) they were present in theatre over the transition between OEF and ISAF in 2006 (a concept I don't agree with).  It is certainly not a two for one tour.

You're comparing apples and oranges when bringing WW II into the equation.  That conflict featured separate and distinct campaigns which, because of the global nature of the conflict, resulted in separate and distinct service.  There was also a distinction between those who volunteered and those who were conscripted.  You cannot tell me that it is equivalent to a six-month OP BRONZE deployment where some received the NATO Medal, the EUFOR medal and the CPSM all in one shot.

If I'm a betting bear (and I'm not), we'll never see a different bar to the GCS (the existing two aside).  Whatever new operation we undertake will demand a "new" medal and separate recognition of their service.



> It seems those who oppose it are so quick to say we are "Americanizing" our awards system.  If you don't like it throw your awards in the garbage



Oh please...  :


----------



## Monsoon (15 Feb 2008)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> You're not correct.  Pers deploying to Afghanistan right now qualify for one medal - the Campaign Star.  Pers deploying on OEF - the US-led mission - receive the SWASM... It is certainly not a two for one tour.


Seen.



			
				Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> You're comparing apples and oranges when bringing WW II into the equation.  That conflict featured separate and distinct campaigns which, because of the global nature of the conflict, resulted in separate and distinct service.


But at the end of the day he was awarded three (discounting the Volunteer medal) medals for serving in a single theatre. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that; I'm just saying that this indicates that Canada hasn't always had the cut-and-dried approach to H&A that you were suggesting was traditional.



			
				Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> If I'm a betting bear (and I'm not), we'll never see a different bar to the GCS (the existing two aside).  Whatever new operation we undertake will demand a "new" medal and separate recognition of their service.


I, for one, hope you're right.


----------



## Michael OLeary (15 Feb 2008)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> I can't agree. For a year spent in Italy in WWII, my grandfather was awarded the 1939-1945 Star, the Italy Star, the Canadian Volunteer Service Medal and the War Medal. If he had spent a single day of service in France, he would also have been given the France and Germany Star. I don't think of any of those medals as being cheap, even if they were essentially a "quadruple-tap". Someone deploying to Afghanistan today (up to nine months for some now) will be given the SWASM and the GSM/GCS. In future missions they will only be given a clasp to their GSM/GCS.
> 
> It's easy to hearken back to good old days that never really existed and there is tendency to adopt a hair-shirted mentality towards apportioning out H&A to as few people as possible. There's nothing distinctly Canadian (at least historically) about "one mission, one medal".






			
				hamiltongs said:
			
		

> But at the end of the day he was awarded three (discounting the Volunteer medal) medals for serving in a single theatre.



Your grandfather may have met the separate criteria for each of his medals, but stating that “he was awarded three medals for serving in a single theatre” is over-simplifying the case.  If we look at the basic criteria for his medals:

*1939-1945 Star* – _for six months service on active operations for Army and Navy, and two months for active air-crew between 02 September 1939 and 08 May 1945 (Europe) or 02 September 1945 (Pacific) _

*Italy Star* – _for one day operational service in Sicily or Italy between 11 June 1943 and 08 May 1945 _

*Canadian Volunteer Service Medal* – _ voluntarily served on Active Service and have honourably completed eighteen months ( 540 days) total voluntary service from September 3, 1939 to March 1, 1947_

*War Medal* - _for 28 days between 03 September 1939 and 02 September 1945 _

We can see that they aren’t really duplicate requirements.  He could have earned the Italy Star without qualifying for the 1939-45 Star.  He could have qualified for the CVSM, but never participated in active operations and received any stars.  He could have joined late, earned the War medal and been demobilized before earning the CVSM or 39-45 Star. 

We may get used to seeing certain combinations of medals because many Canadians served in the same formations and theatres of war.  But these are coincidental, not by “double-triple-quadruple-tapping” medal issues. Nearly any combination of the Second World War medals are possible, depending on the duration and path of each service member’s career.


----------



## Monsoon (15 Feb 2008)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> We can see that they aren’t really duplicate requirements.  He could have earned the Italy Star without qualifying for the 1939-45 Star.  He could have qualified for the CVSM, but never participated in active operations and received any stars.  He could have joined late, earned the War medal and been demobilized before earning the CVSM or 39-45 Star.



I agree, but I don't see that this is any different from earning a CPSM, theatre medal, and NATO medal for the same campaign. Each medal has different criteria that happen to overlap in the instance of a particular mission. In any event, my only point is that it isn't a Canadian tradition to be parsimonious with medals. That point having been made, I'll stop derailing the thread.


----------



## Dirty Patricia (15 Feb 2008)

How about this scenario compared to today.  In Korea a Canadian soldier was awarded the Korea Medal from Canada and the United Nations Service Medal (Korea) from the UN.  In Afghanistan a Canadian soldier is awarded the GCS from Canada, but is not entitled to the ISAF medal from NATO.  Two awards in Korea (and much later a third), but only one in Afghanistan.  As an aside, both Australia and the US award both their own campaign medal and the ISAF medal.


----------



## Michael OLeary (15 Feb 2008)

Dirty Patricia said:
			
		

> In Korea a Canadian soldier was awarded the Korea Medal from Canada and the United Nations Service Medal (Korea) from the UN.  ... <snip> ...Two awards in Korea (and much later a third), .....



*Canadian Korea Medal* - _for one day on the strength of an army unit in Korea; or 28 days afloat; or one sortie over Korea by a member of the RCAF, 02 July 1950 - 27 July 1953_

*United Nations Service Medal Korea* - one day under United Nations' command in Korea or adjacent areas, including Japan and Okinawa. The medal could also be awarded for an aggregate of thirty days, which need not have been consecutive, spent on official visits of inspection to the qualifying area. The qualifying period was 27 June 1950 to 27 July 1954 (one year longer than for the Canadian Korean War Medal).

*Canadian Volunteer Service Medal for Korea* - _(a) was in the Canadian armed forces during all or part of the period from 27 June 1950 to 27 July 1954:
(b) was in the qualifying area (defined as Korea and the adjacent areas, including Japan, Okinawa and Korean waters); and
(c) during the period referred to in (a),
   1. was on the strength of an army unit or formation in Korea for at least one day;
   2. was on active service for at least 28 days on a ship or craft engaged in operations in the qualifying area;
   3. flew one sortie over Korea or over Korean waters in the Yellow Sea or Sea of Japan, or:
   4. accumulated at least 28 days service in the qualifying area.
_

Once again, different terms of reference, which saw some soldiers eligible for all three, and others who were not. 

They less demonstrate a 'tradition' of multiple medals for single service than they do a willingness to have medals with overlapping criteria that allow for the same period of service to be eligible for more than one medal at a time.

It speaks well to the fact that each medal has been considered separately to develop or approve its established criteria, and that "one tour - one medal" is not a closely maintained policy.


----------



## Michael OLeary (15 Feb 2008)

ArtyNewbie said:
			
		

> ok lets get on to the idea of the sacrifice medal, we already have an award for wounds recieved in combat, it's called the wound stripe, its worn on the sleeve of the CF Tunic to recognize these acts.  and yes the US has a different honours system,  read DIFFERENT, we are creating awards with the same (or pretty d@#$ close) so is it a matter of continiueing with a Canadian home grown honours system or lets just adopt another nations, like the US, we can hand out ribbons for successful course completion, not medals mind you but ribbons alone. or we can stick to the ones we have and develop in our own, modeled after nobody system. With Canadian medals, modeled after Canadian Ideals. It's not like I'm saying let's forget new medals and awards, but lets be distinct from other nations about it.



That belongs over here - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/50674.0.html

And the post has been moved there.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## RHFC_piper (15 Feb 2008)

Dirty Patricia said:
			
		

> How about this scenario compared to today.  In Korea a Canadian soldier was awarded the Korea Medal from Canada and the United Nations Service Medal (Korea) from the UN.  In Afghanistan a Canadian soldier is awarded the GCS from Canada, but is not entitled to the ISAF medal from NATO.  Two awards in Korea (and much later a third), but only one in Afghanistan.  As an aside, both Australia and the US award both their own campaign medal and the ISAF medal.



I realize this may derail the discussion from the topic at hand yet a little more, but I have to ask;  Why don't CF members get the ISAF medal for AF when other countries do?  Is it a CF/DND thing, a NATO thing or what?

I understand the SWASM deal and why only NSE/NCE guys from my tour got it, and the BG got only the GCS, but... What's the deal with the NATO medal?  

I only ask as some of the guys on my tour had been, and will be, in Afghanistan several times and yet may only display the GCS once, with no numbers or additional bars, and the SWASM if they have it... kinda seems unfair for the folks who've been there a few times.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (15 Feb 2008)

Thanks Michael I was just looking at a previous post in the thread and typing with a phone in my hand


----------



## Kat Stevens (15 Feb 2008)

I've never quite understood our "aww shucks, t'warn't nothin', I don't need no medal" way of business in the Canadian Army.  Yes, we're just doing our job, but it can be a shitty and dangerous one, and if all it takes is a medal to make the troops feel better about it, who does it harm?


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (16 Feb 2008)

Dirty Patricia said:
			
		

> How about this scenario compared to today.  In Korea a Canadian soldier was awarded the Korea Medal from Canada and the United Nations Service Medal (Korea) from the UN.  In Afghanistan a Canadian soldier is awarded the GCS from Canada, but is not entitled to the ISAF medal from NATO.  Two awards in Korea (and much later a third), but only one in Afghanistan.  As an aside, both Australia and the US award both their own campaign medal and the ISAF medal.



Well, on my ISAF tour we were told specifically _not_ to accept the NATO medal.  It came in as very firm written direction from Ottawa - "thou are not to accept, even in ceremonial form, the NATO Medal for Afghanistan".  I had to tell a very irate Brigadier that I - myself only - was not going to participate in his formation's medals parade...  Awkward?  You bet.  I can see not wearing it, but not _accepting_ it, even as a keepsake?  Makes ya wonder...

By the way, the UK has the same policy regarding Afghan medals (or did).  They have their own and don't wear/accept the NATO medal.


----------



## Gunner (16 Feb 2008)

> I realize this may derail the discussion from the topic at hand yet a little more, but I have to ask;  Why don't CF members get the ISAF medal for AF when other countries do?  Is it a CF/DND thing, a NATO thing or what?



Strictly CF.  When the CF first deployed to Kabul in 03 the soldiers complained that they did not want the NATO Non-Article 5 medal as it was seen as being associated with a less prestigious mission (Bosnia).  The H and A community were also under pressure to provide timely development of tour medals for different missions.  The result was the development of the GCS and GSM which would be a common campaign medal.  "Bars" would be added to the medal to denote different campaigns.  Unfortunately, it didn't take into consideration that soldiers like to wear their "CV" on their chest and a soldier could, argueably, serve on 10 different missions over his/her career and wind up with only two medals (a GCS and a CD).  Another interesting tidbit about the GCS/GSM is you can only be awared one.  Hence, someone who served in Camp Mirage would have to hand in their GSM before receiving their GCS.



> I understand the SWASM deal and why only NSE/NCE guys from my tour got it, and the BG got only the GCS, but...



Not sure what you mean by only NSE/NCE people from your tour receiving the SWASM.  Anyone from Roto 1 or Roto 2 who served 30 days under OEF and/or ISAF would be entitled to either or both medals (IIRC the handover between US/NATO occurred on 30 July 2006).



> What's the deal with the NATO medal?



Canadian policy was/is you only get one medal for each mission.  Canada told NATO that we would not be receving the NATO Medal as we had our own recognition (GCS/GSM).  Originally no one was allowed to receive it to prevent them from showing up on uniforms but this rule has been relaxed and people were being presented it in an informal manner as a "sock drawer" momento.

I'm pretty much out of the loop now but I still expect some type of omnibus announcement which will fix all the current problems with the H&A system (GCS/GSM, SWASM, Sacrifice Medal, etc) and realease the Cbt Action Badge on the CF who are approaching it with their "eyes wide shut".


----------



## Gunner (16 Feb 2008)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Well, on my ISAF tour we were told specifically _not_ to accept the NATO medal.  It came in as very firm written direction from Ottawa - "thou are not to accept, even in ceremonial form, the NATO Medal for Afghanistan".  I had to tell a very irate Brigadier that I - myself only - was not going to participate in his formation's medals parade...  Awkward?  You bet.  I can see not wearing it, but not _accepting_ it, even as a keepsake?  Makes ya wonder...
> 
> By the way, the UK has the same policy regarding Afghan medals (or did).  They have their own and don't wear/accept the NATO medal.



Teddy, as always, you are way ahead of me.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (16 Feb 2008)

Gunner said:
			
		

> Teddy, as always, you are way ahead of me.



Yeah, but I made it all about me, as usual... 

Good info on the GCS/CSM business - I had no idea they were mutually exclusive!  As I said earlier, I cannot see the GCS "bars for each mission" idea surviving contact with a future theatre.  I suspect you're right, though - all will become clear shortly with a blizzard of direction.  Many of the issues raised here have been raised repeatedly on the official net.


----------



## Gunner (16 Feb 2008)

> Good info on the GCS/CSM business - I had no idea they were mutually exclusive!



The last I had heard on this subject was people with the GSM were not to hand it back in so it could be replaced by the GCS.  Having said that, I am way out of date on where all of these issues stand.



> I cannot see the GCS "bars for each mission" idea surviving contact with a future theatre.



I don't think it was well understood by the CF leadership what was being proposed other than as a simplified solution to recognize soldiers promptly (which is a good thing).  I remember speaking with an Artillery General in 2005 while in Kabul on this subject and I believe it honestly took him by surprise when I gave him the two medal scenario outlined above.


----------



## ModlrMike (16 Feb 2008)

Gunner said:
			
		

> The last I had heard on this subject was people with the GSM were not to hand it back in so it could be replaced by the GCS.  Having said that, I am way out of date on where all of these issues stand.



Only because both are currently awarded for the same theatre or campaign. It is theoretically possible that at some point in the future, some CF members will wear both for having served on different campaigns. If you check the DHH site, there's no mention in the criteria the states only one of the two can be worn at a time.


----------



## Gunner (16 Feb 2008)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Only because both are currently awarded for the same theatre or campaign. It is theoretically possible that at some point in the future, some CF members will wear both for having served on different campaigns. If you check the DHH site, there's no mention in the criteria the states only one of the two can be worn at a time.



http://gazetteducanada.gc.ca/partI/2004/20040731/html/decret-e.html

ModlrMike, it's not that a member can't be awarded both.  According to the canadian gazette, 



> 11. (1) The Star and Medal shall only be awarded to a person once, with qualifying service in respect of additional operations being recognized by the award of additional Bars.
> 
> (2) *No person shall be awarded a Bar to the Star and a Bar to the Medal in respect of the same operation. *



If you read para 11, the GCS and Medal can only be awarded once, however, the key phrase is in bold.  If you serve in Camp Mirage, and then serve in the actual theatre of operations, you are supposed to hand in your GSM for a GCS as it is the higher award for the ISAF Bar.  I hope this clears it up for you.


----------



## ModlrMike (16 Feb 2008)

I think we're saying the same thing WRT the GCS/GSM for Afghanistan. What I'm saying is that if we operate in another theatre later, there exists the possibility for a member have earned both awards. Para 11(2) clearly states they won't both be awarded in respect of the same operation. It says nothing about being awarded for different operations. Indeed, under current conditions, one could have been awarded the star for Kosovo (Allied Force), and the medal for Mirage (ISAF).


----------



## Gunner (16 Feb 2008)

Seen, I agree with you.


----------



## Greymatters (16 Feb 2008)

Gunner said:
			
		

> Strictly CF.  When the CF first deployed to Kabul in 03 the soldiers complained that they did not want the NATO Non-Article 5 medal as it was seen as being associated with a less prestigious mission (Bosnia).



I think thats a bit out of sorts - considering how little the upper levels listen to 'the soldiers' on many important issues, I sincerely doubt 'the soldiers' were instrumental in turning down a NATO medal.  It is more likely that being a new mission area and unique country of operations, the brass with influence wanted a new medal to signify the tour rather than a bar to an old medal... which is similiar to your point but not quite the same...


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (16 Feb 2008)

I'll back Gunner up here (and he's in a position to know).  The angst from the creation of the NATO "Non Article 5" medal, the relationship to Bosnia, and its potential application to ISAF was a direct factor in how we decided to recognize ISAF service.  The "brass" _does_ listen to soldiers on occasion - not always to the benefit of operations.  In the end the NATO ISAF medal has the same ribbon colours (but different pattern) than the other NA5 gongs, and comes with an ISAF clasp.  I doubt that this was known in 2003.


----------



## Gunner (16 Feb 2008)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> I think thats a bit out of sorts - considering how little the upper levels listen to 'the soldiers' on many important issues, I sincerely doubt 'the soldiers' were instrumental in turning down a NATO medal.  It is more likely that being a new mission area and unique country of operations, the brass with influence wanted a new medal to signify the tour rather than a bar to an old medal... which is similiar to your point but not quite the same...



I don't think you give the CF leadership credit for how much they listen to soldiers opinions (the difference between your bitching and moaning as opposed to ideas and concerns of merit).  In the private and public sector you will find very few companies whose leadership spends a consdierable amount of their time getting the opinions of the rank and file remaining aware of what is happening throughout their organizations.  

Getting rid of Army Work Dress, Summer DEU, future implementation of the Combat Action Badge and Sacrifice Medal, etc are all based on comments given to CF leadership by soldiers.


----------



## Reccesoldier (16 Feb 2008)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Granted it was an easy tour of duty, but a tour out of country nonetheless... when put that way its hard to argue with having a four year service medal...



But the SSM Nato has been suspended because {finally} we realized that it was being awarded incorrectly to EVERYONE who ever spent 180 days with NATO anywhere, doing anything.  Those guys in Brussels eating caviar and going to the opera getting the same medal as the grunt sitting deployed with 4Bde to be a "speed bump in the Fulda gap"

So the derision that people here are heaping on the SSM was in some ways deserved, but the proposed solution is to create a medal which is essentially another 4year gimme with NO requirement for operational status making it even more reprehensible than the "beer and bratwurst" medal?  The logic escapes me.


----------



## armyvern (16 Feb 2008)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> So the derision that people here are heaping on the SSM was in some ways deserved, but the proposed solution is to create a medal which is essentially another 4year gimme with NO requirement for operational status making it even more reprehensible than the "beer and bratwurst" medal?  The logic escapes me.



That's another thing that escapes logic ...

The tendancy by some to call it the Beer & Bratwurst medal.

Only one of the multitude of Bars awarded for it ... was applicable to "Beer & Bratwurst". Perhaps, the "Beer & Bratwurst Bar" is more appropriate -- although the term irritates the hell out of me. And the differentiation even with that "Bar" is as per your post above. There was the caviar set ... and then there were the guys & gals manning the Fulda gap. Lucky for us that the big red machine never took any opportunity to do some more tourism around the Fulda gap -- but those troops were sitting there willing to fight and die SHOULD the red machine decide to. How quick some are to write off their contributions simply because nothing happened. We serve in our times. I really fucking hate it when people denigrate the service of others based upon ...

"Well nothing happened during your service, you just sat there eating beer and Bratwurst" ... holy crap over. It'd a whole different ballgame though if the machine had decided to march westwards and found themsleves met in the Fulda by the Beer & Bratwurst set who would have fought just as professionally and honourably as those today find themselves doing in Afghanistan.

The "our generation is better and braver than your generation" attitude that I'm seeing expressed by some these days ... is simply right the fuck out of it.


----------



## Greymatters (16 Feb 2008)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> But the SSM Nato has been suspended because {finally} we realized that it was being awarded incorrectly to EVERYONE who ever spent 180 days with NATO anywhere, doing anything.  Those guys in Brussels eating caviar and going to the opera getting the same medal as the grunt sitting deployed with 4Bde to be a "speed bump in the Fulda gap"
> 
> So the derision that people here are heaping on the SSM was in some ways deserved, but the proposed solution is to create a medal which is essentially another 4year gimme with NO requirement for operational status making it even more reprehensible than the "beer and bratwurst" medal?  The logic escapes me.



I was thinking more in terms of the units at Lahr and Baden; some positions there were fairly soft even if they were speed-bump material (i.e. Battalion hockey team anyone?).  Did not even consider that Brussels-based types were also getting the medal, although not every position there was a caviar/opera position.  You are quite right that many people who got it was part of an abuse of the system, but it also covered a lot of other types of operations where short-term tours added up and no specific medal applied...


----------



## ModlrMike (16 Feb 2008)

ArmyVern (Female type) said:
			
		

> That's another thing that escapes logic ...
> 
> The tendancy by some to call it the Beer & Bratwurst medal.




Which irritates me to no end. I have two bars on my SSM, and neither is the NATO bar. I was never posted to Germany, so to me, beer and bratwurst have nothing to do with anything.


----------



## Greymatters (16 Feb 2008)

Gunner said:
			
		

> I don't think you give the CF leadership credit for how much they listen to soldiers opinions (the difference between your bitching and moaning as opposed to ideas and concerns of merit).  In the private and public sector you will find very few companies whose leadership spends a consdierable amount of their time getting the opinions of the rank and file remaining aware of what is happening throughout their organizations.  Getting rid of Army Work Dress, Summer DEU, future implementation of the Combat Action Badge and Sacrifice Medal, etc are all based on comments given to CF leadership by soldiers.



I think they get all the credit they deserve.  There's a difference between responding to solicited opinion (i.e. macaroni and peas for breakfast) and ignoring complaints when it doesnt suit them (the 84 pattern rucksacks, the original TV issues, etc.).  

"Getting rid of Army Work Dress, Summer DEU, future implementation of the Combat Action Badge and Sacrifice Medal, etc are all based on comments given to CF leadership by soldiers."
I'll have to go with your word for it, but if true these 'responses' are a small drop in the bucket compared to other long-standing complaints that have not been responded to, or took decades to respond to.


----------



## armyvern (16 Feb 2008)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> I was thinking more in terms of the units at Lahr and Baden; some positions there were fairly soft even if they were speed-bump material (i.e. Battalion hockey team anyone?).  Did not even consider that Brussels-based types were also getting the medal, although not every position there was a caviar/opera position.  You are quite right that many people who got it was part of an abuse of the system, but it also covered a lot of other types of operations where short-term tours added up and no specific medal applied...



Us term types weren't awarded the "Beer & Bratwurst *Medal*"; we were awarded the "Special Service Medal" with a bar that was applicable to our tour etc ... such as "Alert", "Peace-Paix", "Pakistan 1989-90", "Humanitas" (DART deployments etc), "Ranger". My medal, in no way, shape, or form is connected to beer, Bratwurst or even Europe for that matter.

It is not the "Beer and Bratwurst" medal. But, it does have what some commonly refer to as the "Beer & Bratwurst" bar -- "NATO-OTAN". And even that term, for that bar, is RTFOOI.


----------



## armyvern (16 Feb 2008)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Which irritates me to no end. I have two bars on my SSM, and neither is the NATO bar. I was never posted to Germany, so to me, beer and bratwurst have nothing to do with anything.



The last troop, on the last parade, who I overheard talking about "her rack" to another troop who said "yeah, look one's only the Beer & Bratwurst medal" --- still has not recovered from the little red whirlwind that proceed to jack his sorry little ass and correct the errors of his ways.

I know exactly how you feel. And, I'd have been no lesser pissed off had my bar read "NATO-OTAN" --- those boys were willing to fight and die for their country ... it just so happened that there was no war during their time that the government decided that they were going to participate in. We could be having this very fucking discussion 10 years from now.

Sept 11 happened during our times ... and it just so happened that our government DECIDED that we would participate in that little war. That does NOT mean that those troops are any braver, better, or deserving than any other soldier -- even one who they assume was simply in it for the "Beer & Bratwurst". It just means that their government made a choice to let them participate --- THAT is what being a soldier is all about.

Participation in Afghanistan is NOT a reflection of better, more deserving, more honourable soldiers or of better personal/soldiering abilities of today's members --- it's a simple matter of Canada decided we would particpate in this one ... and they didn't base that decision on_ you _ being better than your predecessors. Some people seemingly like to forget that little bit.


----------



## Gunner (16 Feb 2008)

ArmyVern (Female type) said:
			
		

> There was the caviar set ... and then there were the guys & gals manning the Fulda gap. Lucky for us that the big red machine never took any opportunity to do some more tourism around the Fulda gap -- but those troops were sitting there willing to fight and die SHOULD the red machine decide to. How quick some are to write off their contributions simply because nothing happened. We serve in our times. I really ******* hate it when people denigrate the service of others based upon ...



Vern, are you not guilty of denigrating the service of CF members serving at SHAPE HQ in Brussels? 



> I think they get all the credit they deserve.  There's a difference between responding to solicited opinion (i.e. macaroni and peas for breakfast) and ignoring complaints when it doesnt suit them (the 84 pattern rucksacks, the original TV issues, etc.).



Actually there isn't and when you get opinions from all across the CF you have a wide array of opinions.  Some people think the TV isn't a total POS...the CF buys on a macro perspective and not based on personal preference.



> a small drop in the bucket compared to other long-standing complaints that have not been responded to, or took decades to respond to.



Like?


----------



## armyvern (16 Feb 2008)

Gunner said:
			
		

> Vern, are you not guilty of denigrating the service of CF members serving at SHAPE HQ in Brussels?
> 
> Actually there isn't and when you get opinions from all across the CF you have a wide array of opinions.  Some people think the TV isn't a total POS...the CF buys on a macro perspective and not based on personal preference.
> 
> Like?



No. My "beer and bratwurst" term was in quotes I believe. 

My caviar statement was in direct ref to the caviar statement that proceeded it -- in that "even the NATO-OTAN bar has differentiations among it" in that one can not assume that even that Bar is applicable only to pers who served in Europe --- ie that to make a statement about "Beer & Bratwurst" regarding the bar is NOT on and NOT warranted (I thought that I made THAT pretty clear -- actually came right out and said it). I am actually quite convinced that had the big red machine come visiting that those referred to as the "caviar" set in SHAPE by some of the fellows in the Fulda set --- that the "caviar set" would have been just as damn busy doing their jobs against that machine.

I did not mean to infer a difference between the service of "Caviar" nor "bratwurst" being different from each other -- but was rather thinking along the lines of Naval personnel who are also awarded that very "NATO-OTAN" bar for shipboard tours with Stanavflorlant etc, and that NONE of their service should be denigrated by any referral to any part of the Medal or the Bar being referred to as "Beer & Bratwurst". NONE = No one's.

I really don't know how many more fucking times I can say it on this forum --- We are ALL volunteers and we ALL serve where and when they tell us to. Period. NO ONE is any more special or deserving than another. Period.


----------



## Gunner (16 Feb 2008)

ArmyVern (Female type) said:
			
		

> No. My "beer and bratwurst" term was in quotes I believe.



Good.  All this talk of beer and bratwurst has me hungry.


----------



## Reccesoldier (16 Feb 2008)

Just to clarify, specially for Vern  :-* 

I am the proud wearer of the SSM with NATO bar, having been a speed bump myself for 4 years.  I also wear my CPSM proudly, another medal much derided as "useless" or "unnecessary" because people do not recognize that it was devised and implemented because of a grass roots campaign of the Canadian people who decided that we lowly soldiers, sailors and airmen deserved to be recognized *by Canada * for the missions we undertook for NATO and the UN.

My point and opinion was best summed up by Sir Winston Churchill.  I've posted this before and my opinion has not changed. 





> "The object of giving medals, stars and ribbons is to give pride and pleasure to those who have deserved them. At the same time, a distinction is something which everybody does not possess.
> 
> If all have it, it is less value.
> 
> There must therefore be heart burnings and disappointments on the borderline. A medal glitters, but it also casts a shadow. The task of drawing up regulations for such awards is one that does not admit of a perfect solution. It is not possible to satisfy everybody without running the risk of satisfying nobody."



The suspension of the SSM (NATO) is a tangible example of this sentiment put into practise. And my opposition to a short service medal is due to the fact that it would not be specifically tied to any hardship, operation, merit or exemplary duty.

My favorite medal is the CD, because as someone here said so well, it is the medal that we get for doing our duty all those years when no one is watching.


----------



## George Wallace (16 Feb 2008)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> ..........................some positions there were fairly soft even if they were speed-bump material (i.e. Battalion hockey team anyone?).  Did not even consider that Brussels-based types were also getting the medal, although not every position there was a caviar/opera position.  You are quite right that many people who got it was part of an abuse of the system, but it also covered a lot of other types of operations where short-term tours added up and no specific medal applied...



You don't have two clues of what kind of crap is dribbling out of your oral orifice.  It might as well have come out of your anal orifice for all it is worth.


----------



## eurowing (16 Feb 2008)

It is also worth noting that a clerk (for example) posted to Lahr or more precisely the Kaserne to a position that was not a NATO position was not eligible for the SSM with NATO Bar.  When I left Geilenkirchen in 2001 it was the same for the folks at CFSUE Neiderheid.  They were just a few kilometers away from Geilenkirchen, but were not eligible for the SSM with NATO Bar either.

For what it is worth, for 8 and a half years out of country, I hold a SSM with NATO Bar.  I serviced aircraft going to war from there, yet folks in Florida at an HQ got NATO medals I was not eligible for.  I didn't feel I deserved said medals, but I had cause to wonder about the Florida folks and how they felt about their gong.  I think like most of us, I didn't have shiny medals in mind when I signed up.


----------



## Greymatters (16 Feb 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> You don't have two clues of what kind of crap is dribbling out of your oral orifice.  It might as well have come out of your anal orifice for all it is worth.



No, you're right, that wasnt very well put.  It was supposed to be a humorous dig, but it reads nasty.  Sorry about that.


----------



## Greymatters (16 Feb 2008)

Gunner said:
			
		

> I don't think you give the CF leadership credit for how much they listen to soldiers opinions (the difference between your bitching and moaning as opposed to ideas and concerns of merit).  In the private and public sector you will find very few companies whose leadership spends a consdierable amount of their time getting the opinions of the rank and file remaining aware of what is happening throughout their organizations.
> 
> Getting rid of Army Work Dress, Summer DEU, future implementation of the Combat Action Badge and Sacrifice Medal, etc are all based on comments given to CF leadership by soldiers.



Im definately having an off day - two bad posts, in the same day, on the same thread!  

I've contemplated this one on and off this afternoon, and I have to retract my opposition.  My comments on this are being biased by initial inherent cynicism, but I can think of numerous instances where airmen and soldiers made suggestions that were followed up on and proved to be valuable.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (16 Feb 2008)

"It is with such baubles that men are led."

   -  Attributed to Napoleon


----------



## armyvern (16 Feb 2008)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Just to clarify, specially for Vern  :-*



Nuddin' to clarify for me my dear ...

I know you are, and so am I.  

 :-*


----------



## PhilB (17 Feb 2008)

ArmyVern (Female type) said:
			
		

> I know exactly how you feel. And, I'd have been no lesser pissed off had my bar read "NATO-OTAN" --- those boys were willing to fight and die for their country ... it just so happened that there was no war during their time that the government decided that they were going to participate in. We could be having this very ******* discussion 10 years from now.
> 
> Sept 11 happened during our times ... and it just so happened that our government DECIDED that we would participate in that little war. That does NOT mean that those troops are any braver, better, or deserving than any other soldier -- even one who they assume was simply in it for the "Beer & Bratwurst". It just means that their government made a choice to let them participate --- THAT is what being a soldier is all about.



Vern, I think that this is an extremely good post. I do not like to hear the denigration of others service that some guys who have come back from Afghanistan do. Every tour is different, none is "better" than the other. That being said I think the above quoted post is a prime argument for the CAB. It is not saying someone is better or worse but rather that they have been in combat, something that a lot of members of the CF cant say, not through any fault of their own but rather because of where the CF has tasked them. The fact that they did not choose where they go still does not change the fact that they have not been in combat as others have. IMHO an event as drastic as combat deserves its own recognition. Just my two cents. 


[Edit to change name of topic.]


----------



## Dirty Patricia (17 Feb 2008)

PhilB said:
			
		

> The fact that they did not choose where they go still does not change the fact that they have not been in combat as others have. IMHO an event as drastic as combat deserves its own recognition.



I think that is the feeling of most of us that support the CAB.  It is not to gloat or snub our noses at other soldiers.  It is purely to recognize those that have participated in combat.  Unfortunately we have all faced professional jealousy at many levels since returning.  I think that runs deeply among those that don't support the award.



[Edit to change name of topic.]


----------



## armyvern (17 Feb 2008)

Dirty Patricia said:
			
		

> I think that is the feeling of most of us that support the CAB.  It is not to gloat or snub our noses at other soldiers.  It is purely to recognize those that have participated in combat.  Unfortunately we have all faced professional jealousy at many levels since returning.  I think that runs deeply among those that don't support the award.



That's interesting in and of itself.

Some of those who have expressed opinions of non-support, haven't done so out of "professional jealousy". Given that one of the CFs finer traits has always rather been "quiet professionalism" ... that seems to be disappearing these days.

Some have wondered if it's going to be applicable retroactively, and to what date. There are problems with it's implementation that they are going to have to sort out and deal with. That's why a lot of people have problems with it and it's seemingly being made "for" this mission.

We've had pers shooting and being shot at, and fighting back before Afghanistan. It's happened in the Balkans ... and it's happened under the blue beret. Were they wars? No, but ... a lot of people did some pretty fine mixing 'er up under fire with opposition who'd wish to see them dead at that specific point in time. Does one have to be shooting back bullets -- or will throwing grenades back suffice (because that's occured too)?? 

Does it have to be during a "War" to make it combat?? Because, if so ... Canada isn't officially at war right now either. It's going to be awarded for an "incident" of combat as I understand it ... not for "pro-longed periods of combat" ... I'm just wondering if say ... our boys from Medak will be getting it -- and if not -- why not??

What about some folks at a certain airfield in Africa circa 1993 who found themselves fighting on a two-way range? There are others of course ... All of this needs to be sorted out and settled before we implement anything.

I have nothing against the CAB. As long as it's applicable to all who've done it, vice only a select operation. Some of the above events that I've mentioned certainly didn't start out as Combat, but boys & girls ended up in it anyway ... even if only for one incident on their operation (UN or other). If one incident is the qualifier ... it seems to me that they'd have earned it as well.

We can't simply write off their contributions, nor their date with combat. 

Just a few thoughts from me.




[Edit to change name of topic]


----------



## Gunner (17 Feb 2008)

Dirty Patricia said:
			
		

> I think that is the feeling of most of us that support the CAB.  It is not to gloat or snub our noses at other soldiers.  It is purely to recognize those that have participated in combat.  Unfortunately we have all faced professional jealousy at many levels since returning.  I think that runs deeply among those that don't support the award.



Depending on the final criteria it will probably be "more inclusive" vice "less inclusive" (not my words) and you will have no of knowing whether a soldier participated in Vimy Ridge or was asleep in the back of a LAV while the platoon/company/battalion participated in offensive operations.  At the end of the day, you will superficially judge them based on what you see (cap badge, colour of uniform and ribbon/medals).  It's not until you actually speak with someone that you actually know what he did or did not do.  A bronze, silver or gold piece of plastic is not going to change that.

Edited to add - I believe that when the CAB is introduced the criteria will be so water down it will have the same meaning as the warrior badges from the 90s and everyone will be pissed off with it.  My 2 cents.


[Edit to change name of topic.]


----------



## George Wallace (17 Feb 2008)

Dirty Patricia said:
			
		

> I think that is the feeling of most of us that support the CAB.  It is not to gloat or snub our noses at other soldiers.



Does it?  A person who fights in a war as a Cbt Arms soldier or some other 'Specialist'; goes through all the stress and anticipation; doesn't know when or where the bullets are going to start to fly;  but in the end, never fires a shot in anger; is unworthy in the eyes of some.  That's what it sounds like.  It does sound like they are gloating and snubbing their nose at other soldiers beacuse they never fired a round in anger.


Presentation is the problem here, more than anything eles.  How this idea is presented by some, is a slap in the face to others, intended or not.  It is the reverse attitide of the new guys opinions of the war stories of the older experienced guys.


----------



## Dirty Patricia (17 Feb 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> .... goes through all the stress and anticipation; doesn't know when or where the bullets are going to start to fly;  but in the end, never fires a shot in anger; is unworthy in the eyes of some.  That's what it sounds like.  It does sound like they are gloating and snubbing their nose at other soldiers beacuse they never fired a round in anger.



If one thinks there is a lot of stress in anticipating a contact, wait until you are in one.  The stress level spikes a bit to say the least.  After the TIC, the level of anticipation is much higher as you know what's waiting for you in the next one.  Again, not gloating or snubbing noses, just recognizing ones service.  The experience of combat is different and deserves to be recognized.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Feb 2008)

Dirty Patricia said:
			
		

> ...........and deserves ........



Presentation, presentation, presentation.  

The more people state that they "deserve" something, the more they land up butting heads with others who may even believe in the same thing, but are tired of the whining about what they "deserve" and in a way denigrating all who came before them.   This gives some the impression they are nothing more than petty, spoiled, and self-centered.   How many calling for these awards are not in essence nominating themselves for an award?  Doesn't that in itself sound petty?


----------



## Dirty Patricia (17 Feb 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Presentation, presentation, presentation.
> 
> The more people state that they "deserve" something, the more they land up butting heads with others who may even believe in the same thing, but are tired of the whining about what they "deserve" and in a way denigrating all who came before them.   This gives some the impression they are nothing more than petty, spoiled, and self-centered.   How many calling for these awards are not in essence nominating themselves for an award?  Doesn't that in itself sound petty?



I won't say I deserve anything, but I will tell you every one of my soldiers deserves it.  I've experienced a lot more pettiness, not only on this topic, but many relating to combat experience in Afghanistan and it has always revolved around the professional jealousy that we can't seem to shake in our army.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (17 Feb 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Presentation, presentation, presentation.
> 
> The more people state that they "deserve" something, the more they land up butting heads with others who may even believe in the same thing, but are tired of the whining about what they "deserve" and in a way denigrating all who came before them.   This gives some the impression they are nothing more than petty, spoiled, and self-centered.   How many calling for these awards are not in essence nominating themselves for an award?  Doesn't that in itself sound petty?



George,

I do not see a link between combat veterans thinking that they deserve a badge denoting such service and their implied denigration of those who haven't.  I don't see it as whining either and it is hard for me to see it as petty.  Recognizing those with a certain type of unique service may make those without that service feel jealous, but that shouldn't be the reason why we do not issue the badge (_was that a triple negative_?).  Isn't every medal the recognition of a type of service that others may not have?  

Cheers

T2B


----------



## Dirty Patricia (17 Feb 2008)

Tango, this India call sign backs you up 100%.  Well put.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Feb 2008)

Dirty Patricia said:
			
		

> ........and it has always revolved around the professional jealousy that we can't seem to shake in our army.



I suppose that is more or less what it does boils down to, when all the layers are stripped away.  It isn't only in one direction, but in both.  The more someone harps on it, the worse and more distorted it gets.


----------



## Dirty Patricia (17 Feb 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I suppose that is more or less what it does boils down to, when all the layers are stripped away.  It isn't only in one direction, but in both.  The more someone harps on it, the worse and more distorted it gets.



I can agree with you on that.  Well said.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Feb 2008)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> ........a link between combat veterans thinking that they deserve a badge denoting such service and their implied denigration of those who haven't.



It is the few who harp on the matter stating that "they deserve" that is the bone of contention, not that there is not a reason for an award.  You probably remember stories of a few Snr NCOs in the unit, over a few beers, nominating each other for an award while on Tour.  Someone who has to "nominate themselves for an award" is not right in my books.  To carry on in such a matter and use their experiences to justify it, denigrates those others before them, as well as those others with them and following them.  It makes a farce of the Awards System.

As I say, it is the way that some are presenting the arguments that is souring their position with others.


----------



## the 48th regulator (17 Feb 2008)

ArmyVern (Female type) said:
			
		

> That's interesting in and of itself.
> 
> Some of those who have expressed opinions of non-support, haven't done so out of "professional jealousy". Given that one of the CFs finer traits has always rather been "quiet professionalism" ... that seems to be disappearing these days.
> 
> ...



Excellent post Vern,

I am very interested in finding out the Criteria of the CAB and the Sacrifice Medal.

Will it be Retroactive as well?

dileas

tess


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (17 Feb 2008)

The CAB (or some such) has been discussed extensively here before.  I am on record as firmly opposing it and have seen nothing recently to change my mind.  Those who claim it won't cause an "us and them" mentality need only to search previous threads on this subject, where serving soldiers were openly dubbed "wogs" during the debate.

Alas, despite all the issues - and there are many - it appears we're going to have to live with it, with all the problems it will cause.  Implementation alone will be a headache of epic proportions, not least of which is determining who actually qualifies and at what level.  My fear is that it will become an issue for career progression - especially in the combat arms - and that we'll have to establish an enormous tracking and administration system in an effort to keep everyone honest. 

Who wants a bronze, after all, when the "heroes" are wearing gold.  Bloody hell...


----------



## Gunner (17 Feb 2008)

I suspect the sacrifice medal will be retroactive.  How could it not be?

I suspect the CAB will only go back to 2002 which was the start of "combat operations" by the CF in Afghanistan.  Even if it does go back farther Tess, you will only be entitled to a Bronze.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (17 Feb 2008)

heres my thinking about the sacrifice medal, when we start issueing it do we start stripping wound stripes, or are we going to give 2 awards for the same thing. Were not talking about 2 awards for the same mission, that in itself given the situation is not unreasonable, I.E. a tour medal and a bravery decoration, but to give both a wound stripe, for wounds recieved in cbt, and a sacrifice medal for wounds recieved in cbt seems a little duplication and a bit more of a feel good award than what it is really intentded for, to recognize those who get wounded on behalf of thier country.  As for the CAB, same as the CIB soldiers will start doing whatever they can to earn one, to raise themselves to god status amonst the ranks, in the end thats what happens. Every soldier see's a guy with a CAB and says "I want to be that guy, a hero, the best soldier in the country" you want to talk proffesional jelousy, thats where it stems from, than it'll become an us against them, those with and those without. And I'll admit I'm bad for it too, when I see a guy at his retirement party of 20 or 25 years and see he has but a CD I start thinking that guy has never left Canada, what kind of soldier/sailor/air type is he.  It's not fair but a natural first reaction.


----------



## Dirty Patricia (17 Feb 2008)

ArtyNewbie said:
			
		

> Every soldier see's a guy with a CAB and says "I want to be that guy, a hero, the best soldier in the country" you want to talk proffesional jelousy, thats where it stems from, than it'll become an us against them, those with and those without.



I don't think we should consider who might get jealous when we're developing our awards.  Should we get rid of jump wings, ranger tabs, pathfinder torches or all of our medals because somebody might be jealous they weren't there or didn't do something.  We're professionals, perhaps we should act like it.


----------



## Reccesoldier (17 Feb 2008)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Who wants a bronze, after all, when the "heroes" are wearing gold.  Bloody hell...



Shades of the Warrior badge anyone?  Remember what the reaction in Cbt Arms units was like to a guy that only made Bronze?  No, no discrimination there. :


----------



## Charon (17 Feb 2008)

Well it could just be me but when I look at some one's Cap Badge, collar dogs, or unit flash, thats usually a good enough indication of what they have done.  It is also a good indicator of the respect from me that they've earned.  If some one believes that they deserve a CIB styled badge then more power to them, but I don't.  And yep, I've been on both sides of the fence, 9 years as a Patrica and remustered into a "wog" trade.  

As for the SSM w/ NATO bar,  I consider it a tour, although we did drink our faces off, we were there for a very real reason as were the Brits, the US, and the French (still wondering about that though).  The training that we received there put anything we did in Canada to shame, and we knew that if push came to shove we would probably be track jam trying to stop the soviet thrust.

  Well enough of that babbling from me


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (17 Feb 2008)

Dirty Patricia said:
			
		

> I don't think we should consider who might get jealous when we're developing our awards.  Should we get rid of jump wings, ranger tabs, pathfinder torches or all of our medals because somebody might be jealous they weren't there or didn't do something.  We're professionals, perhaps we should act like it.


Jump wings and Pathfinder torches are qualification badges, ranger tabs are AMERICAN, with the CAB we're not talking about taking a course, regardless of effort required and being awarded a specialist qual badge for it, further more would this be exactly like its brother from the south awarded only to Infantry.  how bout the artillery or engineers or support arms are they less important for recognition.


----------



## Michael OLeary (17 Feb 2008)

ArtyNewbie said:
			
		

> And I'll admit I'm bad for it too, when I see a guy at his retirement party of 20 or 25 years and see he has but a CD I start thinking that guy has never left Canada, what kind of soldier/sailor/air type is he.  It's not fair but a natural first reaction.



Yup, let’s look down on the guy that got up very day of his life for 20, 25 or more years and put on the uniform and did the jobs he was given. Let’s not appreciate that one’s career doesn’t always intersect with tour opportunities. It’s easy to ignore that someone retiring today with 25+ years spent that proportion of their career (when they were most likely in jobs that would be deployed today) before the CF got busy in the early 90s.  Unless you’re holding his career resume in your hand, you can do that member no greater disservice than presuming he is less of a soldier because he didn’t have a career resume that came with ornamentation.  Many have had career paths that saw them posted out of units just before the unit deployed, or joining a unit just after it returned.  Both officers and NCOs could easily find themselves in jobs where there was no capacity to release them for tours (it’s only recently that units started getting money for Class B backfills, COs used to have to accept the loss).  Others, often the more capable ones, saw themselves losing out to less capable peers, simply because they were better prepared to deal with the increased workload in Canada.  Yes, let’s presume that any member retiring with just a CD chose to avoid tours – it’s just that narrow-mindedness that undermines any sense that each and every job in the CF has purpose, even if you don’t get a medal just for showing up to do it.


----------



## PhilB (17 Feb 2008)

ArtyNewbie said:
			
		

> further more would this be exactly like its brother from the south awarded only to Infantry.  how bout the artillery or engineers or support arms are they less important for recognition.



You are mistaken. The concept for the CAB is a combat badge. It is not specialized for infantry, or any other combat arms trade. If you are involved in combat (whatever the definition of combat turns out to be) then you would get the badge, regardless of trade.


----------



## aesop081 (17 Feb 2008)

ArtyNewbie said:
			
		

> And I'll admit I'm bad for it too, when I see a guy at his retirement party of 20 or 25 years and see he has but a CD I start thinking that guy has never left Canada, what kind of soldier/sailor/air type is he.  It's not fair but a natural first reaction.



Its not an unfair reaction. Its an ignorant and uneducated one. I have a few medals above and beyond my CD. I got them in my previous life. But make no mistake, i spend alot of time outside Canada and so do my fellow aviators who have always been AF. We dont get medals for what we do, as there arent any in most cases ( or we dont get deployed long enough to qualify for one) but we have done various Ops overseas. The Navy has its own lines of taskings that take the ships to far reaches of the world. So lets not assume that someone with just a CD has never left canada. He/she might have spent more time out there than you.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (17 Feb 2008)

I agree fully,  as far as the Navy goes I spent more time out of Canada than in, I still think it is an unfair reaction, ignorant maybe , thats why I shelve the thought immediately, like I said its my first reaction. The next chain of thought is this guy have given all of his adult life to the queen, more than most people give for anything. I am however an opponent of the lets give medals just to give medals train of thought. I was until very recently on track to earn but 2 medals (my swasm that I fell into) and a CD, and I was more than happy to spend my carreer climbimg out of bed and into a well turned out uniform.  Perhaps there should be medals specifically for the navy and AF for accumulated svc outside Canada, as often deployments are not long enough for you guys, for the navy to do a 6 month tour only 3 months is spent in theatre, not long enough for most tours, same with AF for turn arounds, a friend rumoured 2 month rotations is common cso Air crews don't burnout given the workload, a fair assumption I would say.


----------



## NCRCrow (17 Feb 2008)

I would like to see some formal recognition for your sea time, similar to the Safe Driving Pin I saw some truckers with on my ILQ.

like 5-12-18 yrs.

Maybe instill some pride and recognition in the sick, lame and lazy!


----------



## Dirty Patricia (17 Feb 2008)

Charon said:
			
		

> Well it could just be me but when I look at some one's Cap Badge, collar dogs, or unit flash, thats usually a good enough indication of what they have done.  It is also a good indicator of the respect from me that they've earned.



I know lots of Patricia's with a SWASM or GCS that won't qualify for any CAB.  A well, there are lots of Logisiticians, Mechanics, Signallers, Medics, Divers who will qualify.  It is a means to recognize those who have done the job.  At any rate it is coming and it will generate pettiness.  Jealousy by some that don't have it and arrogance by some that do.  It's a matter of ensuring you are professional enough to not fall into either category.


----------



## Charon (17 Feb 2008)

DP, if its coming then its coming.  Again, it's something that I don't think is needed, but that is just my opinion.  If a person is jealous of some one who has earned the badge, then they should be taking a long hard look at themselves.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (17 Feb 2008)

It's not just the jelousey thats the problem an the other side of the coin will be the arrogance that DP was getting at,  which is almost worse, thats where leaders at all levels have to squash both the jelous and the arrogant for the award to work properly, otherwise it becomes an us against them situation that nobody wants.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (18 Feb 2008)

> becomes an us against them situation that nobody wants



Unfortunately, it already has...


----------



## vonGarvin (18 Feb 2008)

I agree that the "us" and "them" situation exists.  During our pre deployment briefings, we are often asked if we've been to Afghanistan.  I raise my hand.  Then they ask "Oh, but who's been to Khandahar".  Then, in the IED lecture, they use as an example of a successful Taliban strike on ISAF, they mention the bombing of the bus in Kabul in 2003.  June 2003.  Yep, the safe part, the very road I travelled daily in my iltis/lsvw/LAV 3.  

(Funny, they asked once if we'd been "over there", to which I raised my hand, then they said "then you've been to Cyprus", to which I proudly announce "yes, and I even got a medal for it!")

As an aside, saying that our NATO forces in Europe "drank beer and ate bratwurst" cheapens their service and contribution in winning the Cold War.  In 1989, Honecker could have made a very different decision that could have seen the forces of the Group of Soviet Forces Germany heading west.  The fact that they didn't means nothing.  Maybe it means everything.  Now, Honecker didn't look west, see 4 CMBG on a map and decide against going "old school commie" on those trying to get over the wall, but he did see NATO.

Hell, we give medals to people who don't leave KAF.  Should they get a second class medals?  (That's rhetorical - no need to answer).

Just my thoughts.


----------



## 1feral1 (18 Feb 2008)

ICB, ACB, CAB, CIB, or whatever.

It's an acknowledgement of being at the pointy end. The US CIB has been around for decades. Australia has has had their infantry version for decades.

The biggest weed up RAInf asses in the past was that non "031's" were getting it, and thats why the ACB was brought into service. So RAInf only for the ACB, and all other Corps ACB. Two types, same criteria, different badges so RAInf does not lose its identity.

Canada's governemt decides on a new award in which they feel is just and deserving.

Be thankful an acknowledgement such as this is being put forward in the first place.

Sheesh guys, come on, just wear (when it comes out) it and soldier on. 

In the Aussie military culture, many have them and many do not. There is none of this us/them mentality. When I see someone with the ICB or ACB, I just make a mental note, and good on them for earning it. That was long before I got mine.

For the us/thems out there time to grow up.

Soldiering on in yet another tropical rain storm...

Wes


----------



## John Nayduk (18 Feb 2008)

Well said, Wes.


----------



## PhilB (18 Feb 2008)

I think that this is somewhat of a ridiculous argument. The award has already been approved. It is just a matter of time before it is implemented. All those the are arrogant, even now, not having a badge will to continue to be arrogant. All those that are jealous at not having been in combat, regardless of badges, will continue to be jealous. Life goes on.


----------



## Haggis (18 Feb 2008)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Shades of the Warrior badge anyone?  Remember what the reaction in Cbt Arms units was like to a guy that only made Bronze?  No, no discrimination there. :



Nope...no discrimination at all.   Even Reservists were treated fairly when Class B Employment Opportunity messages came to almost universally read "Only members who have acheived the Warrior Programme Gold Status are eligible to apply".  Everyone now knew where they stood.


----------



## geo (18 Feb 2008)

Haggis... your attitude is showing!


----------



## Infanteer (19 Feb 2008)

Some of the responses were getting quite ascerbic - I removed them as they weren't adding anything that hasn't already been said.  It seems people are digging in and refusing to acknowledge the viewpoints of others (ie: "jealous" vs "gimme" - when neither is probably completely true).

My final comments on this before I pull out to viewer mode:

1.  The combat badge is a debatable one - Dirty Patricia, among others, has certainly pointed out that those who would merit one earned it.  And I definately support a badge that recognizes service in combat over something like the Golden Jubilee which is a true "gimme".  However, I am concerned over the way this one is going to be pitched (gold/silver/bronze) as opposed to a simple way the Aussies do it.  As well, I am leery of some outside effects that Teddy Ruxpin has highlighted - the murkey method of defining "action", careerism coming in, etc, etc.  There is nothing else that is more deserving of badge/medal recognition, but is this something that needs further amplification outside of the SWASM/GCS and your infantry capbadge?  I wonder if there was any debate over something like this in the Canadian Infantry Divisions in 1945?

2.  The Sacrifice Medal - the only reason I expressed dissent on this one is that we had a perfectly suitable system for recognizing wounds in service that has served us since the First World War.  Is it neccesary to change that for the sake of change?

3.  Other Awards/Badges - Badges for tough courses - Pathfinder, Assaulter, Ranger - whatever, I'll comment on them if I ever earn them.  I hope that we maintain some sense of balance so we don't look like some Soviet General.  Same with medals.  The GCS will not survive first contact (to quote someone else) as a catch-all ribbon full of bars - which I am happy to see.  I like to see medals for genuine service - it maintains a tradition of centuries that we've held to recognize service.  What I don't like are medals awarded willy-nilly for no real reason (Jubilee) or medals that some to become gimme's for service (Is the MSM now awarded to the chain of command for every battlegroup?)

Anyways, those are my opinions.  I'd encourage everyone else to consider why they hold their opinions and why others may hold a diverging opinion before they start going on the attack on this and related threads.  This is an emotive issue, and everyone has a stake in it.

Cheers,
Infanteer


----------



## Journeyman (20 Feb 2008)

Well, there's a militia Colonel wandering around Ottawa, wearing ribbons for Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan... having spent, oh..._32, 33_ days in each theatre. I can't wait to see how he weasles a Combat Badge.

op:


----------



## KevinB (20 Feb 2008)

I've always been upset there was never a DB medal - that way I would never have had to keep explaining why I was a Cpl (or Pte) again...

 I never collected my CPSM, nor my GCS, for the unit seemed to go out of there way not to accomodate/facilitate it for me (and in one case outright blatantly lying on paper to me).

 Bah -- I figure the troops earned them -- they should be entitled to wear them and wear them with pride -- it seems a lot of professional jealousy is coming into play from those who never have been and done that.

 I'm sure the beer and bratwurst guys moaning long enough got them the NATO SSM, and while they where there -- they did not "done that" and most of them are too big now for the T shirt anyway...


----------



## geo (20 Feb 2008)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Well, there's a militia Colonel wandering around Ottawa, wearing ribbons for Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan... having spent, oh..._32, 33_ days in each theatre. I can't wait to see how he weasles a Combat Badge.
> op:


Does it make any difference that he's "militia"?


----------



## Staff Weenie (20 Feb 2008)

Nope - I've seen Reg F Officers do exactly the same thing - folks who were sent over for a 28 day TAV falling ill on the last day and held for 2 more to get their 30 days...

That sort of behaviour is everywhere.


----------



## dapaterson (20 Feb 2008)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Well, there's a militia Colonel wandering around Ottawa, wearing ribbons for Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan... having spent, oh..._32, 33_ days in each theatre. I can't wait to see how he weasles a Combat Badge.
> 
> op:



Ah yes, what a "unique" individual he is.  He made many friends when claiming to have served with the boys in black - not knowing that there were members of said unit in the audience where he spoke...


----------



## Dirty Patricia (20 Feb 2008)

> I never collected my CPSM, nor my GCS.....



There is no GCS for you here, but we can mount a shot gun shell for you!


----------



## GUNS (20 Feb 2008)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I've always been upset there was never a DB medal - that way I would never have had to keep explaining why I was a Cpl (or Pte) again...
> 
> I never collected my CPSM, nor my GCS, for the unit seemed to go out of there way not to accommodate/facilitate it for me (and in one case outright blatantly lying on paper to me).
> 
> ...



"beer and bratwurst guys"  WTF. I was one of those guys and I never "moaned" for a medal and I never asked to go to Germany. I, along with many others were posted. 

I knew nothing of the SSM until told by word of mouth from a friend whom I served with.  

Soldiers deserving of medals, should get medals. How one wears their medals is up to them. 

Those seeking a medal just for the purpose of just having them. Stand next to a WW II Veteran on Remembrance Day .

From what has been posted here, it would appear, medals have replaced hockey cards as a collectors item.

For those who earned their medals for doing their job, congrads.

For those who find a way to get their hands on a medal, ----------------(fill in the blank)


----------



## KevinB (20 Feb 2008)

Dirty Patricia said:
			
		

> There is no GCS for you here, but we can mount a shot gun shell for you!



Cool - I'll be in around end March  ;D


----------



## 1feral1 (20 Feb 2008)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Well, there's a militia Colonel wandering around Ottawa, wearing ribbons for Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan... having spent, oh..._32, 33_ days in each theatre. I can't wait to see how he weasles a Combat Badge.
> 
> op:



we got alot of staff weenies (and the like) here too, who spend mininum time in theatre for whatever reasons, but NO ICB/ACB.

No big deal, many others go and spend 6 months there, aand still don't get one.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## IntlBr (20 Feb 2008)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Well, there's a militia Colonel wandering around Ottawa, wearing ribbons for Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan... having spent, oh..._32, 33_ days in each theatre. I can't wait to see how he weasles a Combat Badge.
> 
> op:



Just because I'm new... how does one get a tour to be only 33 days?  Are tours shorter than the generic 6 months for more senior types?


----------



## geo (20 Feb 2008)

Some individuals are sent over to cover off positions that suddenly open up - sickness, injuries, that sort of thing.


----------



## Michael OLeary (20 Feb 2008)

Corps of Guides said:
			
		

> Just because I'm new... how does one get a tour to be only 33 days?  Are tours shorter than the generic 6 months for more senior types?



See this link for some examples, some medals only require 30 days or less to be eligible.

http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/remembers/sub.cfm?source=collections/cmdp/mainmenu/group05


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (20 Feb 2008)

without even checking the link SWASM and CPSM come to mind (with SWASM you have to have left Canada, or Tampa Bay to get it in less than 90 Days)


----------



## geo (20 Feb 2008)

note.... if you get your "blightie" and are evacuated out of Afghanistan... you qualify for your Star


----------



## Journeyman (21 Feb 2008)

Corps of Guides said:
			
		

> *Just because I'm new... how does one get a tour to be only 33 days?  Are tours shorter than the generic 6 months for more senior types?*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for providing yet another example of why some people are told to 'stay in their lanes' -- yep, a *constant* flow of Colonels being back-filled for "sickness, injury, _that sort of thing_" : 

The reference, C of G, is to the never-ending trail of "experts" who find some need to be in-theatre without actually contributing to the fight. The Staff Annoyance Visits, the Tech visits (when you don't hold the equipment they're expert on), Padres from units providing a few augmentees, representatives from both Air Intelligence and NBCD (despite the Taliban having neither an airforce nor NBC weapons).....quite often for the 30 days necessary to get a gong.

Then having this "expertise," they proceed to pontificate....."harrumph, well, when I saved the Saudis......er, saw a postcard of Tarnak Farms.....er, dammit, single-handedly defeated Al Qaeda...."

A painfully large number of these people have absolutely no experience/ability to fix anything in-theatre, and are not in a position to fix any problems at the planning/deploying end. But as long as they look pretty in their Mess Kit and don't let facts interrupt a good story.....


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Feb 2008)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I'm sure the beer and bratwurst guys moaning long enough got them the NATO SSM, and while they where there -- they did not "done that" and most of them are too big now for the T shirt anyway...


Hmmm, I expected better from you........


I said it before and I will always say it, everyone has basically done the _same_ thing.................................what was asked of them at that particular time.

Everything else is just good/bad timing.


----------



## PMedMoe (21 Feb 2008)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I said it before and I will always say it, everyone has basically done the _same_ thing.................................what was asked of them at that particular time.
> Everything else is just good/bad timing.



Thanks, Bruce.  I, for one, prefer to call mine the Schnapps and Schnitzel Medal.  SSM, get it?    
I went over as a reservist when the bases in Germany were closing.  I served from Jan-Aug and only got full time pay.  No TD, no FSP, so to me, it was just like a tour.  
Not every reservist who went got the medal as most of the Class B contracts were not 180 days.  I was lucky enough, being a Tfc Tech, to get an extension to mine.  
Do I think I deserved that medal?  Sure.  Maybe we weren't fighting a war or anything, but I spent over 6 months away from my 2 year old daughter (yes, I know I volunteered) with nothing else but full time pay to show for it.


----------



## Dirty Patricia (21 Feb 2008)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> what was asked of them at that particular time.



Exactly.  We always pay the utmost respect, as we should, to those veterans sporting WW2 or Korea medals.  Would we dare ask what they did or if they saw real combat?  Of course not, although many have not seen action.  They are service and campaign medals.  They recognize participation in a certain area or region - not what one did there.  We should extend that courtesy to the modern CF as well.  Although some should have a better sense of humour about where they served.


----------



## Scoobs (21 Feb 2008)

Medal entitlement and the Canadian H&A system always makes everybody emotional.  Now, lets talk facts, rather than emotions as this is what gets me through my days:

Medal Entitlement:

1. General Campaign Star (GCS) with "ISAF-FIAS" bar: only to CF mbrs who are OPCON to ISAF.  You get it after serving 30 cumulative days in Afghanistan (this includes its airspace as well).  Should you be injured, such as in an IED, or killed before you reach the 30 days cumulative, the time period is considered completed and you are entitled to a GCS with the ISAF-FIAS bar.
2. General Service Medal (GSM) with "ISAF-FIAS" bar.  Can be awarded to both CF and Canadian civilians who are OPCON to ISAF.  Given to CF members or CAN civilians after 90 days cumulative service in direct support to the mission in Afghanistan (CM), or to CAN civilians in Afghanistan after 30 days cumulative time.  Same rule applies for the GSM as for the GCS is you are injured or killed.
3. South West Asia Service Medal (SWASM).  Can be awarded with or without a bar to those CF mbrs or CAN civies who are non-ISAF OPCON (not just OEF).  If you are a CF mbr or CAN civy serving in Afghanistan and are non-ISAF OPCON, you earn the SWASM with Afghanistan bar after 30 days cumulative time.  If you are not in Afghanistan, but are in direct support to the mission in Afghanistan and are non-OPCON to ISAF, you earn the SWASM with no bar after 90 days cumulative time.
4. Article 5 or Non-Article 5 NATO medal: no Canadian, civy or CF, is eligible to receive a NATO medal for service in Afghanistan or in direct support of Afghanistan.  This rule, as some have mistakenly said, did not come from the CF or the "higher brass".  It came from our Commander-in-Chief, Her Excellency, the Governor-General.  I know, I have a copy of the letter.  NATO was politely told that due to dual recognition issues (basically being awarded two medals for the same campaign, tour), Canadians are to neither receive, nor wear the NATO medals in relation to Afghanistan.  Point blank, the Governor-General said no, so that is the answer.  Remember, I am stating the actual rules here.


----------



## Scoobs (21 Feb 2008)

Combat Action Insignia:

1. It is not called the Combat Action Badge, as everyone has been saying.  The correct Canadian term is Combat Action Insignia or CAI for short.
2. It is not an Honour or Award (see my next reply).  The idea of the CAI is the same as the "badge" that a person earns.  It is on the same line as a medal for being in a tour, such as the GCS.  Basically, you were there and that is it.  There is absolutely no Honour or Award implied such as the H&A system bestows upon a person.
3. The CAI has NOT been officially approved.  It has been reviewed at higher levels, but it has NOT yet been approved.
4. I agree that the criteria on what distinguishes between bronze, silver, and gold needs to be fixed as it is not clear.
5. IAW draft direction, the CAI is retroactive to September 11, 2001 (I may be slightly off on the date and I will have to verify).
6. IAW draft direction, the higher of the three (bronze, silver, gold) is worn should the person be entitled (note entitled, not awarded) to two different levels. 
7. Ways are being examined to reduce the admin burden on units, etc. when completing the documentation for the CAI.  For now, put the necessary paperwork in, with supporting documentation, and do not worry about distinguishing between bronze, silver, or gold.

More to follow on the H&A system in the next reply.


----------



## Scoobs (21 Feb 2008)

Canadian Honours and Awards (H&A) system:

1. It is NOT, I say again, NOT, the Canadian Forces H&A system.  It is not the H&A system of the CDS (no disrespect for a man that I highly respect).  It is the Canadian Honours and Awards system, of which, there are particular H&A that are only awarded to CF mbrs.
2. Remember our system of government has a Queen and her representative in Canada is the Governor-General.  Are you aware that portions of the medal entitlement and H&A system require the Queen's approval?  Others are from the Governor-General.
3. Changes to the Canadian H&A system for what are called National level awards (somewhat MID, but definitely Meritorious Service Decorations and up) are approved only by the Governor-General.
4. Of course, the CDS has tremendous influence on what happens in the H&A system, but it must be clearly understood, not the final say.  The Governor-General has the final say.
5. The CDS provides advice to the Governor-General on the H&A system on how it impacts the CF and DND.
6. Making changes to this system are never done at the pace that one would like, but that is reality.  No sugar coating here.


----------



## Scoobs (21 Feb 2008)

H&A that are the most common that apply to CF mbrs:

National Awards by general category (ultimately approved by the Governor-General):
1. Valour (there are three different stars or medals and a CF committee, with reps from Rideau Hall, approve these)
2. Bravery (there is a National Bravery Committee, of which, only one CF rep sits on it), three stars or medals.
3. Meritorous Service Decorations, MSDs, (includes the Meritorious Service Cross and the Meritorious Service Medal, same approval process as for Valour in terms of the committee with Rideau Hall reps on it)
   -the CDS has directed that more junior ranks (Capt to Pte) be nominated for MSDs;
   -this is improving; and
   -this is not tied to rank or position, I've seen Cpls given the MSC.

In between National and Departmental Awards:
1.  Mention-in-Dispatches (MID): can be given for valour, bravery, or distinguished service, but is only typically given in times of war or conflict.  It consists of an oak leaf that is placed on the ribbon of the tour medal, such as the GCS.

Departmental Awards:
1. CDS Commendation (final approval rests with the CDS)
2. Command Commendation (over in Afg, this is CEFCOM for most).  Final approval rests with the Commander of the Command.

These Honours and Awards are not given out lightly, contrary to opinions stated on this site.  Due consideration is given at all levels, from the nominator, right up to the final committee (at whatever level it may be).  National level awards go through at least 3 boards, with most going through 4 (not including the Commander's review at various levels and the CDS' review).  Obviously, the lower the level of award, the less committees it will go through.  Have a read of some of the criteria for these H&A, such as exceeded expectations of rank, experience, or training.  Showed tremendous courage, valour, etc.

My personal and informed opinion:
All who receive, let alone are nominated for, an award have done something to merit it.  To belittle someone receiving award belittles the award itself.  In a tour, all personnel contribute something and should that person have not done that extraordinary task, then someone else would have suffered, future Rotos suffered or not had it so "nice", or someone could have been killed.


----------



## Scoobs (21 Feb 2008)

Sacrifice Medal:

-this is the first time that I have heard about this.
-I do not have time to surf the entire site as I'm otherwise occupied, but I get the feeling that it is for something like the US Purple Heart.  I do not profess to be an expert on the US H&A system, but I believe that the Purple Heart is utilized to recognize that a US military person was wounded in action.
-we already have something for that and it is called the Wound Stripe.
-this is approved by the CO of the mbr's unit.


----------



## the 48th regulator (21 Feb 2008)

Scoobs said:
			
		

> Sacrifice Medal:
> 
> -this is the first time that I have heard about this.
> -I do not have time to surf the entire site as I'm otherwise occupied, but I get the feeling that it is for something like the US Purple Heart.  I do not profess to be an expert on the US H&A system, but I believe that the Purple Heart is utilized to recognize that a US military person was wounded in action.
> ...



http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/50674.0.html

dileas

tess


----------



## KevinB (22 Feb 2008)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Hmmm, I expected better from you........
> 
> 
> I said it before and I will always say it, everyone has basically done the _same_ thing.................................what was asked of them at that particular time.
> ...



Bruce,

 My point was not that.   Good and Bad Timing can be accurate -- (story of my life in someways   ) -- 
My point was that Germany was recongnized -- I dont blame anyone for accepting the SSM -- the fact was there it was at the time the "cutting edge" of the CF with 4CMBG.  Troops went to germany and where recongized for it -- troops go to Afghanistan - and are recognized -- some of those troops face combat -- and even fewer of them distinguish themselves with leadership or gallantry under fire.

 As you and I both know any idiot can accept the law of gravity and fallout of a plane -- however we got wings for it.  I dont view any of this as evil, nor do I think the addition or lack of certain things will adversely affect the CF -- 

Admittedly I'm ambivalent to the system -- and my opinion means nothing anyway since I am out.  My only observation is that it seems that the ones in favour of the newer awards are those who have been in combat in Afghanistan -- and those who disagree have not.


----------



## the 48th regulator (22 Feb 2008)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Admittedly I'm ambivalent to the system -- and my opinion means nothing anyway since I am out.  My only observation is that it seems that the ones in favour of the newer awards are those who have been in combat in Afghanistan -- and those who disagree have not.



I have not been there and I support the badge.

However, can you please point out where someone, as on this site, disagrees with the badge solely based on the fact of not having any combat experience?  I failled to have seen those types of posts, however I have heard much of the word "Jealousy" Used by those that have been there.

I surely hope those that have been in combat in Afghanistan don't mistake envy from those of us wishing we were still in and to have gone, to that of jealousy of ones professional expertise.  Those are two separate balls of wax.

dileas

tess


----------



## KevinB (22 Feb 2008)

Says the guy entitles to the badge...   

Tess -- perhaps not envy or jealousy used -- but some of the other comments like Bling and the recent soldiers need this or that and insinuating the the current crop of soldiers are less honourable or self sacrificing that older generations.
 I hate to keep throwing up Germany -- but it was by and large a jammy go as the money and extra latitudes could offset the fact you may have been the next day a small inkspot over which the red army had driven.  

 I'm not into bling mind you I joined in 1987 and my first Maj. - told me my job was to kill Russians as he banged a C1A1 on a table.


----------



## Rifleman62 (23 Feb 2008)

I was in Germany for 100 days (not enough time for the SSM) attached posted to 2 PPCLI (c/s 13C) in 1968. For those who remember events, that August, and the following months, were pretty interesting. We even got reinforcements still wearing Canadian Guards, QOR of C flashes. My new company commander, formally the Bde Maj, was a guy named Stewart, a name recognizable by the PPCLI community. We did what was asked of us at that particular time. Good timing, bad timing. My timing was off even though I served a very long time, and I am embarrassed that I used to wear "freebees".
I am in favor of the Sacrifice Medal as I always thought the Purple Heart was an "award" with a lot of merit. The same with the CIB. Of course, I will never be eligible for either. There will be, and always will be, those who think they are soldiers, who will abuse the awards system. Does that detract from soldiers who earned the award? No. They see their face in the mirror every morning.


----------



## Lard of the Dance (29 Feb 2008)

Well put Rifleman62!


----------



## TheHead (1 Mar 2008)

Very well said Wes.  I don't see the majority of soldiers going around jamming it in people's faces and I don't see the majority of soldiers who never got it #1 Shooting at anything that moves
                        #2 Thinking someone that has it is a god damn war hero  :

I'll be entitled too one, as a Civilian it will sit with the rest of my Awards.    I'm no "bloody war hero". 

My war heroes are the ones I carried onto those planes in flag draped coffins.


----------



## geo (1 Mar 2008)

Let's face it, no one will try to rub "it" into your face.  It's something you have & you're wearing it with pride, the same way as you wear / wore your uniform.

Given that the blighty medal has yet to see the light of day, all this talk is speculation until such time as the GGs office makes an announcement.


----------



## RHFC_piper (1 Mar 2008)

With all this talk about 'jealousy' and 'rubbing it in others faces', I had a bit of an epiphany...

I can't speak for anyone else who'd be entitled to the 'blighty', or the CIB (or what ever the hell they're going to call it.. if anything), but personally, I can't think of many occasions where I'd be wearing it enough to "rub it in", or make anyone feel jealous.  It's not like medals are worn all the time.  Personally I can only think of 3 events, for sure, that I'd be wearing medals;
1. The Regimental Colours Ball, 2. Remembrance Day, 3. Regimental Christmas Dinner.  Beyond that, any other time I'm wearing Ceremonial dress or DEUs with medals would be for playing with the Pipes and Drums Band, and I doubt any of them would really feel jealous (or even care that much) about either decoration.
Now this may be just a reserve thing; I don't know how often the big R go around with medals, but I'm guessing it's not very often.

Just a thought.


----------



## geo (3 Mar 2008)

Piper... I'm with you on this subject.


----------



## Scoobs (7 Mar 2008)

Combat Action Insignia or CAI for short.

Please remember that this recognition, not award, is not official.  As such, it is still in the review process and things can change and will most likely change in regards to the rules, the categories and how you distinguish between the three, how the existing nominations will be processed, etc.


----------



## 1feral1 (8 Mar 2008)

Scoobs said:
			
		

> Combat Action Insignia or CAI for short.
> 
> is not official.



? Emphisise please!


----------



## Michael OLeary (8 Mar 2008)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> ? Emphisise please!



The believe the missing word is "yet", although he did say:



> it is still in the review process


----------



## Infanteer (9 Mar 2008)

RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> I can't speak for anyone else who'd be entitled to the 'blighty', or the CIB (or what ever the hell they're going to call it.. if anything), but personally, I can't think of many occasions where I'd be wearing it enough to "rub it in", or make anyone feel jealous.



The CDS had a "town hall" meeting last year and said that he intended to have the CAI (or whatever) worn on Combats.  I think it was just something coming from his big idea bin, but imagine how well that will go off.


----------



## RHFC_piper (9 Mar 2008)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The CDS had a "town hall" meeting last year and said that he intended to have the CAI (or whatever) would be worn on Combats.  I think it was just something coming from his big idea bin...



Okay... I like the guy, and I have nothing but the utmost respect for him, both for his rank and for his policies and actions... But, if this is really one of his ideas...  Seriously... do we really need more stuff velcro'd on to our uniforms?  Something else that won't be seen under body armour?   I don't see the need.  Combats are like coveralls; they're strictly utilitarian... we don't need combat 'bling'.  



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> but imagine how well that will go off.



Yeah... Not too well...

BTW, how are the 'colour schemes' going to work on CADPAT?  or are the "CAI's" just going to have numbers when in OD/CADPAT?  (I know this is going into the realm of total and complete speculation, but, hey, its fun...)


----------



## JimmyPeeOn (9 Mar 2008)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> I agree that the "us" and "them" situation exists.  During our pre deployment briefings, we are often asked if we've been to Afghanistan.  I raise my hand.  Then they ask "Oh, but who's been to Khandahar".  Then, in the IED lecture, they use as an example of a successful Taliban strike on ISAF, they mention the bombing of the bus in Kabul in 2003.  June 2003.  Yep, the safe part, the very road I travelled daily in my iltis/lsvw/LAV 3.



You mean June 7th 2003, about noon, 300M in front of 3 no hook Pte Sigs and a LS Cook?  Gee, no wonder "REMF's" get slagged.  I hope I get a badge with a coffee cup on it.

I love being a smart ass.


----------



## geo (9 Mar 2008)

Piper,
Last I heard, the CAI is a badge that's for the DEUs, not for wear on CADPAT.
You get it once, no numbers.


----------



## RHFC_piper (9 Mar 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> Piper,
> Last I heard, the CAI is a badge that's for the DEUs, not for wear on CADPAT.
> You get it once, no numbers.



Please go back and read the previous posts to see where this is coming from...



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> *The CDS had a "town hall" meeting last year and said that he intended to have the CAI (or whatever) worn on Combats.  I think it was just something coming from his big idea bin, but imagine how well that will go off.*



And as for the numbers... Unless we're supposed to wear Bronze, Silver and Gold on CADPAT (if the ABOVE STATEMENT is followed) then they will have to devise a different system.


----------



## Dirty Patricia (9 Mar 2008)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The CDS had a "town hall" meeting last year and said that he intended to have the CAI (or whatever) worn on Combats.



The first draft of the CAI mentioned a version for service dress as well as one for operational dress.



			
				RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> Seriously... do we really need more stuff velcro'd on to our uniforms?  Something else that won't be seen under body armour?   I don't see the need.  Combats are like coveralls; they're strictly utilitarian... we don't need combat 'bling'.



Although they are a utility uniform, I'd hardly compare them to coveralls.  They are a uniform and the one most often worn in the army.  I think we're one of the only armies that doesn't wear our jump wings on combats - lets add them while we're at it.  The US Army has a new with their ACUs of wearing pin on awards and qualification badges (CIB, CAB, CMB, Para, Air Aslt, PF, Diver) in garrison only, but not in the field or overseas.  There is even a push there for full velcro colour unit patches in garrison.


----------



## geo (9 Mar 2008)

RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> Please go back and read the previous posts to see where this is coming from...
> And as for the numbers... Unless we're supposed to wear Bronze, Silver and Gold on CADPAT (if the ABOVE STATEMENT is followed) then they will have to devise a different system.


From the last talks I had with my Area CWO, the chances of the CAI on CADPAT appeared to be going down.  As I am on Med leave, will have to wait till 17th before inquiring again....


----------



## RHFC_piper (9 Mar 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> From the last talks I had with my Area CWO, the chances of the CAI on CADPAT appeared to be going down.  As I am on Med leave, will have to wait till 17th before inquiring again....



 As I've said before; I don't see the need for the CAI (if there is going to be one...) to be worn on CADPAT... 



			
				Dirty Patricia said:
			
		

> The first draft of the CAI mentioned a version for service dress as well as one for operational dress.



hmmm... lot's of conflicting info here...  but it doesn't really matter until its approved and appears on uniforms.



			
				Dirty Patricia said:
			
		

> Although they are a utility uniform, I'd hardly compare them to coveralls.  They are a uniform and the one most often worn in the army.  I think we're one of the only armies that doesn't wear our jump wings on combats - lets add them while we're at it.  The US Army has a new with their ACUs of wearing pin on awards and qualification badges (CIB, CAB, CMB, Para, Air Aslt, PF, Diver) in garrison only, but not in the field or overseas.  There is even a push there for full velcro colour unit patches in garrison.



IMO, the nature of operational uniforms has changed quite a bit... Long gone are the days when wearing 'bling' into operations in the norm... and although it's true that CADPAT is the uniform we wear most often, is it really necessary to wear your qualifications and experience on your chest or arm to get your job done?  Besides rank, I don't believe so.  Rank insignia serves it's purpose for proper address and authority recognition, but having wings or CAI just isn't needed on a utility dress... On the other hand, having this stuff on DEUs is reasonable, as wearing DEUs (in full dress) is much like a walking display case of achievement; medals, awards, badges, etc.

But that's just how I see it... if others require badges and awards on utility dress to qualify their career and position, so be it... I'm happy just knowing where I've been and what I've done, I don't need to wear it on my chest every day.


----------



## Dirty Patricia (9 Mar 2008)

RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> ... if others require badges and awards on utility dress to qualify their career and position, so be it... I'm happy just knowing where I've been and what I've done, I don't need to wear it on my chest every day.



I don't know why so many people think because a guy wears a badge he is flaunting something.  It's the army - you get badges for doing things and having a bit of pride in that is good.


----------



## geo (9 Mar 2008)

In our multinational evvironment there is something to be said for specialty badges worn on field dress.  Even when language is a barried, an EOD patch on a uniform will certainly get my attention.


----------



## Dirty Patricia (9 Mar 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> In our multinational evvironment there is something to be said for specialty badges worn on field dress.  Even when language is a barried, an EOD patch on a uniform will certainly get my attention.



Or when you see two hot American chicks from the 173rd in the DFAC in KAF with CABs and jump wings.  Pretty cool.

On a more serious note I saw a padre in Bosnia with a SEAL trident and one in KAF with a CIB.  Most definitely good credentials to be wearing on your chest in that profession, trying to get troops to talk to you about things.


----------



## geo (9 Mar 2008)

Trident, yes, EOD, yes... 
CIB? not so sure what additional info that badge brings to the table.  If you are outside the wire in KAF alongside other nationals, you have to take for grated allied soldier has been trained to an equivalent standard as yours... else nothing will get done.


----------



## Dirty Patricia (9 Mar 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> Trident, yes, EOD, yes...
> CIB? not so sure what additional info that badge brings to the table.  If you are outside the wire in KAF alongside other nationals, you have to take for grated allied soldier has been trained to an equivalent standard as yours... else nothing will get done.



I was just saying that a padre with a CIB (meaning prior to being a padre he held an Inf or SF MOS in combat) is peculiar and would bode well when talking to troops about their experiences.


----------



## the 48th regulator (9 Mar 2008)

Dirty Patricia said:
			
		

> I was just saying that a padre with a CIB (meaning prior to being a padre he held an Inf or SF MOS in combat) is peculiar and would bode well when talking to troops about their experiences.



I would think that a padre without a combat badge would be able to talk to anyone with regards to spirituality.

A good padre does not have to be a Germanus of Auxerre to be able to relate to troops.....

dileas

tess


----------



## geo (9 Mar 2008)

There is no doubt that a Padre who is Umm.... "recycled" from a previous MOC will have a perculiar point of view & sense of humour.  Having said that, the many Padres I have met over the last 35+ years without combat arms experience bring a lot of humanity to the table.  

I could probably name of 1 padre who didn't do much for me... and he was a former gunner.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (9 Mar 2008)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> I would think that a padre without a combat badge would be able to talk to anyone with regards to spirituality.
> 
> A good padre does not have to be a Germanus of Auxerre to be able to relate to troops.....
> 
> ...



+1...badges sometimes get a conversation started but it's not about me (the padre) it's about whether I'm there for the troops or not.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (9 Mar 2008)

Dirty Patricia said:
			
		

> I don't know why so many people think because a guy wears a badge he is flaunting something.  It's the army - you get badges for doing things and having a bit of pride in that is good.



I agree.Pride being the big one.I hear a lot about the "us and them" mentality it would cause,however from what I have seen it already exists anyway.No doubt after this next tour you were either "there" or "not there" and thus start a new group for the us and them crew.

Let's face it;soldiers are never happy for the other guy.Promotions,courses,badges,awards....No matter what it will be a us and them mentality.


----------



## Yrys (9 Mar 2008)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Let's face it;soldiers  humans are never happy for the other guy.Promotions,courses,badges,awards....No matter what it will be a us and them mentality.


----------



## Franko (9 Mar 2008)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Let's face it;soldiers are never happy for the other guy.Promotions,courses,badges,awards....No matter what it will be a us and them mentality.



True enough. Can't remember how many times I see someone get an award or promotion people automatically start groaning and talking behind their back.

More often than not, it's for no good reason either.

Regards


----------



## Starlight31 (13 Mar 2008)

Dirty Patricia said:
			
		

> On a more serious note I saw a padre in Bosnia with a SEAL trident and one in KAF with a CIB.  Most definitely good credentials to be wearing on your chest in that profession, trying to get troops to talk to you about things.



I think a point that is being missed here... Is yes.. A padre should be able to talk to anyone.  The same should be said about mental health, MO's, and so on.  I was stunned when we got to Cypress for decompression, and the mental health folks started asking their questions.. " So?  what was it like being shot at?  Did you shoot people?  How did it make you feel when your friends die?"  Sadly, the same holds true when you come home back to the unit!  You have issues, people you think should understand.. Don't!! (Not their fault), but they try to play the I've been there card, which in turns, (you get the picture.)

I think, the other point that could help, is in teaching the next roto's.  To often, (not in all trades, but in some) we get some people who lean more on rank, than on exp.  So the Cpl, who has lived through the hell, and has learned the right and wrong ways in the "real" environment, people who need to learn will know the difference.  I have taught 100's of people getting ready to deploy, and the all know when someone (with no exp) is feeding then BS, which in turns discredits good information. 

I wish we could come together as a force to promote our morale, instead of finding ways of why we can not do something, because "I am not going to get it" using the Bling, or the US theory. For the record, while in Afghan. the US soldier running beside me was dieing just like our guys? 

Sorry for the rant


----------



## PB (15 Mar 2008)

Some good points Starlight. I agree there is some U.S bashing in regards to "Bling" on their uniforms throughout these posts. Those of us that have been their, outside and in the sh#t, have new found respect for our U.S counterparts. I have worked with them plenty in the past, and have done course and training in the States, but not til your Butt is on the line, ....it's nice to have uncle Sam watching your back. I did some Air ops over there, since we had no air lift, depended on uncle Sam. Nothing like flying to a job in a BlackHawk with two Apaches in Support, that's the way to roll! and the NDP are saying we are overspending.... Meanwhile it was good to see a couple of junior ranks get some Bling from GG, although it is still top heavy. Cheers, PB


----------



## 1feral1 (15 Mar 2008)

PB said:
			
		

> Some good points Starlight. I agree there is some U.S bashing in regards to "Bling" on their uniforms throughout these posts.



To mock and/or bash another country's honours an d awards does nothing but show ingnorance and contempt.

Their H&A are differen than Canada's, as even here in Australia too for that matter.


----------

