# VC, Medal of Bravery, Star of Courage...Where are the nominations?



## IN HOC SIGNO (9 Oct 2006)

One of the things I've been wondering about the last little while is why we haven't seen any VCs, Bravery and Courage medals awarded in the Afghan campaign yet?
the Brits have had at least one VC awarded for action in Iraq and I'm sure numerous other lesser awards for bravery.
We have all heard accounts of our troops in Afghanistan and we know there are some amazing things going on...so is it that no one is getting nominated or are we once again not recognizing our people properly when they are deserving of recognition?

Any one know?


----------



## HItorMiss (9 Oct 2006)

IHS

Things take time and have to be verified by eyewitness reports etc etc the nominations are coming.


----------



## marshall sl (9 Oct 2006)

Korea Vet News – Independent Internet Publication - October 4, 2006  
Dedicated to the sacrifice and indomitable spirit of Canada's Korean War Veterans 


  







Where are the medals?



Veterans are all aware of the professionalism and high quality of our soldiers, sailors and airmen serving in Afghanistan.

We know that Canadians fighting on the ground there and those engaged in trying to restore and develop the infrastructure, economy, health, well being and dignity of the communities are brave, highly skilled professionals.

We also know that they are not easily picked off like chickens; that in engagements with the enemy they acquit themselves as bravest of the brave.

We’re not talking about swashbuckling heroics necessarily, although that's sometimes an element in the military success.

We’re talking about the bravery of this man risking his life without hesitation to bring a wounded or stranded comrade to safety.

We’re talking about staying calm and doing a job proscribed for a peaceful area in one that has suddenly become a battlefield.

We’re talking about risking life and limb, perhaps for days on end, without  wavering… knowing there are mines in the ground, knowing the enemy watches from concealment and with disguise.



This being done knowing that the reward of gaining one more day is an increment of improvement for the lives of the Afghan people and one more day of survival for the brave Canadians who risk it all.

We know that engaged in combat as they are in Afghanistan, facing adversity not just from the enemy but from all of the elements as well, every day our troops do things on the highest order, often well beyond the call of normal duty.

Yet it seems little effort is being made to recognize these brave acts or that unwavering high duty.

Canadian troops have been in the field in Afghanistan now for two years and before that were deployed with a full battalion battle group in 2002.

Yet we never read of any of those brave Canadians being recommended for decorations for heroic service, or for medals that reflect their outstanding devotion to duty.



In the first deployment in 2002 several decorations were awarded and the news media was made aware of them. But they were not Canadian decorations.

There were stories about five Canadian snipers being awarded Bronze Star medals with Valour clasps by the US Army.

They had spent 19 days under fire in the field, attached to a US Army scout team. 

The American commander attested that their bravery and skill at arms saved many American lives; that the snipers reduced enemy machinegun emplacements and broke up their concentrations. 

The news was controversial because even a month after the medals had been approved in the US and sent to Ottawa nothing official had been heard about them by the troops who would receive them.

A defence department spokesperson said Canada was considering its own awards. 

But that was bunk. Here’s how historian Dr. David Bercuson, director of the Centre of Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary, saw it.

He said it was political, a matter of squeamishness in Ottawa.

“Canadians don't kill - they don't even use the word ‘kill’; that's the problem,” he was quoted as saying in news media. “I think the military is not sure that the government is prepared to accept the fact, let alone celebrate the fact, that Canadian soldiers do sometimes end up killing people.

“Absolutely they should get it (the Bronze Star). It would be good for the morale of the guys and good for the morale of the whole unit, and they need a morale boost right now.”

Bronze Stars were also awarded posthumously to four Canadian soldiers who were killed in action.

Additionally, another 21 Bronze Stars were given out in bulk for distribution to soldiers who served with the 1st Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry Batle Group. The assignment of medals was left to the unit, as the US Army has little idea of the names of the various individuals who were deserving of the honour.

Eventually, Canada's Chancellery of Honours approved acceptance of all 30 of the Bronze Star medals.

Sources tell us that the 21 Bronze Stars not specified to the four Patricias who were killed in action or the five snipers were distributed only to officers and warrant officers who had served in the theatre.

Although eight Patricias were wounded in Afghanistan alongside the four who were killed none of them were recipients of the medal.

A year after the 2002 deployment, two senior officers and a regimental sergeant major were awarded Canada’s Meritorious Service Cross for their service in Afghanistan. One had been in charge of Canada’s naval operations in the theatre, one commanded the infantry battalion battle group and one was its regimental sergeant major.

The Meritorious Service Cross (Military version) is awarded for “a military deed or activity that has been performed in an outstandingly professional manner, according to a rare high standard that brings considerable benefit or great honour to the Canadian Armed Forces.”  

A civilian version of the same decoration recognizes “a deed or an activity that has been performed in an outstandingly professional manner, or with uncommonly high standards; the activity is often innovative, sets an example for others to follow, improves the quality of life of a community and brings considerable benefit or honour to Canada.”





We know Canadian servicemen and servicewomen are not medal collectors. It would be absurd and even disgusting to imply they were serving in Afghanistan to receive medals and awards of tribute from their nation.

Their calling is much, much higher than that. Their performance in the field is that of professionals of greatest dedication.

Yet Canada should indeed be awarding these marks of tribute.

It is a new war and it takes all NCOs and officers time to adjust to the conditions and to the tactics they face in the field.

Yet those who have command assignments should not overlook their responsibility for recognizing the brave and meritorious acts of those who serve with them.

It is not an easy thing to do. It is not easy to call attention to the acts of this man or woman and not to the rest. 

We all know that bravery is an assumed general standard for Canadian soldiers but that it may fluctuate in degree. 

We all know that the fluid requirements of battle make this one’s actions stand out in one hour and somebody else’s in the next. 

We know that many, many acts or bravery and superb devotion to duty and to the people of Afghanistan perhaps are never seen by those in command of the sections, the platoons, the troops, the companies, the squadrons.

We also know that nobody cares if this one is cited for a decoration and the others are not. It’s tribute to all. Often the honour could have gone to several among them, for the bravery and the danger usually is shared by all.

So we think that quietly, commanders in Afghanistan should instruct their subordinate officers and NCOs to be more proactively watchful for the opportunity to bring national recognition to the honourable and brave acts of those they are privileged to lead.

It is not a quest to “conjure honour” because Canadian troops don’t do that. But it should be a quest to recognize it.

If any Canadian soldier is worthy of earning a Bronze Star for Valour from the United States Army, surely he or she has also shown acts of bravery, courage and devotion to duty that should be recognized by a Canadian decoration.

If the Bronze Star medals were accepted and awarded to Canadians and Gazetted like Canadian decorations, those same individuals were equally deserving of Canadian medals for the same acts.

We cite that just to show that there is a paucity of effort or activity or perhaps even lack an appropriate administrative mechanism to ensure the adequate awarding of honours to our Canadians fighting in Afghanistan.

It leads us to ask in all sincerity and to request that the commanders also ask, “Where are the medals?”





When we fought in Korea occasionally citations were written right after an engagement, but sometimes the matter was left until the unit was ready to leave the theatre. In some cases officers huddled and scratched their memories and threw names into the hopper.

Some, even some wounded months before, had faded from thought and were not then put forward as candidates for a decoration. 

Let us not overlook any of our brave Canadians serving in Afghanistan.  

Our Department of National Defence publicists issue reports on those killed in action, but nothing about their fighting qualities, their courage, their valour.

Similarly they do not issue reports about those who survive and face great peril and hardship and sacrifice for us 24 hours every day of every week.

Why not? Why not develop feature article releases about this action or that; about this feat of bravery or this unusual devotion to duty?

Probably because DND is still dominated by a bureaucratic faction that wants to portray members of the Canadian Forces as aid workers.     

As David Bercuson implied, they fear reference to battles and feats of courage in the field might portray the Canadians risking life and limb as “jingoists.” They might fear that they themselves would be so envisioned.

To only report on the deaths of those killed in action in Iraq makes it look like our brave Canadians are being picked off like chickens, without shooting back! Or without being on the offensive and shooting first!

So probably that’s one reason that Canadians are not much honoured by their own Department of National Defence in its various news releases.

Sure, the Prime Minister, or the Chief of the General Staff or the Minister of National Defence and various other Ministers can say complimentary things – observing usually their counselors’ ideas of “political correctness.” 

But routine reporting of bravery and devotion to duty and outstanding acts of compassion is something else.

If medals were awarded and the DND publicists issued meaningful, definitive news releases about the awards, the Canadian public – and that of the world – might get a better picture of what our brave Canadians are doing in that far off theatre of war, where they are immersed in hardship and danger.

We know that Canadian officers and NCOs in Afghanistan will say with understandable perplexion – perhaps anger – that they are fully tasked with the job at hand and don’t have time to think about medals.

And that is one of the reasons this article has been written.

For any of the sometimes rabid minority of citizens who seem to hate our military and decry the Canadian Armed Forces – the Canadian Forces, of course, guarantees them such right, even if they may dishonourably, perhaps even seditiously sometimes exercise it – we present that decorations are awarded for many causes.

In several cases, the same high honour awarded to a Canadian Forces serviceman for bravery in the field can also be awarded for situations that do not involve conflict with an enemy.

In some cases those same awards can also be made to civilians.

In the following short list we have omitted all the high awards usually made only to officers, the various classes within the Order of Canada which cannot be awarded for service in the field and also the Meritorious Service Decorations.

Victoria Cross - Of course, Canada’s highest award for bravery, the Victoria Cross is “awarded for the most conspicuous bravery; a daring or preeminent act of valour or self-sacrifice or extreme devotion to duty in the presence of the enemy.”

Most people know, at least foggily, that such is the case. Few Canadians have ever received the honour. Only 16 awards were made to members of the Canadian armed force in the Second World War. All recipients are now gone. No Victoria Crosses have been awarded to Canadian in the past 61 years.


Cross of Valour - The next highest award is the Cross of Valour. It is made for “acts of conspicuous courage in circumstances of extreme peril,” and can also be awarded to civilians. One does not have to be engaged with an enemy to be recognized with this award.




Star of Military Valour - The next highest award is the Star of Military Valour, also made for distinguished and valourous service in the presence of the enemy.



Star of Valour - The fourth highest Canadian honour (in our abbreviated listing) is the Star of Valour. It is awarded for “conspicuous courage in circumstances of great peril." One does not have to be engaged with or in the presence of the enemy. It can be awarded to civilians as well as Canadian Forces personnel.

 Medal of Military Valour - Next in ranking is the Medal of Military Valour. It has criteria similar to the Cross of Valour but likely will be awarded to non-commissioned officers and “other ranks” instead of a cross.

The companion Medal of Valour has similar criteria but can be awarded to civilians

Mentioned in Despatches is not a medal but an oak leaf clasp that can be applied to a campaign medal. A formal citation is issued and the award is recorded in the Canada Gazette.

The Mentioned in Despatches is one that virtually all Canadian Forces personnel qualify for at one time or another, but which goes only to an outstanding few. The criteria for the award is simply “valiant conduct, devotion to duty or other distinguished service.”

With so many honours and awards extant to recognize the sacrifice and contributions of brave Canadians in the field, surely there are many, many instances in Afghanistan where the citations should be written and submitted for the awards.

In the field, when an officer, warrant officer or senior NCO submits a citation for a man within his unit or subunit, it is apolitical. 

The one who submits the recommendation receives no recognition or reward for himself, as politicians and appointees are wont to do for awards made in Canada.

The recognition, pure and simple is from one sailor, soldier, airman to another – and it is appreciated and understood by all who serve!

 For information about Korea War Veterans in Canada contact



KOREA VETERANS

ASSOCIATION 
OF CANADA








Website: 

kvacanada.com


----------



## boondocksaint (9 Oct 2006)

Outstanding article. Thanks for sharing it.


----------



## Pearson (9 Oct 2006)

marshall sl said:
			
		

> Sources tell us that the 21 Bronze Stars not specified to the four Patricias who were killed in action or the five snipers were distributed only to officers and warrant officers who had served in the theatre.


Say it aint so Joe.....say it aint so....


----------



## Gunner (9 Oct 2006)

The article is filled with half truths and totally lacks any context.  

As has been mentioned on many other threads at army.ca, the US uses a very proactive system in providing medals to its soldiers but I question whether we should be holding it up as "a good system".  

Conduct a search on the army.ca forums for an excellent and informative post by MarkC on the Bronze Stars awarded to 3 PPCLI.  

Certainly the Canadian Honours and Awards system is slower than it should be but it is also designed to ensure the awards are not devalued.  Each level of the chain of command validates the award (Task Force Afghanistan, CEFCOM, CF awards committees).  I have no doubt the nominations from TF 1-06 are moving their way through the awards process.  

I am not worried about "unseen forces" tearing up the nominations because it may take away from Canada's "peacekeeping myth".


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (9 Oct 2006)

Gunner said:
			
		

> The article is filled with half truths and totally lacks any context.
> 
> As has been mentioned on many other threads at army.ca, the US uses a very proactive system in providing medals to its soldiers but I question whether we should be holding it up as "a good system".
> 
> ...



But will they be able to wear them? I thought DHH was all torqued about CF members wearing American decorations and other foriegn medals. I remember a Captain in Petawawa who got the "Saudi hubcap" (medal given to all who partook in the first Gulf War but DHH banned it's wear because our policy is "one medal for one campaign"). He wore the minature on his Mess kit one night at a Mess dinner at Petawawa and a senior officer told him to take it down. the Captain's response was.."Sir if you're man enough to take it from me then be my guest..." He was still wearing it to Mess Dinners when I left Pet....


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Oct 2006)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> He wore the minature on his Mess kit one night at a Mess dinner at Petawawa and a senior officer told him to take it down. the Captain's response was.."Sir if you're man enough to take it from me then be my guest..." He was still wearing it to Mess Dinners when I left Pet....


Is he still a captain?    j/k.  Good on him.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (9 Oct 2006)

von Grognard said:
			
		

> Is he still a captain?    j/k.  Good on him.



Ha ha...probably...but we all know that what happens in the mess stays in the mess...right?


----------



## Sawbones (9 Oct 2006)

Its a slow process, if you look at the GGs websitehttp://www.gg.ca/media/index_e.asp?TypeID=2, you will see honours like MSMs and MBs are typically awarded about 1-2 years after the event.   

Sawbones


----------



## medicineman (9 Oct 2006)

I mentioned in a previous thread about similar things that a friend of mine here received his Mentioned In Dispatches about 4 years after he was nominated.  VC's, SC's, MMV's, etc are investigated up the wazoo before they are awarded - to make sure that what is alleged to have happened did in fact, to make sure the appropriate level of award is given (sometimes they get downgraded, sometimes upgraded), and lastly, to ensure that the award isn't devalued.

MM


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (9 Oct 2006)

> But will they be able to wear them? I thought DHH was all torqued about CF members wearing American decorations and other foriegn medals. I remember a Captain in Petawawa who got the "Saudi hubcap" (medal given to all who partook in the first Gulf War but DHH banned it's wear because our policy is "one medal for one campaign"). He wore the minature on his Mess kit one night at a Mess dinner at Petawawa and a senior officer told him to take it down. the Captain's response was.."Sir if you're man enough to take it from me then be my guest..." He was still wearing it to Mess Dinners when I left Pet....



This is typical of the nause that surrounds medals, foreign awards and the wearing of same.

First.  All foreign awards, of any origin and for reason, require the approval of the Government of Canada to wear.  This includes the Bronze Star, Meritorious Service Medal, Order of the British Empire, or anything else from a foreign country.  Authority to wear is published in the Canada Gazette.  You cannot wear a foreign decoration unless  authorized.

Second, the medal has to originate from the foreign nation's _head of state_, and cannot simply be a departmental or service award.  This is particularly the case for US awards, where there are a variety of different types.

Third, generally speaking, the medal or decoration _cannot_ recognize an action for which Canada has already created an award.  This was the case with the gongs handed out - in their thousands - by the Saudi and Kuwaiti Governments.  Veterans of the First Gulf War already have a medal - the Gulf and Kuwait Medal - and to permit the wear of the second medal would essentially represent a "double" award for the same action.  The officer quoted above should know this and, if that's the attitude he took, he's impolite at best and subject to a charge at worst.  As Gunner indicates, there are dozens of posts explaining the US Bronze Star - some posted by myself.

Finally, Medicineman has it exactly right.  There is scope for immediate awards, but such are very rare.  They're investigated for a reason - the award of a VC isn't a thing to do casually.  Valour awards require a great deal of thought and consideration to ensure a variety of factors are taken into account.  In the past, we've taken far too long to process awards, but in this case we're talking about a few months.  Why the rush?


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (9 Oct 2006)

Yes you are right it was impolite of him...however he had been there and done something and the person who picked him up on it had never been anywhere or done anything and was jealous of the fact and therefore making an a$$ or himself and trying to pull rank. He never wore it with CFs as a ribbon or with his other Court mounted medals. He believed that as it was the Mess it was somewhere he could wear it and not just fire it in a drawer.
No doubt he was wrong...and I didn't say he was right...just related the story.

I still think that we have an anaemic honours and awards system...I don't like the American system but surely we can do better than we are right now.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (9 Oct 2006)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> still think that we have an anaemic honours and awards system...I don't like the American system but surely we can do better than we are right now.



Like so many have already responded - it takes time.  Your comment will only be valid once the H&A from Roto 1 start to clear the process, and Roto 0 awards have yet to be offered.  There are a significant number of R1 H&A making their way through the pipeline, and they are all actively being tracked.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (9 Oct 2006)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Like so many have already responded - it takes time.  Your comment will only be valid once the H&A from Roto 1 start to clear the process, and Roto 0 awards have yet to be offered.  There are a significant number of R1 H&A making their way through the pipeline, and they are all actively being tracked.



I'm really glad to hear that and that was the nature of my question in the first place. I was curious if the staff work had been done to recognise those who had been worthy. Most of the vets I meet who won awards don't think they deserve them...but most of them are very special people who thought of others before themselves. Knowing soldiers I just know there are folks like that today too and I was curious to know if we are honouring them. Thanks for your response it gives me hope. ;D


----------



## axeman (10 Oct 2006)

Quote from: marshall sl on Yesterday at 15:49:08
Sources tell us that the 21 Bronze Stars not specified to the four Patricias who were killed in action or the five snipers were distributed only to officers and warrant officers who had served in the theatre.

Say it aint so Joe.....say it aint so....


yup its true the CSM's and OC's  CO and DCO along with the snipers 


http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partI/2003/20031108/html/house-e.html


The Chancellery of Honours has announced that the Canadian Government has approved the following awards to Canadians: 

From the American Government 

The Bronze Star Medal 
to Maj Michael O. Blackburn, C.D. 
Maj Colin J. Blair, C.D. 
Maj Edward Keith Borland, C.D. 
Maj Thomas Bradley, C.D. 
MWO James D. Butters, C.D. 
Maj Mark Douglas Campbell, C.D. 
CWO Joseph A. Comeau, M.S.C., C.D. 
Maj Peter Samson Dawe, C.D. 
Cpl Dennis Eason 
Maj Robert J. Ford, C.D. 
Cpl Robert Furlong 
Maj Sean Anthony Hackett, C.D. 
MWO Kenneth G. Hodge, C.D. 
Maj Rodney Ference Keller, C.D. 
MWO David Allen Lee, C.D. 
MCpl Timothy McMeekin, C.D. 
MWO Jocelyn E. Pemberton, C.D. 
MCpl Arron C. Perry 
MWO Timothy Patrick Power, C.D. 
MCpl Graham Ragsdale 
MWO Timothy Rocky D. Ror, C.D. 
MWO Jerome L. Scheidl, C.D. 
Maj Shane B. Schreiber, C.D. 
LCol Patrick Benton Stogran, M.S.C., C.D. 
MWO Allan J. Whitehall, C.D. 
Maj Udo Joseph Frederick Wolanski, C.D.


----------



## bilton090 (10 Oct 2006)

You guy's said it, it takes time, we still havn't gotten our medal's from Haiti ? 2 + years later ?
   What up with that ?
                                      The first gulf war, I was put in for the O.M.M medal, I didn't get it becouse there was no officer that was getting it !    WTF !   S##T Happenes !


----------



## reccecrewman (10 Oct 2006)

> The first gulf war, I was put in for the O.M.M medal,



Corporal, I think you mean the M.M.M. O.M.M is for Officers, but that does suck that you got passed over for it for a lame reason.

Regards


----------



## Haggis (10 Oct 2006)

reccecrewman said:
			
		

> Corporal, I think you mean the M.M.M. O.M.M is for Officers, but that does suck that you got passed over for it for a lame reason.
> 
> Regards



The fact that he was "passed over" and the fact that he was nominated are both protected information.   Nominations for honours and awards are usually desginted at least "Protected B".  Releasing that information to the nominee or anyone outside the approval mechanism could result in the nomination being screened out to protect the integrity of the honours and awards system.

In short, he should NEVER had known.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (10 Oct 2006)

Haggis ,

  You are right but the higher level awards require so much investigation that everyone ends up knowing. When I nominated one of my Sgts for a high level award for Valour the investigation was so intense that it became a grilling rather than a happy occasion. At one point a group on investigators showed up 15 in total and wondered around the ground were the action took place in front of the entire unit that was being nominated. Then proceded to ask them all the detailed questions. 
Now for the low level stuff it is easy to keep silent. On the Bronze stars issue I wouldent get too rapted around the axle....the US gives them out like candy usually to senior ranks just lke the Candians and MMM and OMM they get gifted to the ranks of Gen and CWO, no big deal getting one when that is the criteria.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (10 Oct 2006)

axeman said:
			
		

> Quote from: marshall sl on Yesterday at 15:49:08
> Sources tell us that the 21 Bronze Stars not specified to the four Patricias who were killed in action or the five snipers were distributed only to officers and warrant officers who had served in the theatre.
> 
> Say it aint so Joe.....say it aint so....
> ...



See my post here for an explanation before we get foaming at the mouth yet again:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/49882/post-450675.html#msg450675


----------



## axeman (10 Oct 2006)

RANT  IMO  the bronze stars were handed out to the wrong ppl they were given out  . in a few cases to ppl that never left the camp. that in many ppls opinion truly did nothing mertorious . just their jobs . there are others from that roto that should of gotten them . what about the medics on site of april 17 or those that assisted?  the four fallen soldiers recived them i will not speak ill of the dead as i regarded them as my friends . the FSG CSM OC come on now what mertorious act did they do ? the FSG kept us running but THATS THEIR JOB. nothing more . many other ppl deserved them more then the list that did get them .The fact that no one has said it is stunning .


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (10 Oct 2006)

Give your head a shake.  Did you not read the linked post?  The medals - like all US medals - were given out by the Americans, full stop.  Canada has zero in the way of input as to who gets foreign medals...  How often does this have to be said before the disgrunted ranters - axeman - get the point?

The Yanks gave out their Bronze Stars to the chain of command because _that's how they do business_

Yup, it's stunning... :


----------



## Haggis (10 Oct 2006)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> Haggis ,
> You are right but the higher level awards require so much investigation that everyone ends up knowing.



Yep, seen it myself.  However in bilton090's case it sounds as if he ewas told that he'd been nominated and that he'd not been selected AND the _perceived_ reasons why.  That's not on.



			
				3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> ...just lke the Candians and MMM and OMM they get gifted to the ranks of Gen and CWO, no big deal getting one when that is the criteria.



Not all CWOs and generals get the Orders of Military Merit.  The amount annually is limited to 1/10 of 1% of the ENTIRE membership of the CF which includes Reg F, and all classes of Res F less the Supp Res.  These, too, take time.  A former Reg F CWO who I work with was nominated while a member of the Reg F and received it after his release and CT to the Res F.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (10 Oct 2006)

Captain friend of mine, who was a CFR (MWO) and has almost 30 yrs in, was nominated last year and he was told about it by the guy who nominated him...his CO. He didn't get it but I don't think it was because he found out about it.


----------



## Blakey (10 Oct 2006)

Why can the nominee not know? Excuse me if there is an obvious answer to this but, pray tell?
(Surely my last question that was deleted in this thread, was not a threat to national security)


----------



## George Wallace (10 Oct 2006)

PB&J said:
			
		

> (Surely my last question that was deleted in this thread, was not a threat to national security)



Surely you have been on this site and read enough to already know, or have a good idea, of what you just asked?  

As for your last question that was deleted:  It was a redundant question that had been asked previously and answered; you just failed to read the answers.


I am curious why you would want to know if you were nominated?  It sounds like an ulterior and purely mercenary motive towards this procedure.


----------



## Haggis (10 Oct 2006)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> Captain friend of mine, who was a CFR (MWO) and has almost 30 yrs in, was nominated last year and he was told about it by the guy who nominated him...his CO. He didn't get it but I don't think it was because he found out about it.



Sounds to me like the CO 'buttering him up".  (Why? I have no idea, nor do I care.)  How did it make your friend feel?



			
				PB&J said:
			
		

> Why can the nominee not know? Excuse me if there is an obvious answer to this but, pray tell?



To protect the integrity of the honours and awards system.  It's not up to the nominee or "others" in the nominee's unit (who form the court of public opinon) to determine, in advance or after the fact , that a member should have/could have/would have gotten said honour/award.

Re-read bilton 090's post and then tell me this:  would YOU like to know that YOU were nominated for an award only to find out some months later that you didn't make the cut and have someone who has NO IDEA WHY fabricate a reason for your non selection?


----------



## geo (10 Oct 2006)

at present, our honours and awards system is still in peacetime mode and there is a lot of bureaucracy preventing a prompt and speedy determination of circumstances surrounding the validity of recommendations & accuracy of the citation.

Is it a good thing that we haven't had a great need to look into ourselves to make this go faster?


----------



## Haggis (10 Oct 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> at present, our honours and awards system is still in peacetime mode and there is a lot of bureaucracy preventing a prompt and speedy determination of circumstances surrounding the validity of recommendations & accuracy of the citation.



Many, many times I have nominated or attempted to have a member nominated for an award only to have the request/nomination answered with "we don't reward people for doing their job.  That happens on the 15th and 30th of every month.".  A typically bureaucratic answer indeed!.  In my "Canadian" experience you have to show that the nominee went way, way above and beyond the call in order to stand a snowball's-chance-in-hell of having it go through.



			
				geo said:
			
		

> Is it a good thing that we haven't had a great need to look into ourselves to make this go faster?



I think so.  Since bravery/courage honours are still quite rare it means that the level of fightin' and dyin' haven't yet required us to make these honours a routine occurrence.


----------



## geo (10 Oct 2006)

Haggis,
While I don't think there is a need for the TF commander to have a barrack box full of medals for his Adjt to pull out in a "need it right this very minute" time line, I think there is room to improve.

If we have to go beyond 6 months from the time of incident, then you have missed the boat... IMHO

(edited for spelling...)


----------



## Blakey (10 Oct 2006)

Wow, defensive...
First off:





> I am curious why you would want to know if you were nominated?  It sounds like an ulterior and purely mercenary motive towards this procedure.


Just so that we are clear (because lots of folks here don't like to be misquoted here), I didn't say that *I* would want to know, I asked 





> Why can the _nominee_ not know?


. 

George, no motives here, since I have no knowledge of this "procedure" how would I have any "mercenary" motives towards it?. In any case, I think you might have just taken the question the wrong way, or perhaps I had posed it the wrong way. I'm not that kind of superficial person anyways, medals and accolades really aren't my bag.

*Breather*

Second:





> To protect the integrity of the honours and awards system.  It's not up to the nominee or "others" in the nominee's unit (who form the court of public opinion) to determine, in advance or after the fact , that a member should have/could have/would have gotten said honour/award.
> 
> Re-read bilton 090's post and then tell me this:  would YOU like to know that YOU were nominated for an award only to find out some months later that you didn't make the cut and have someone who has NO IDEA WHY fabricate a reason for your non selection?



Haggis, thank you for that info.
In reference to you question, to be quite honest, like I said in my reply to George, I'm not too worried about getting slaps on the back and shiny pieces of metal with colorfull cloth. 

I do my job to the best of my ability and the satisfaction (at least for me) comes from knowing that I had made a worthwhile contribution to the team. That recognition comes from my peers.
That's just me though, I'm pretty sure that there are people out there that would try to "sway" the proceedings, one way or the other.

Thanks for the responses.


----------



## boondocksaint (10 Oct 2006)

Haggis said:
			
		

> I think so.  Since bravery/courage honours are still quite rare it means that the level of fightin' and dyin' haven't yet required us to make these honours a routine occurrence.



I can assure you, as can several other people, _that the level_ of fightin' and dyin' that's being happening over there, is anything but a rarity. That level of combat _is_ the routine occurrence and one that Canadians are excelling at. 

In this thread there are actually several argument'scentered around the medals topic, but one of the themes I'm getting is that maybe Canadians haven't done anything 'medal worthy' yet. That we need to grade our selves harder then the Brits and the Americans. That because Hollywood doesn't make movies about us, and Chapters doesn't have any modern books with Canadian war stories in it, then how can Canadians deserve medals?

In some ways we were fortunate that because of our organization, size and familiarity, _WE_ know in detail  the stories of who did what over there. Hopefully they will be recognized back here as well, otherwise a 'thank you' from a comrade will suffice for them. And then everyone else will know their stories as well


----------



## KevinB (10 Oct 2006)

Chuck -- you needed to "your Tube" Marks rant and some other stuff...   ;D


----------



## Haggis (10 Oct 2006)

boondocksaint said:
			
		

> I can assure you, as can several other people, _that the level_ of fightin' and dyin' that's being happening over there, is anything but a rarity. That level of combat _is_ the routine occurrence and one that Canadians are excelling at.



My point, should you care to re-read my post in the context of Geo's question, was that the frequency of honours increases with the level of fightin' and dyin'. 



			
				boondocksaint said:
			
		

> In this thread there are actually several argument'scentered around the medals topic, but one of the themes I'm getting is that maybe Canadians haven't done anything 'medal worthy' yet.



Although I am certain that there are many "honourable" acts which have not yet been formally recognized, thankfully we have not yet reached a level in which honours are an occurrence of such frequency as to make the losses of life less significant. 



			
				boondocksaint said:
			
		

> In some ways we were fortunate that because of our organization, size and familiarity, _WE_ know in detail  the stories of who did what over there. Hopefully they will be recognized back here as well, otherwise a 'thank you' from a comrade will suffice for them. And then everyone else will know their stories as well.



It's been an awfully long time since Canada has granted honours for "courage" or "valour" or "bravery" under fire and the system is quite unaccustomed to dealing with this.  Hopefully we get good at it fast so that the significance of the award isn't lost in the passage of time.

Clear 'nuff?


----------



## GO!!! (10 Oct 2006)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Many, many times I have nominated or attempted to have a member nominated for an award only to have the request/nomination answered with "we don't reward people for doing their job.  That happens on the 15th and 30th of every month.".  A typically bureaucratic answer indeed!.  In my "Canadian" experience you have to show that the nominee went way, way above and beyond the call in order to stand a snowball's-chance-in-hell of having it go through.


Then why is it that with such apparent ease that CWO's and the LCol and up rank cohort seem to accumulate them?

You can't tell me that what, half of the full Cols in Canada do such an outstanding job that they deserve a medal for it, while it is extraordinarily rare to see any other rank with such medals as the Order of St. John's of Jerusalem, any of the Distinguished Service decorations or the OMM/MMM.

To me, and the great majority of my peers, it very much seems that the medals and awards system applies RHIP to itself quite liberally, and reserves the investigations for preservation of the integrity of the system for everyone else. There seems to be 3-5 medals that appear by virtue of rank, with the bronze stars on Apollo being just the latest incarnation of this.



> I think so.  Since bravery/courage honours are still quite rare it means that the level of fightin' and dyin' haven't yet required us to make these honours a routine occurrence.



You'd think that after 40 dead, about 100 wounded and by some counts, 1200-2000 enemy KIA, at least one Pte or Cpl would have distinguished himself among the blizzard of bronze stars. Let's hope their decorations are just hung up in the bureaucracy.

Also, I've never seen anything that would stand up to academic scrutiny stating that the US dictated the allocation of Bronze stars, only justifications like "that's just the way they do business".


----------



## KevinB (10 Oct 2006)

J -- some medals are in the pipe.


----------



## Haggis (10 Oct 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Then why is it that with such apparent ease that CWO's and the LCol and up rank cohort seem to accumulate them?
> 
> You can't tell me that what, half of the full Cols in Canada do such an outstanding job that they deserve a medal for it, while it is extraordinarily rare to see any other rank with such medals as the Order of St. John's of Jerusalem, any of the Distinguished Service decorations or the OMM/MMM.



Remember, though, that the Orders of Military Merit are given out for career long acheivements, not on the basis of one isolated incident or task.  That's whay the MSM and MSD are for.



			
				GO!!! said:
			
		

> To me, and the great majority of my peers, it very much seems that the medals and awards system applies RHIP to itself quite liberally, and reserves the investigations for preservation of the integrity of the system for everyone else. There seems to be 3-5 medals that appear by virtue of rank, with the bronze stars on Apollo being just the latest incarnation of this.



If junior leaders don't nominate soldiers because they are convinced (as you seem to be) that patronage and careerism plays such a dominant role in the selection process then, of course, junior member will be disproportionately under-represented.  How many nominations have YOU proposed?  How many did YOU put pen to paper for?



			
				GO!!! said:
			
		

> You'd think that after 40 dead, about 100 wounded and by some counts, 1200-2000 enemy KIA, at least one Pte or Cpl would have distinguished himself among the blizzard of bronze stars. Let's hope their decorations are just hung up in the bureaucracy.



Half the battle is in making the submission stand on it's own (with detailed photos, maps, witness statements etc.) where little in the way of fact checking and lenghtly investigation is required.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (10 Oct 2006)

> Also, I've never seen anything that would stand up to academic scrutiny stating that the US dictated the allocation of Bronze stars, only justifications like "that's just the way they do business".



Academic scrutiny?  You're kidding right?  This is hardly a peer-reviewed journal.  The bitter puppy myth that has perpetuated amongst OP APOLLO's vets has gone on long enough.  Frankly, it's tiresome and smacks of pique and envy and is founded upon a profound misunderstanding of the awards system.  See MarkC's post here:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/19990/post-132530.html#msg132530

Further, since you mention two specific awards:

Order of St. John's of Jerusalem - this is awarded to those who have assisted the Order of St John (that's right the first aid folks).  It is _not_ a CF honour.

The Order of Military Merit - from the shiny CF Pam:



> Commanders of the Order are appointed for outstanding meritorious service while fulfilling
> duties of great responsibility. This has been interpreted to mean that only flag and general
> officers are eligible to be appointed as Commanders.
> 
> ...



In other words, the OMM is awarded by rank, like it or not.  For example, it is very rare for anyone but a CWO (or CFRed CWO) to be awarded an MMM.



> You'd think that after 40 dead, about 100 wounded and by some counts, 1200-2000 enemy KIA, at least one Pte or Cpl would have distinguished himself among the blizzard of bronze stars. Let's hope their decorations are just hung up in the bureaucracy.



The Bronze Star is an _American_ award.  Why on earth would it be awarded for the current actions?  Or is your bitterness over the award of less than two dozen foreign meritorious service gongs over four years ago colouring your opinion?  You have absolutely no idea what awards have been recommended for recent actions, what approval level is required, or what actions they may have been recommended for.  The fact of the matter is that, until comparatively recently, we have not been involved in operations that have merited significant numbers of valour awards (again, valour awards must be distinguished from bravery or meritorious service awards - they're completely different in context).  And yes, I include APOLLO in that blanket statement.  

TR


----------



## PPCLI Guy (10 Oct 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> You'd think that after 40 dead, about 100 wounded and by some counts, 1200-2000 enemy KIA, at least one Pte or Cpl would have distinguished himself among the blizzard of bronze stars. Let's hope their decorations are just hung up in the bureaucracy.



For the record, there are four 8 1/2 x 11 pages of H&A from TF ORION, from Comds Coin through to more esoteric medals and decorations.  They will all be assiduously tracked, and there is a move afoot to make these so.  I received a not very subtle reminder on Friday that went CDS - CLS - A Comd - Bde staff - CO - me in a single day with respect to a specific person whose performance was noteworthy - and wasn't on that list.  Noteworthy achievments are usually honoured as such, and there are a slew happening every day right now, as modern heroes for an evolving nation are being forged even as we speak.  

We will get there - it just takes time.  

Dave


----------



## 3rd Horseman (10 Oct 2006)

Haggis said:
			
		

> It's been an awfully long time since Canada has granted honours for "courage" or "valour" or "bravery" under fire and the system is quite unaccustomed to dealing with this.



I trust long time means 10 years. Last awards for Valour in combat was Bosnia, and a few years before that Croatia. The system is slow for a reason but it works.

Too all - as I said earlier dont get wraped up about the number of gongs on the senior ranks many of them mean nothing other than attaining rank and showing up. The real medals stand out for all to see. Even the unseen medal that comes with just knowing that the guy spent time in combat....he may not have a gong for his above the standard action but someone who he soldiered with and that soldiers family know him as the hero that saved the life of thier friend, father, husband, buddy.  My friend who wears no such gong is well known to my family for saving my life. I once caught my wife she thought out of my ear shot, thanking him for bringing me home to her...she knew the story...now he knew he was a hero. Thats the true hero, not the one with the medal for showing up, the one who risked his life for his friend.


----------



## GO!!! (11 Oct 2006)

Teddy,

Nice job on proving my point reference the OMM/MMM.

Each of the statements as to the awarding of the decoration states _this has been interpreted to mean_ as the preface to identifying a rank cohort.

So, the awards committee interpreted the awards as being rank specific, and handed them out by the dozen, presumably with the requisite investigations to preserve the integrity of the honor. 

Fortunately, the CF would never misinterpret anything though - right?

Hardly a peer reviewed journal you say! Well, then even the slimmest shred of evidence should suffice to appease this great unwashed mob so predilicted to dredging the uncomfortable past.

You might be sick of hearing about it, but the bronze star issue is indicative to me of a larger problem within the CF - where we lionize appointments vice action, perhaps as a substitute for the former. 

You are right, I don't know which awards are in the system for who did what - but I know when all of my friends got back - and I know they are still waiting.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Oct 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> You might be sick of hearing about it, but the bronze star issue is indicative to me of a larger problem within the CF - where we lionize appointments vice action, perhaps as a substitute for the former.



What does the awarding of Foreign Awards have to do with our Awards System?  It is not a fault of our Award System that a Foreign Award System presents its Awards as it does.  This discusion is about ours and it has been laid out by numerous posters already what some of the problems are and also how the system works at a rather slow meticulous pace.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (11 Oct 2006)

> Nice job on proving my point reference the OMM/MMM.
> 
> Each of the statements as to the awarding of the decoration states this has been interpreted to mean as the preface to identifying a rank cohort.



Well, if you can provide me with an example of someone in a lower rank group that occupies a "position of great responsibility" - CDS/Army Comd equivalent - I'll put him/her up for the CMM... until then I suggest we live with it.  If you want examples of where real recognition for bravery is happening, I suggest you look at the list of bravery awards for SAR Techs - most to Sgts and below, with very few officers.



> even the slimmest shred of evidence should suffice to appease this great unwashed mob so predilicted to dredging the uncomfortable past.



Well, aside from the Canada Gazette article stating flat-out "From the American Government", I'm a touch confused as to what you'd deem acceptable.  The citations were all American, the nomination process was American and the awards were presented by the US Ambassador.  I'm unsure as to what more "evidence" you'd need, aside from the original Rakkasan nomination documents. (Disclaimer, for those who may be concerned:  I am not one of those who received a Bronze Star on APOLLO). You can probably dig those up with a FOIA request to the DOD in the US, if you're so interested in proving a conspiracy.



> You might be sick of hearing about it, but the bronze star issue is indicative to me of a larger problem within the CF - where we lionize appointments vice action, perhaps as a substitute for the former.



You know, I won't disagree with you there.  I've seen some complete asses get medals and commendations for doing next to nothing.  However, your position and argument is seriously diminished by your concentration on the Bronze Star "issue".  There are plenty of other _Canadian_ examples that you could cite with a bit of digging.



> but I know when all of my friends got back - and I know they are still waiting.



And, in the overall scheme of things, they haven't been waiting long.  As others have indicated, there is a reason that _valour_ awards receive such scrutiny; it's only been a few months (at the most) after all.  If, purely for example, a VC is in the works, the system has to be ready for the hurricane of publicity and second-guessing that would inevitably result and has to be 100% sure that the award is deserved.

Cheers,

TR


----------



## warrickdll (11 Oct 2006)

From a previous discussion:


			
				Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> ... - only medals awarded by Canada are typically authorized to be worn.  Other foreign awards have to have permission for wear granted in each individual instance and have to be awarded by the foreign head of state (in other words, my US Army Wombat Shooting Medal can't be authorized).  Moreover, such foreign awards can't "compete" with a Canadian award.  Thus in this case, there's already a Canadian Gulf and Kuwait gong - the foreign awards recognize exactly the same service.



There is no reason for any foreign award to be worn by someone in the CF (pet peeve). Whatever reason the US Army has for awarding their medals to Canadians is their business, and the CF's response should be to organize an appropriate parade for the presentations - after which those awards are keepsakes for those who received them.

If a Canadian receiving the US Bronze Star received the Canadian MiD (the rough equivalent) then why would they ever expect to wear a second award for the same thing? And if they did not receive the MiD then their CoC should at least check to see if they were eligible based on the write up for the US Bronze Star.


A problem stated is the length of time required by the CF to process Canadian decorations; that should be improved, especially at the level of the MiD. Keep in mind that the MiD has the same problem as the US Bronze Star (and Silver Star) in that it is awarded for varying criteria.


Improving the Canadian system and forbidding the wearing of foreign medals/distinctions would be the best, and easiest, solution. It shouldn't matter to anyone in the CF who is or who isn't receiving a foreign award. However, and this is where rank comes into it, it is probably more than likely that you'll see a high ranking officer wanting to be the exception to the rule.






			
				GO!!! said:
			
		

> ...You can't tell me that what, half of the full Cols in Canada do such an outstanding job that they deserve a medal for it, while it is extraordinarily rare to see any other rank with such medals as the Order of St. John's of Jerusalem, any of the Distinguished Service decorations or the OMM/MMM.
> ...



If you don't allow for the OMM as a separate award for deserving Senior Officers and CWOs then they will just end up receiving awards that you wouldn't want them to receive. This way you know what the award is for. As for the Order of St. John's... it seems unnecessary in the list of Canadian honours, regardless of rank.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (11 Oct 2006)

Iterator said:
			
		

> If a Canadian receiving the US Bronze Star received the Canadian MiD (the rough equivalent)



I think not! The US Bronze star in both its forms "V" and basic is given out for lesser actions than a CDS commendation. I would suggest the bronze star is more equivalent to a CDS or Comd Commendation...IMHO. But I agree with the remaining part of all your text. I guess I'm just being picky and I'm a little bias.


----------



## KevinB (11 Oct 2006)

The Snipers got the V on the Bronze Star.
  They where supporting US Forces.
The Chain got the Bronze no V.


Whippyfrickendo its a "shiny"


----------



## medicineman (11 Oct 2006)

I had a rant all written up but decided to just say this - it seems to me it's pretty apparent that ignorance is rampant and abounding when it comes to the Canadian Honours and Awards system.  It also seems that the more gongs and accoutrements that are added (both personnally and systemically), the more people seem to think they need (see last parenthesis).  Not to say that people aren't out there devaluing some of those awards - there are plenty I'm (damned) sure.  But before you go around slagging down people/stuff or how long something takes to get done, actually read the requirements for awarding them first - you might be alot surprised.

As a personal observation, when people start going on about a couple of medals I have, the first thing I do is look at their's.  Oddly enough, most don't have much more than a CD.  Take that as you will.

MM, (SBStJ) CD 

P.S.  Perhaps the mods might like to split this off to another thread, as it seems to be evolving outside the parameters of bravery awards to awards in general?

MM


----------



## Haggis (11 Oct 2006)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> I trust long time means 10 years. Last awards for Valour in combat was Bosnia, and a few years before that Croatia. The system is slow for a reason but it works.



According to the GG's Canadian Honours and Awards Search page,  11 Medals of Bravery (10 to Canadians, one to a Brit) were awarded for military service in the Balkans during the period 01 Jan 92 to today (14 years).   No Stars of Courage or Crosses of Valour were awarded for military service in the Balkans.  In fact only four Crosses of Valour have been awarded to CF members, involving two separate incidents.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (11 Oct 2006)

Again, these are _bravery_ awards, not awards for valour.  Valour awards are for actions in the face of an armed enemy, the word "enemy" being the deciding criteria; "peacekeeping" missions are specifically excluded.  Again, from the pam:



> The three Military Valour Decorations (MVDs) (Victoria Cross, Star of Military Valour and
> Medal of Military Valour) were created on 1 January 1993 to recognize acts of valour, selfsacrifice
> or devotion to duty in the presence of the enemy. They can be awarded in situations
> short of war if the troops are in “combat” with an organized, armed “enemy” that is recognized
> ...



Which is why we haven't seen the "new" valour decorations awarded in the Balkans (or anywhere else - yet - for that matter) and why we haven't seen a VC since WW II (there were none awarded to Canadians in Korea).


----------



## boondocksaint (11 Oct 2006)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Clear 'nuff?



What is abundantly clear is that too many folks assume the level of combat being fought almost daily over there is not quite up to 'medal worthy'.  Which to steal a line is Bovine Scatology. Is it the numbers? Not enough deaths? Not a high enough casualty count? Or body count ? Not enough stories of charging the MG nest ? These things shouldnt be based on numbers alone, math should not decide medals. But it does indicate to some extent the level of combat.

Taliban did not die of the common cold,  robots, or aliens. Soldiers closed with and destroyed them. So how many Mg nests does Pte Bloggins need to take out for a shiny? Is that a common occurence? It was over there, but does that diminsh the act? When Americans we fought with call it worse then Iraq ( and most over there do ), does that perhaps reach the right level?

When a fighter pilot gets X number of kills he is an ace, a hero, he is revered at a national level. AS he should be.

When an Infanteer gets X number of kills he is.....what? And folks, there are Infantry aces out there. A plethora of them. But it's not kosher in our society to speak about that. Is this perhaps why folks dont understand the level of combat over there? 

As PPCLIguy mentioned, things appear to be moving in the right direction. What happened in the past in regards to medals is in the past. As Teddy continually and correctly mentions there is a system in place for a reason. And it will be the systems fault if recognition fails to be timely or appropriate, not the _level_ of fighting over there.

That much should be 'clear nuff'


----------



## Journeyman (11 Oct 2006)

boondocksaint said:
			
		

> What is abundantly clear is that too many folks assume the level of combat being fought almost daily over there is not quite up to 'medal worthy'.


While that may not be completely true, recognition is slowing dawning. This quote came from a very senior officer who just returned from one of those Staff Annoyance Assistance Visits:

*First, it's clearer to me than it was before this trip - we are at war. Any other tag would be misleading and disingenuous; the recent casualties serve to underscore this reality. This fact should colour all that we are doing in Canada to force generate soldiers and teams for service in this demanding theatre.*

Word is getting out.


----------



## Haggis (11 Oct 2006)

Boondocksaint:

Suffice to say you have, again, missed my point. 

Nothing I've posted was meant to belittle the acts or contributions of those who are "doing the job".  Let's leave it at that.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (11 Oct 2006)

> As PPCLIguy mentioned, things appear to be moving in the right direction. What happened in the past in regards to medals is in the past. As Teddy continually and correctly mentions there is a system in place for a reason. And it will be the systems fault if recognition fails to be timely or appropriate, not the level of fighting over there.



+1 and I fully expect that any combat-related awards will be valour decorations...  FWIW.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (11 Oct 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Again, these are _bravery_ awards, not awards for valour.  Valour awards are for actions in the face of an armed enemy, the word "enemy" being the deciding criteria; "peacekeeping" missions are specifically excluded.  Again, from the pam:
> 
> Which is why we haven't seen the "new" valour decorations awarded in the Balkans (or anywhere else - yet - for that matter) and why we haven't seen a VC since WW II (there were none awarded to Canadians in Korea).



From the pam quote from Teddy  Key word is highlighted.
It should be noted that conflicting parties in a peacekeeping context are not considered
enemies and although there may be altercations with the CF in a peacekeeping mission, the
use of force by the CF will *generally be limited to self-defence*. This is why MVDs are not
*generally* awarded during peacekeeping operations.

AS I pointed out key word is General. Not exclusive as you have said just in general. Yes splitting hairs but it does not exclude and infact details that it is possible just not generally done.

 Haggis - As for the reality of the GG web page from your search, you are correct what you have read but not all you read in the public domain is true to life. I have been personally aware of the changing of the narrative to fit the peactime feel of the public domain. I nominated a soldier for the Medal of Military Valour for Valour in combat in 1995. He ended up not getting it but the reason it was denied was not that General rule of no peace keeping mission will get a Valour medal just the other details. It was argued long and in detail at many levels and the end result was that during certain actions in the Balkans Valour would be the accepted wording as it fell outside the general rule. I can tell you that this soldier did get to the highest level and was awarded a valour decoration which was then altered as it came back down the chain. 
Another incident - On the issue of the GGs web page I can tell you that items on that page have been altered. In a letter issued with the medals from the PM, MND, and CDS to the chain of command and the soldier in question it read that the award will be given but will not be given any public media and will be issued in private in the Commanders office. The soldiers will not be given the honour of getting it at Government house the GG sends his regrets but with the thanks of a nation and hoping the soldier will understand . The message read at the start - The  reading of the citation will be sealed with the script not authorized to be release in any form to the publc or any other member of the CF. As directed the soldier was awarded his Valour decoration in an office with the CO and Commander and a cuban cigar and sherry to celebrate......then put it in your pocket and go away. The citation only to be read in private and then returned to the Commander.  You can find this citation in the GGs web site changed in its narrative.

The end result here is that their are no absolutes.
Edit typo


----------



## KevinB (11 Oct 2006)

:

Silent Professionalism meet Obnoxious Illiteracy


----------



## Michael OLeary (11 Oct 2006)

As he said:



> ...not all you read in the public domain is true to life...


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (11 Oct 2006)

> On the issue of the GGs web page I can tell you that items on that page have been altered. In a letter issued with the medals from the PM, MND, and CDS to the chain of command and the soldier in question it read that the award will be given but will not be given any public media and will be issued in private in the Commanders office. The soldiers will not be given the honour of getting it at Government house the GG sends his regrets but with the thanks of a nation and hoping the soldier will understand . The message read at the start - The  reading of the citation will be sealed with the script not authorized to be release in any form to the publc or any other member of the CF. As directed the soldier was awarded his Valour decoration in an office with the CO and Commander and a cuban cigar and sherry to celebrate......then put it in your pocket and go away. The citation only to be read in private and then returned to the Commander.  You can find this citation in the GGs web site changed in its narative.



Are you saying that, for political reasons, valour decorations were awarded _in secret_??  Why?  For what action?  For which theatre?   :


----------



## Gunner (11 Oct 2006)

Deep battle operatives....


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (11 Oct 2006)

Speeshal Farces, no doubt... very sneaky.


----------



## GO!!! (11 Oct 2006)

Any substantiation 3rd Horseman?

Unit/dates/action/links?


----------



## 3rd Horseman (11 Oct 2006)

Grow up gunner.

Teddy, Im not sure ( I can only assume this as I was not part of the decision), dont know why, wish it was not so. For Bosnia, actions on Mount Taggchichi (probably spelt it wrong dont have a map near me)

Edit For GO
Unit special ops unit attached to 3R22R, summer 95, link - dont know the link but a 3 hour mini series detailed part of the action "Op Tango"


----------



## KevinB (12 Oct 2006)

Hypothetically IF it where secret (and I sincerly DOUBT it) - do you really think mentioning it on the internet is a proefessional thing to do?
  Not to mention IF you where aware you have IMHO violated the official secrets act for disclosing a classified item to those who have no clearance.

Grow up -- I'm really sorry you missed a war - but dont try to re-invent history - yes shit happened in the FYR years -- but not on the scale you implie


----------



## 3rd Horseman (12 Oct 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Hypothetically IF it where secret (and I sincerly DOUBT it) - do you really think mentioning it on the internet is a proefessional thing to do?
> *Well it has been 10 years the time has run out, and I have not mentioned anthing about secret*
> Not to mention IF you where aware you have IMHO violated the official secrets act for disclosing a classified item to those who have no clearance.
> 
> ...


----------



## GAP (12 Oct 2006)

.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (12 Oct 2006)

GAP - you can enjoy the popcorn better watching the movie of the action a little corny but some details are loosely based on fact, OP TANGO.

No need to highjack the thread it has been very good. Im time out.


----------



## Haggis (12 Oct 2006)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> GAP - you can enjoy the popcorn better watching the movie of the action a little corny but some details are loosely based on fact, OP TANGO.



OP TANGO was the subject of a Discovery Channel episode of "Navy SEALS: Untold Stories" wherein the producers couldn't even get the pronounciation of place names correct.   Some source.

*3rd Horseman*:  I stand by my source.  It is publicly available and authoritative.  And, more importantly in an open forum, it is unclassified.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (12 Oct 2006)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Sounds to me like the CO 'buttering him up".  (Why? I have no idea, nor do I care.)  How did it make your friend feel?
> 
> To protect the integrity of the honours and awards system.  It's not up to the nominee or "others" in the nominee's unit (who form the court of public opinon) to determine, in advance or after the fact , that a member should have/could have/would have gotten said honour/award.
> 
> Re-read bilton 090's post and then tell me this:  would YOU like to know that YOU were nominated for an award only to find out some months later that you didn't make the cut and have someone who has NO IDEA WHY fabricate a reason for your non selection?



I agree with you. My friend felt badly...it would have been better for all concerned if the CO had kept his mouth shut.


----------



## Doug VT (13 Oct 2006)

There were 2 Stars of Courage, and 4 Mention in Dispatches awarded for actions relating directly to the 2 separate incidents which occurred on Op Athena ROTO 0.  The mine strike on 2 Oct 2003, and the suicide attack on 27 Jan 2004.


----------



## Babbling Brooks (13 Oct 2006)

> There were 2 Stars of Courage, and 4 Mention in Dispatches awarded for actions relating directly to the 2 separate incidents which occurred on Op Athena ROTO 0.  The mine strike on 2 Oct 2003, and the suicide attack on 27 Jan 2004.



Doug, I'd be interested in finding out more about those recognitions - do you have a link?


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (13 Oct 2006)

They're all listed here; search by date:

http://www.gg.ca/honours/search-recherche/index_e.asp?TypeID=br


----------



## Gunner (13 Oct 2006)

http://www.gg.ca/honours/search-recherche/index_e.asp?results=1&Lastname=&Firstname=&City=&Province=&TypeID=mid&AwardStart=10%2F4%2F2004&AwardEnd=&npp=25

Here are two of the MiD's mentioned by Doug.


----------



## Doug VT (13 Oct 2006)

*Mine strike, 2 Oct 2003*

*Star Of Courage*

http://www.gg.ca/honours/search-recherche/honours-desc.asp?lang=e&TypeID=br&id=26445

http://www.gg.ca/honours/search-recherche/honours-desc.asp?lang=e&TypeID=br&id=26446

*Mention in Dispatches*

http://www.gg.ca/honours/search-recherche/honours-desc.asp?lang=e&TypeID=mid&id=615

http://www.gg.ca/honours/search-recherche/honours-desc.asp?lang=e&TypeID=mid&id=601

*Suicide Attack, 27 Jan 2004*

*Mention in Dispatches*

http://www.gg.ca/honours/search-recherche/honours-desc.asp?lang=e&TypeID=mid&id=667

http://www.gg.ca/honours/search-recherche/honours-desc.asp?lang=e&TypeID=mid&id=669

All 6 awards were to members of the 3RCR Parachute Company.


----------



## pbi (16 Oct 2006)

I have to agree with Guner: the article, although very well-intentioned, contains a number of inaccuracies and exaggerations. They need to see the video clips of Canadian commanders in theatre, as well as the CDS, who regularly speak with pride about the qualities of our troops. Combat Camera has shown footage of combat, etc. I think it is a very, very far stretch to say that anybody is hiding or avoiding anything. This is not the CF in the 90's again. We are not hiding a Medak from the Canadian people this time.  Quite the opposite, from the CDS down. We had a briefing recently at the College from the Deputy Chief of Military Personnel Command (replaces ADM HR (Mil)) in which he told us that the CDS has directed them to shake up the honours and awards system, so that in-theatre commanders have greater authority to award, and extraneous staff are cut out of the system. This is great news. The intended end state will be that those who deserve honours and awards, especially those won in combat, will get them as quickly as reasonable investigation and substantion permit.

Cheers


----------



## Infanteer (16 Oct 2006)

Wow, some people sure get wrapped up around "shiny's".  I got a couple if anyone wants them....

Anyways, to get over the bunfight on medals, I found PBI's posts about "shaking up the system" interesting.  Is there perhaps room to award things in different manners or with  different devices?  I always found the German system in WWII interesting.  There were traditional "Valour" awards, but there was also a method of awarding the Knights Cross for successive and cumulative acts of leadership underfire (being that it was a "fuhrerheer" and all) - from section commander up to Army commander were eligible if they showed the goods for successfully leading their men in combat.

http://www.feldgrau.com/rk.html



> As well as being awarded for individual actions, the RK could also be awarded to a unit commander in recognition of the performance of his unit as a whole.



Perhaps a modern equivalent of this would be the current DSO, which I always liked.

As well, there was awards for meeting specific battlefield criteria, such as the Infantry Assault Badge, the close combat bar, etc, etc.  There was a wound badge as well.  Although I find the very specific nature of these a bit different, I think they rank akin to the "Combat Medal" and the "Wound Medal" we've discussed elsewhere on these forums.

This, of course, brings up the cons of such an approach to battlefield recognition - how much is too much?  I've always found that a paucity of stuff on a uniform kind of highlights the things that actually are on there - as long as those that have earned their due are awarded it in good time.  Is an SWASM with an Afghan bar sign enough of what a fellow has done?  The last thing I want to see is us taking the US Army's approach (it is their tradition, but it doesn't mean I have to like it), where we paste our friggen CV to our tunic and end up looking like a glitterball or something after a few years in. 

I think a shakeup can never hurt, but I'll argue that we need to keep a firm grip on the criteria for which we award things for (which may or may not need to be expanded) and the level of control we require on their disbursement (we've probably all heard the Vietnam stories of S1's putting themselves and their CO's in for nice medals for nothing).

Anyways, my 2 cents,
Infanteer


----------



## warrickdll (17 Oct 2006)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> ...
> Perhaps a modern equivalent of this would be the current DSO, which I always liked.
> ...



It is odd that the Canadian system, which has done a good job keeping valour awards for valour purposes, has done such a poor job distinguishing combat leadership/effectiveness.

One of the banes of the US system is the dual use of the Bronze and Silver Stars. Sure, the "V" device is used but that doesn't scale very well. Multiple awards do not represent how many were for "V", and it never balances well having 2 completely different devices on a ribbon (i.e. "V" and palm).

Canada could have stuck with the system used for Meritorious Service MSM/MSC/OMM (OMM being MMM, OMM, and CMM) and carried it through to Distinguished Service as DSM/DSC/DSO.

Then again, to fully rationalize the system, all those MiDs and commendations should be split into whatever category they were actually for and made into actual medals (too many pins). Shift things a bit. And then you end up with MMV/MSV/MCV/VC, DSM/DSS/DSC/DSO, and MSM/MSS/MSC/OMM. But then that would crazy talk.


----------



## jranrose (18 Oct 2006)

I agree to a shake up. I previously posted a comment on what I think here:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/33771.0/all.html
I'll repeat it because I think it applies here.

Here are my thoughts.
I like the idea and the title it has a nice ring. Unfortunately it is 30 years too late. There is no need to replace the Victoria Cross (VC). The VC is a world-renowned medal. Everyone knows what it is and what it stands for. If this were to be taken seriously, I would focus more on the Cross of Valour (CV). The title "Cross of Valour" is a little inaccurate. The CV is a bravery decoration NOT a valour decoration. Valour decorations includes Victoria Cross (VC), Star of Military Valour (SMV) and Medal of Military Valour (MMV). The Bravery decorations include Cross of Valour (CV), Star of Courage (SC) and Medal of Bravery (MB). But why stop there? Currently there are 6 awards for Valour and Bravery. I believe it should be more streamlined with changing the wording and get rid of the SMV and MMV. To look more like this.

Victoria Cross
awarded for the most conspicuous bravery, a daring or pre-eminent act of valour or self-sacrifice, or extreme devotion to duty, in the presence of the enemy 

Cross of Valour/ Vimy Cross
awarded for acts of the most conspicuous Gallantry in circumstances of extreme peril and or distinguished and valiant service

Star of Courage
awarded for acts of conspicuous courage in circumstances of great peril

Medal of Bravery
awarded for acts of bravery in hazardous circumstances or devotion to duty

I understand there are different levels of heroism (pulling someone out of a burning building as opposed to Armed conflict). But all awards should be for all Canadians regardless if they are civvies or military (Except VC), because civilians can be involved in armed conflict on behalf of Canadian interests. This creates progressive stages to include Bravery (MB), Courage (SC), Gallantry (CV) and Valour (VC). This makes the lines a little clearer for awarding decorations.

Also looking at the Meritorious Service Cross (MSC) and Medal (MSM). Both awards are almost the same. The MSC being a rare high standard and the MSM being very high standard. I think there should be an added "Leadership" clause to the MSC. There is a small gap missing for "Leadership". Similar to the British Distinguished Service Order (DSO) or by adding a separate award for the shortcoming.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (27 Oct 2006)

A passel of honours and awards are about to be announced - Roto 0 and Roto 1.  Some of them are for courage / valour.  The system has been shaken up and is working.


----------



## probum non poenitet (27 Oct 2006)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> A passel of honours and awards are about to be announced - Roto 0 and Roto 1.  Some of them are for courage / valour.  The system has been shaken up and is working.



I'd say everyone with a SWASM has already earned a medal for courage/valour, if you know what I mean ...


----------



## Bartok5 (27 Oct 2006)

An MSM, MID and several CDS Commendations for pers deployed on the PRT Roto 0 were announced at 3 PPCLI's morning parade today.  Since the awards have not been officially presented, I will leave names for the official CANFORGEN/CANLANDGEN.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (27 Oct 2006)

And of course see here for the first military valour decorations:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/52431.0.html

Should end this "debate"...

Edited to add in support of Mark C's post:

The other awards have been announced as well:

http://www.gg.ca/media/doc.asp?lang=e&DocID=4904


----------



## paracowboy (27 Oct 2006)

Okay all,

since we have two threads on the same subject, I'm gonna lock this one down, and get around to transferring the (well-earned) kudos to the other thread. This one serves no purpose, since the subject is now moot.


----------

