Battle Honours for Afghanistan

[daftandbarmy]

What about 1 RCR in Op MEDUSA?

I take all of the points up-thread, which might be summarized as (1) a formed unit, with its HQ and maj of sub-units present and active participants; and (2) must be (in classical terms at least), what one might call a "stand-up fight".

Fair enough.  Notwithstanding the debate over whether we want to update the criteria for contemporary ops that don't face a conventional enemy, I still see at least one obvious candidate for a battle honour in Afghanistan: 1 RCR in Op MEDUSA, Sep 2006.

This was not "just some firefights" (or "TICs") and the entire bn maneuvered and fought as bn sized unit, within what (grew to become) a brigade plus sized action, in which specific territorial objectives were captured to a depth of several kms, with 12 Canadian fatalities.  (even an asslt riv xing, for God's sake!)  For any not entirely familiar with the action, see, for instance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Medusa
http://www.amazon.ca/Clearing-Way-Mark-Gasparotto/dp/1926582594
http://www.amazon.ca/No-Lack-Courage-Operation-Afghanistan/dp/1554887666
http://legionmagazine.com/en/index.php/2007/09/operation-medusa-the-battle-for-panjwai/

In fact, I'm rather surprised by the relative lack of mention of MEDUSA in this thread.

My real questions, I suppose, are:

(1) what do commentors there think about an Op MEDUSA battle honour for the RCR (regardless of what they think about any other possible battle honours for Afghanistan); and

(2) has anyone heard any talk about this specific possibility (at DHH, NDHQ, elsewhere)?

I've never seen an 'Op Anything' on a Battle Honour before. For example, Op Corporate was the Falklands War, but units involved received 'Falkland Islands' on the battle honours.

 

[Michael OLeary]

My real questions, I suppose, are:

(1) what do commentors there think about an Op MEDUSA battle honour for the RCR (regardless of what they think about any other possible battle honours for Afghanistan); and

(2) has anyone heard any talk about this specific possibility (at DHH, NDHQ, elsewhere)?

As you have noted, the main thrust of the conversation here to date has been on the need to redefine the eligibility requirements for battle honours in the modern era. Without that work done first by DND/DHH, then any discussion of individual actions only serves to situate the estimate.

 

[Infanteer]

In my opinion, due to the number of unit operations and the degree of combat, I think a better battle honour would be Zharei/Panjwayi 2006, which units involved in R1 and 2 would be eligible for.

 

[fake penguin]

In my opinion, due to the number of unit operations and the degree of combat, I think a better battle honour would be Zharei/Panjwayi 2006, which units involved in R1 and 2 would be eligible for.

So for R1 and R2 would just 1ppcli and 1RCR get the battle honour because it was their tour, or does 2ppcli also get it. Even though R5 was 2ppcli's tour they sent a company to both R1 and R2. Forgive my ignorance but someone mentioned 1RCR getting the  battle honour, i always thought the whole regiment would get it regardless which battalion did the fighting.

 

[fake penguin]

So for R1 and R2 would just 1ppcli and 1RCR get the battle honour because it was their tour, or does 2ppcli also get it. Even though R5 was 2ppcli's tour they sent a company to both R1 and R2. Forgive my ignorance but someone mentioned 1RCR getting the  battle honour, i always thought the whole regiment would get it regardless which battalion did the fighting.

Never mind was too lazy at first to read whole thread, didn't get on computer till late. Read the whole thread and it looks like you need a certain percentage of troops to qualify for a battle honour.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Never mind was too lazy at first to read whole thread, didn't get on computer till late. Read the whole thread and it looks like you need a certain percentage of troops to qualify for a battle honour.

And that, in a nutshell, is the problem between the "old" regulations for battle honours and the new way of generating forces. That is why we need to see how the regulations get re-engineered before regiments can start to look at what actions may or may not fit (or where they may have to make a special case to support nominating an action that falls "outside" the boundaries).

 

[dapaterson]

Don't worry, though, as recently shown, if you whine for 200 years you'll get a battle honour, deserving or not...

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Don't worry, though, as recently shown, if you whine for 200 years you'll get a battle honour, deserving or not...

Backstory?

 

[Michael OLeary]

Backstory?

War of 1812

 

[Wolseleydog]

@ daftandbarmy: I take your point – I don’t propose that the actual wording of the battle honour be “Op MEDUSA”.  I just mean that they should get one for that action.

@ Michael O’L:  I take your point about DHH rethinking criteria for the modern era – my point is simply that I think the RCR qualify under the existing classic criteria, at least for MEDUSA.  Why not award that one as “concurrent activity” as it were, while pondering how to update the system?  Just a thought.

 

[brihard]

'Zhari/Panjwayi', or 'Pashmul' or what have you certainly seems merited as a specific battle honour.

A more generally granted theatre honour would probably best serve the (in my mind) legitimate desire for many force generating units (particularly militia) to be recognized. My regiment has South Africa, and at ~90 pers deployed to Afghanistan we've certainly exceeded what we sent there. Many other units are in the same boat. Our history and heritage system can by all means modernize with the rest of the military, as long as it focuses of achieving intent and not simply spinning the wheels of process. It would be a damned shame if our approach to history and heritage were to fossilize.

 

[GAP]

Harper looks at bestowing Afghan war battle honours on Canadian units
By: Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press, 11/11/2013
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/harper-looks-at-bestowing-afghan-war-battle-honours-on-canadian-units-231396151.html

OTTAWA - Canadian units that fought in Afghanistan are being considered for battle honours by the Harper government, which is casting around for ways to commemorate the conflict as it draws to a close after more than a decade.

A memorandum to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, obtained by The Canadian Press under access-to-information legislation, lays out the options for recognizing individual regiments for specific battles and the overall war itself.

"Battle honours are awarded to provide public recognition to combatant military units for active participation in battle against a formed and armed enemy," says the May 13 note by the country's top public servant, Privy Council clerk Wayne Wouters.

"The awarding of battle honours has deep historical roots and must be done in a thorough manner to ensure units are properly recognized."

The fact most of the fighting was against Taliban militants, who chose hit-and-run attacks and remotely detonated bombs, may complicate the process but ultimately won't stop the acknowledgment, said historian Jack Granatstein.

There is precedent for the honour set by Canadian units that fought in the Boer War between 1899 and 1902, he said.

Different levels of battle honours — from recognizing an entire theatre of operations to specific campaigns, battles and actions — give the government a choice. For example, the disastrous 1942 Dieppe raid was the subject of a separate action honour.

Such recognition allows the regiments involved to display the name of the battle on their flags or colours. It is a British military tradition that dates back to 1760 and is a point of pride within each unit.
more on link

 

[bick]

Great news. I, for one, look forward to the day when an Afghanistan battle honor is on the colors, right beside the battles we learn about in training

 

[The Bread Guy]

Took a while for the bump, but here's the latest ....

The Conservative government will roll out the red carpet for the Canadian military and their families on Friday by presenting battle honours to the army and air force units that fought in Afghanistan and navy ships that deployed for the war on terrorism, The Canadian Press has learned.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper will announce on Friday that 63 army regiments, including special forces and the navy’s fleet diving unit, and four squadrons of the air will be bestowed an Afghanistan Theatre Honour and 15 warships will receive the Arabian Sea honour ....

 

[dapaterson]

Strictly speaking, there's a difference between Theatre and Battle Honours; today's announcement will be solely Theatre Honours, I think.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Took a while for the bump, but here's the latest ....

63 army regiments?

According to Wikipedia there are 20 armoured regiments and 50 infantry regiments (70 in all) in the Canadian Army. My question is: which seven regiments will be distinguished by not having Afghanistan as a battle honour?
.
.
.
.
.
I have a supplementary question: Can Michael O‘Leary explain what rules or precedents might have been used to decide this?

Edited to add:

As datpaterson said, and the Globe and Mail confirms, these are Theatre Honours not Battle Honours. The difference, as I understand it, is that a theatre honour may be displayed on regimental property (signs, memorials, etc) but not on the colours.

 

[dapaterson]

Off the top of my head, I believe the standard is that a unit that contributed 20 or more personnel over the life of the operation will receive the theatre honour.

Keep in mind, however, that each of the three Reg F and one Res F Bns of The RCR (for example) would receive the honour if they meet the criteria, so we have to count units, not regiments.

As well, the count of 63 may include other units such as the fleet diving units (which provided numerous EOD personnel) and the Tac Hel sqns plus, of course, CANSOF units.

 

[Old Sweat]

I heard this was coming down the pike a couple of weeks ago. The criteria seems to have been that the regiment provided a significant number of personnel for service in Afghanistan. That gets pretty subjective, so I guess it's best to wait and see.

We did this sort of thing before, first in perpetuating CEF units and then for South Africa.

And as noted, these are theatre honours. Perhaps there will be later awards of battle honours for battles/operations like Panjwai or Medusa. 

 

[Michael OLeary]

I have a supplementary question: Can Michael O‘Leary explain what rules or precedents might have been used to decide this?

I know that units were asked to provide lists of members who deployed to Afghanistan, establishing only the numerical participation. To the best of my knowledge, no categorization as made to determine how many deployed in "line of battle units" (which, historically are the ones eligible for battle honours) and which people were in support roles (base, HQ, etc.).

It would appear that we have taken the concept used for South Africa of a minimum contributed number of soldiers (but for which units provided troops to line units, not in large numbers also to huge static establishments), and wedded that idea to the War of 1812 award concept (in which every named units got the same battle honour, no matter how few soldiers might have been there), with the result of maximum awards with minimum critical examination of actual contributions to the battlefield units that deployed.

For the CEF awards of battle honours for regiments that did not perpetuate a fighting unit, they were required to prove that 250 men from units they helped raise were present at a given battle, in line units. ( http://regimentalrogue.com/battlehonours/firstworldwar-btlhnrs.htm )

The CEF awards also distinguished between the theatre level honours "France and Flanders" for units that were in the field and "The Great War" for others.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Thanks, Michael ... at least there was some logic to it, I guess.

I'm not, in any way, opposed to updating or Canadianizing our honours and awards systems, for individuals and for units, but I do hope we will keep high standards for both. (Although I think the standard for  VC has been too high since 1945.)