CF Service Medals

[Dirty Patricia]

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

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

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

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

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

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

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

 

[George Wallace]

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

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

 

[Greymatters]

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

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

 

[Royal]

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

 

[Dirty Patricia]

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

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

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

 

[Monsoon]

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

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

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

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh please...  :

 

[Monsoon]

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

Seen.

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

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

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

I, for one, hope you're right.

 

[Michael OLeary]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

War Medal - for 28 days between 03 September 1939 and 02 September 1945

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

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

 

[Monsoon]

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

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

 

[Dirty Patricia]

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

 

[Michael OLeary]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

 

[Michael OLeary]

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

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

And the post has been moved there.

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[RHFC_piper]

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

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

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

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

 

[Disenchantedsailor]

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

 

[Kat Stevens]

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

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

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

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

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

 

[Gunner]

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

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

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

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

What's the deal with the NATO medal?

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

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

 

[Gunner]

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

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

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