# news story on medals



## FormerHorseGuard (28 Jan 2007)

From the Toronto Sun  29 Jan 2007

*Canada earns medal for being tight-fisted*​
By PETER WORTHINGTON




In his publication The Rice Paddy, aimed mostly to "entertain and inform" Korean War veterans, Winnipeg publisher/editor Mike Czuboka (himself a Korean vet), compares the merits of the Victoria Cross with the U.S. Medal of Honour.

Both are the most prestigious valour awards given by each country -- though the VC is harder to win and more highly regarded.

Czuboka reprints a Time magazine story questioning why so few Medals of Honour have been awarded in the Iraq war which, for Americans, has now lasted longer than World War I.

In World War II, 464 Medals of Honour were awarded, while in Iraq only two have been given so far. If the same restrictive standards of Iraq had applied to the 16 million Americans who served on the Armed Forces in World War II, only 30 Medals of Honour would have been awarded in World War II, according to Time.

As for America's second highest bravery award -- the Distinguished Service Cross -- 8,716 were awarded in World War II, and so far only 26 in Iraq.

Canadian veterans have long noted the U.S. has traditionally been more generous (if not lavish) with valour awards than Canadian or British forces. This seems to be changing in the U.S. for the highest awards.

Where it comes apart is in the "minor" or mid-level valour awards in Iraq. An extraordinary 52,000 Bronze Stars have been awarded -- including 30 to the first Canadian battalion of the Princess Pats to serve in Afghanistan -- four of them (with the "V" for Valour insignia on the ribbon) to our snipers who served with the Americans, and the rest of the Bronze Stars going to senior officers and NCO (Non-Commissioned Officers) of that battalion, with none to the rank and file.

Medals are a curious fixation among soldiers.

It was the Duke of Newcastle in 1855 who noted: "The value attached by soldiers to a little bit of ribbon is such as to render any danger insignificant." Napoleon, too, remarked on how "little bits of ribbon" could motivate soldiers to fight bravely.

On a per capita basis, twice as many Medals of Honour were awarded in World War II as VCs. Canadians won 16 VCs, three of them earned in British forces.

Some 1,354 VCs have been awarded since the medal's inception in the 1856 Crimean War. Three have won the VC twice -- two medical officers who rescued wounded under fire, one an infantry officer -- and New Zealander Charles Upham in Crete and North Africa in World War II.

Fourteen have won the Medal of Honour twice -- one of them was Tom Custer in the U.S. Civil War (brother of Gen. George Custer of Little Bighorn infamy), who won his before he was old enough to vote.

MOST DECORATED SOLDIER

Of 3,461 Medals of Honour that have been awarded, 1,522 were given in the Civil War, when standards were lower; 124 were awarded in World War I, 131 in Korea (where two VCs were awarded), 245 for Vietnam, and 426 during the Indian wars in the American west, including 20 for the massacre at Wounded Knee (for shame!)

Audie Murphy was America's most decorated soldier in World War II, winning every American bravery award.

In Korea and Vietnam, when the bar was lowered, Lt. Col. David Hackworth, who died at age 74, had two Distinguished Service Crosses, 10 Silver Stars, eight Bronze Stars and eight Purple Hearts. Talk about diluting bravery!

Canada is traditionally chary with valour awards.

In Afghanistan, our soldiers have been awarded more American decorations than Canadian. As far as I know, only two Canadians in Afghanistan have been awarded the new Star of Courage, our second highest valour award (next to our VC which has never been won).

When it comes to service medals, few countries can match Canada. In total, we award -- not counting World War I, World War II or Korea -- over 120 medals and decorations. We still have a way to go match the 1983 U.S. invasion of Grenada, where the U.S. army awarded more decorations than there were soldiers who invaded.

Today, some balance has returned -- depending on the medal. 



"We still have a way to go match the 1983 U.S. invasion of Grenada, where the U.S. army awarded more decorations than there were soldiers who invaded." 
this made me wonder a lot, guess some staff officers needed something to polish besides boots?


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (28 Jan 2007)

> In Afghanistan, our soldiers have been awarded more American decorations than Canadian. As far as I know, only two Canadians in Afghanistan have been awarded the new Star of Courage, our second highest valour award (next to our VC which has never been won).
> 
> When it comes to service medals, few countries can match Canada. In total, we award -- not counting World War I, World War II or Korea -- over 120 medals and decorations. We still have a way to go match the 1983 U.S. invasion of Grenada, where the U.S. army awarded more decorations than there were soldiers who invaded.



As usual with things "Worthington", this is wrong and misleading.  First, the "Star of Courage" is not awarded for service in Afghanistan, as OP ATHENA is a combat operation.  Thus far, a single "Star of Military Valour" has been announced.  They're two different medals.

As for service medals, Canada's heavy participation in UN peacekeeping missions has led to a plethora of UN medals being adopted for Canadian use (see the DHH site for more information), hence the large number.  Post-war Canadian-only medals are relatively few in number.

I'm not touching the misleading paragraph on the Bronze Stars for APOLLO.  Once again, Worthington's talking out of his a**.


----------



## GO!!! (28 Jan 2007)

FormerHorseGuard said:
			
		

> Where it comes apart is in the "minor" or mid-level valour awards in Iraq. An extraordinary 52,000 Bronze Stars have been awarded -- including 30 to the first Canadian battalion of the Princess Pats to serve in Afghanistan -- four of them (with the "V" for Valour insignia on the ribbon) to our snipers who served with the Americans, and the rest of the Bronze Stars going to senior officers and NCO (Non-Commissioned Officers) of that battalion, with none to the rank and file.



Teddy,

We've had this one out before, but Worthington is not lying about any of this. 

The Bronze Stars, for whatever reason, were awarded to the Senior Officers and CSMs and up on Op Apollo. The snipers got the four valour appliances, the others did not. 

You seem to relish continually expressing the sentiment that it was completely fair and reasonable to award medals for valor to completely administrative positions on Op Apollo, and that it is somehow "out of line" for anyone much less a journalist to comment on it.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (28 Jan 2007)

GO!!!

For the upteenth thousandth time, a Bronze Star without a "V" is not a decoration for valour - it's a Meritorious Service Award, full stop.  That's where Worthington's story is out to lunch and where all the whining - that's gone on relentlessly since 2002 - is completely misplaced.

TR, out.


----------



## Tracker 23A (28 Jan 2007)

Like it or not TR is correct.

Furthermore, to compare WWII which was a complete war with massed armies going head to head to a relatively small insurgency fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, is a disgrace to the veterans of the two great wars.  The circumstances which medals were awarded in WWII to those in Iraq and Afghanistan are night and day.


----------



## geo (28 Jan 2007)

GO!!!

It's an american medal and they can give em out to whoever the hell they care to give em out to.  We don't have to agree with the rhyme, reason or justification for which they were offered - they did & it was only up to the CF to decide as to if or when they are allowed to wear em (each one has to be approved by NDHQ for wear on uniform).

During WW1, WW2 there were tons of the Croix de guerre & the Legion d'Honeur given ut to our troops..... hell, as recent as two or three years ago, the French gov't gave out Legion d'Honeur medals to the lowliest of gunners from WW1 who were around to receive em.....


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (28 Jan 2007)

There's no denying that.  However, as Geo pointed out, they were awarded against US criteria by the US and, in my experience, the Americans tend to award Bronze Stars (meritorious version) to the leadership.  Indeed, there are very senior officers that I can name who recently received them for work _as staff officers_ with CFC-A.

What drives me mad is the angst that's surrounded this non-issue for almost six years.  The Americans awarded their medal against their criteria in their tradition...  How many lower-ranking soldiers are amongst the large number who received MSCs or MSMs for their work on ATHENA?  Not many...yet there's no accusations surrounding those (much more recent) _Canadian_ awards...


----------



## GO!!! (28 Jan 2007)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> There's no denying that.  However, as Geo pointed out, they were awarded against US criteria by the US and, in my experience, the Americans tend to award Bronze Stars (meritorious version) to the leadership.  Indeed, there are very senior officers that I can name who recently received them for work _as staff officers_ with CFC-A.
> 
> What drives me mad is the angst that's surrounded this non-issue for almost six years.  The Americans awarded their medal against their criteria in their tradition...  How many lower-ranking soldiers are amongst the large number who received MSCs or MSMs for their work on ATHENA?  Not many...yet there's no accusations surrounding those (much more recent) _Canadian_ awards...



I suppose the difference is that it is was/is _expected_ for the Senior Leadership to heap awards on each other for performing their duties in this country and abroad. Insofar, it is not that big a deal to see it. We all know that virtually every officer above the rank of Captain will be decorated, with something beyond the SWASM, every time he goes to Afghanistan - this is not a surprise.

What bothered most of the "rank and file" was that the only soldiers to make contact with the enemy in 2002 got a medal for it, and the same medal (less valor device) went to everyone else above the rank/position of X. Finally, the DND authorised it's wear, a break with tradition that was not afforded to Canadians who participated in Desert Storm in 1991, and were decorated with "unauthorised" medals from the Kuwaiti government. 

*If these medals are an award, apparently the only people who performed beyond anyone's expectations are the winners of them. If they are an entitlement, say so.*


----------



## Blakey (29 Jan 2007)

I agree some what with GO!!!, *MY* take on it is that, once the Canadian Government (read forces) realised that the US Military wanted to hand out these awards to junior NCO's ( NDHQ reaction: "OMG! only junior NCO's, we can't have that!"), they petitioned the United States to hand out medals to the _others_.

As stated this is my opinion, for those of you that will no doubt come back with "Can you prove this?", I say to you, can you prove otherwise?


----------



## aesop081 (29 Jan 2007)

Cataract Kid said:
			
		

> I agree some what with GO!!!, *MY* take on it is that, once the Canadian Government (read forces) realised that the US Military wanted to hand out these awards to junior NCO's ( NDHQ reaction: "OMG! only junior NCO's, we can't have that!"), they petitioned the United States to hand out medals to the _others_.
> 
> As stated this is my opinion, for those of you that will no doubt come back with "Can you prove this?", I say to you, can you prove otherwise?



You made the alegations, you prove them. The burden is on you...you know how it works here


----------



## Blakey (29 Jan 2007)

cdnaviator said:
			
		

> You made the alegations, you prove them. The burden is on you...you know how it works here





> I agree some what with GO!!!, MY take on it is that, once the Canadian Government (read forces) realised that the US Military wanted to hand out these awards to junior NCO's ( NDHQ reaction: "OMG! only junior NCO's, we can't have that!"), they petitioned the United States to hand out medals to the others.
> 
> As stated *this is my opinion*, for those of you that will no doubt come back with "Can you prove this?", I say to you, can you prove otherwise?





> a belief or judgment that rests on grounds *insufficient to produce complete certainty*


----------



## Michael OLeary (29 Jan 2007)

See Occam's razor


----------



## gaspasser (29 Jan 2007)

I'd like to back up what TR said and ask the same question.  Why are Canadian allowed to wear American awards and honours but we're not allowed to wear another country's? Said countries basically saying thank you for you service in protecting our assets and kicking some jagg off back to Baghdad.
Seems to up there with the 125 medal and jubilee decoration.
Oh, and why has it taken (still taking) over 17 years for the Kuwait one to get to the members?  
Rant off


----------



## Blakey (29 Jan 2007)

BYT Driver said:
			
		

> I'd like to back up what TR said and ask the same question.  Why are Canadian allowed to wear American awards and honours but we're not allowed to wear another country's? Said countries basically saying thank you for you service in protecting our assets *and kicking some jagg off back to Baghdad.
> *Seems to up there with the 125 medal and jubilee decoration.
> Oh, and why has it taken (still taking) over 17 years for the Kuwait one to get to the members?
> Rant off



Who kicked who backed to Baghdad?


----------



## Franko (29 Jan 2007)

Alright troops....keep it on track.

Regards


----------



## armyvern (29 Jan 2007)

Cataract Kid,

1991. Persian Gulf. Amercian Forces kicked someone back to Bagdhad from Kuwait. Serving there were also Canadian Forces members amongst other nationalities. Kuwait minted "Liberation of Kuwait Medals" for all those involved in their liberation, including the Canadians. That is BYT's gist with his post.


----------



## geo (29 Jan 2007)

Byt driver..... The liberation of Kuwait medal is a campaign medal.  The Cdn forces minted it's own version of a campaign medal and that is what the Cdn troops are authorized to wear( no wearing of two decorations for the exact same circumstances).  The medal is a "been there /  done that" & not a decoration for a Thank you for a job well done.


----------



## aesop081 (29 Jan 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> ( no wearing of two decorations for the exact same circumstances).



I would dare say that the CPSM comes pretty close to doing just that, but thats just IMHO.


----------



## GO!!! (29 Jan 2007)

cdnaviator said:
			
		

> I would dare say that the CPSM comes pretty close to doing just that, but thats just IMHO.



Agreed! - but when you get a medal (lets just use the SWASM) and then you get another one (random choice - Bronze Star) for doing the exact same work in the exact same place, and then you get the St. John's of Jerusalem medal on top of that, that one guy got _three_ medals for the same tour. Since he did'nt even see the enemy, or perform anything of note beyond his expected duties, how do you explain this?


----------



## armyvern (29 Jan 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Byt driver..... The liberation of Kuwait medal is a campaign medal.  The Cdn forces minted it's own version of a campaign medal and that is what the Cdn troops are authorized to wear( no wearing of two decorations for the exact same circumstances).  The medal is a "been there /  done that" & not a decoration for a Thank you for a job well done.



Is it a 'campaign' medal though? Or is it a "Thank you for your *distinguished service* and work towards liberating our country?" Another country recognizing all those whose excellent performance assisted them? Much like say, the US Bronze Star that Canadians received authorization to wear. I'm not disputing the 4 that were awarded with the "Valour" distinguisher. I see the double standard in the non-Valour bronze stars which were also awarded for *meritorious service* by another nation being authorized while others (ie Kuwait) are not.

Which brings up another point. Op Apollo Roto III, some members of the roto deployed into the Congo for 30 days in sp of the FFL airlift by the EU, and although were already deployed and thus obtaining a medla for that deployment, received (and were authorized to wear) the European Union medal for their Congo time. Interesting that. Some would argue that was because it was a different mission/mandate.

When the same members rolled over to Op Athena TAT/ZERO and thus a new mandate and mission in a newly re-opened Afghan theatre, were denied (by date exclusion applicable ONLY to them) the GCS/GCM even though it was a completely different mission/mandate. Only to sit back and watch those that came in after them who switched from the GSS/GCM mission back to the SWASM receive both. Double standards do exist.

I am also one who believes that the CPSM is double recognition, yet there it sits.


----------



## geo (29 Jan 2007)

Heh... I don't dissagree with ya Vern

BUT.... I don't write the policy & I certainly wasn't consulted prior to it's being implemented........


----------



## armyvern (29 Jan 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Heh... I don't dissagree with ya Vern
> 
> BUT.... I don't write the policy & I certainly wasn't consulted prior to it's being implemented........



And, I think, that is the gist behind BYTs & GO!!! posts. Policy which can seemingly entail a double standard WRT honours and awards and double recognition. Unfortunatly, using the Kuwait/Bronze Star criteria (the non-V instruments) with one being recognized as "meritorious" and the other merely as a "campaign" medal, I can see where one would get the impression that the way the criteria was applied in these two cases tended to favour those who recd auth to wear the non-valour Bronze Stars.

Sometimes, the perception over-rules the actualities.

Although in the case of those who went from

Op Apollo to Op Athena TAT/ZERO (and recd the SWASM only)
and those who went in reverse:
From Op Athena to Op Archer (and recd both the GCS/GCM & the SWASM)
I believe that it is a clear cut double standard, not a perception.


----------



## Reccesoldier (29 Jan 2007)

For those of you who really care...

A-AD-200-000/AG-000
THE HONOURS, FLAGS AND HERITAGE STRUCTURE
OF THE CANADIAN FORCES

Specifically Chapter two

And this little tidbit from someone much wiser than most of us...

“Dignity does not consist in possessing honours, but in deserving them.” 
Aristotle


----------



## armyvern (29 Jan 2007)

I think most of us here have already agreed with that little tidbit reccesoldier.

The question here is not about "not having enough awards" it's about double standards that are perceived to be in their awarding. There is a difference.


----------



## Reccesoldier (29 Jan 2007)

The Librarian said:
			
		

> I think most of us here have already agreed with that little tidbit reccesoldier.
> 
> The question here is not about "not having enough awards" it's about double standards that are perceived to be in their awarding. There is a difference.



Hence the more informative part of my post.


----------



## armyvern (29 Jan 2007)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Hence the more informative part of my post.


Sorry, it must have been the opener:



> For those of you who really care...



that threw me off.


----------



## Reccesoldier (29 Jan 2007)

The Librarian said:
			
		

> that threw me off.



Just a recognition of Reccesoldiers first law of instruction...

"Nothing else causes eyes to glaze over faster than putting the letters CFP or B/GL in front of any title."
 ;D


----------



## armyvern (29 Jan 2007)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> "Nothing else causes eyes to glaze over faster than putting the letters CFP or B/GL in front of any title."
> ;D


Especially when one has become, by default, a librarian.  ;D But my eyes didn't glaze over.

Got to go figure out how to file that one under the dewey decimal system.


----------

