Why so few Medals of Honor?

[dapaterson]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/magazine/30medals-t.html?hp=&pagewanted=all

Interesting article in the New York Times - where in WW2 and Viet Nam there were roughly 25 Medal of Honor recipients per million soliders, since 9/11 there has only been one per million soldiers.

 

[Task]

Guess if you got it recently you're "one in a million."

 

[MARS]

Around this time she was also told unofficially, by Marines who knew her son, that he had been nominated for America’s highest military award, the Medal of Honor, and that he was considered certain to receive it.

And this is why honours and awards are always considered "Honours in Confidence" until formally approved

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

While the technical aspects of war have lessened the exposure of many to direct confrontation with the enemy that most likely leads to individual acts of heroism, there are no doubt still thousands who perform acts within the realm of award of the Medal of Honour.  While the thing is earned individually, it is also symbolic.  While a whole platoon may earn an award, typically only one will get it.  There are stories of soldiers drawing straws to see who gets the medal which could end up being a Victoria Cross.  I suspect that the 1/25 ratio in comparison with previous wars is simply an act of disrespect.  Soldiers don't typically fight for medals but not many argue when given one.

In rare instances people have been shot through the brain and fully recovered.  Guessing the actions of someone in such a situation despite eyewitness testimony to the contrary is simply applying the odds, not facts.

 

[mariomike]

With so many combat fatalities on both sides in WW2, it is not surprising to me that many Medals of Honor were awarded by the U.S.A.

"Death before this honor: Why have Iraq and Afghanistan produced only 5 Medal of Honor recipients, none living?":
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/03/military_medal_of_honor_032509w/

 

[Kat Stevens]

Let's not forget that the MoH, VC, and most other gallantry medals come from a time when "closing with the enemy" meant getting within spitting distance and sticking a bayonet in his gizzards.  Valour was (relatively) easy to spot; wade into a pile of bad guys and be the only one still standing on the other side.  Todays tactics involve fixing the enemy in position with massive amounts of fire until someone gets around to dropping a waste paper basket full of HE on his head.  There are still individual acts of unbelievable courage out there, but the "opportunity", if you will, is rarer.

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

Being an expert, having studied infantry tactics in basic training 30 years ago ;D, my opinion is anyone doing an infantry assault would be worthy of consideration for the highest awards.  While war has changed and we will probably never see the wastage of life as in WWI and even WWII, the message sent by determining that bravery in the current was is at a 1/25 rate of past wars is simply wrong.

 

[Tank Troll]

I think with today's style of fighting (short quick engagements) doesn't lend it self to deeds of past, though no less amount of courage is needed. As war fare changes so it seem the act to win the Medal gets harder and harder with the bar being set higher. Not to diminish any previous winners but looking at some of the older Acts that won a VC or CMH compared to more recent acts it tends to lend to this theory. Take Sgt Richardson in the Boer war riding back under fire to save a Trooper from being killed or captured, to Major Currie at Falaise. While commanding a combat team they captured a village, fought off the Germans for 2 days, destroying 7 tanks, 12 Eighty Eight mm guns, 40 other Vehicles, killing 300 enemy soldiers wounding 500 more, and taking 2100 prisoners while denying 2 Armies from escaping Falaise.  That to me seems like a hard act to follow.

 

[mariomike]

That to me seems like a hard act to follow.

I agree.
0.40 of Canada's population was killed in World War Two.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#ref_Canada
For that sacrifice, and killing many of the enemy, they were awarded only 16 Victoria Crosses. 
When looking through the citations of Medal of Honor recipients from the World War Two, it does indeed ( thankfully ) seem to be a tough act to follow.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Medal_of_Honor_recipients_for_World_War_II
It is also obvious that many heroic acts from the World Wars will remain forever unknown. Potential witnesses were often KIA themselves. Documentation, if there was any, was often lost or destroyed.
I have book references of Commonwealth commanders who were against recommending V.C.s to the living. "There will be no living V.C.s in 8 Group."

 

[daftandbarmy]

The British have only handed out 2 x VCs during the recent GWOT - one in Iraq and one in Afghanistan.  The Kiwis handed out one VC to an SAS chap, as did the Aussies. Canada hasn't handed out any (yet), even though we've seen some of the toughest fighting.

I'd therefore say that the Yanks, as per SOP, are handing out too many of their highest awards!  ;D

 

[tomahawk6]

The complaint I hear is that there arent any living medal of honor recipients. The standards are stricter IMO than during Vietnam. Jump on a live grenade and die then you get a medal of honor. IF the grenade doesnt go off maybe you get a Silver Star. The grenade exploding doesnt make the act heroic - its the deed that should be honored.

 

[SeanNewman]

I get it that you're just using the grenade jumping as a metaphor, but that specific example has always had my curiosity.

It is certainly brave and nobody would question that because you're basically giving up your life for those of your friends, but self-sacrifice if really only part of what is typically considered for the highest awards.

While not formally written, there are generally three criteria:
1 - You save some peers (either first aid or carry them somewhere safe), which the grenade case would include;
2 - You kill bad guys (which was not required on a lot of citations on the 1800s, but got more and more so through the wars); and
3 - You personally get wounded or killed, or do something that had an extremely high probability of getting killed or wounded (grenade example, check).

So you're self-sacrificing and saving buddies, but not necessarily killing bad guys unless you were also involved in doing that when you jumped on the grenade.

Certainly deserving of something incredibly high on the list, though.

 

[Matt_Fisher]

The complaint I hear is that there arent any living medal of honor recipients. The standards are stricter IMO than during Vietnam. Jump on a live grenade and die then you get a medal of honor. IF the grenade doesnt go off maybe you get a Silver Star. The grenade exploding doesnt make the act heroic - its the deed that should be honored.

...However if you look at the number of Bronze Stars awarded, it's almost comical.  Seems that if you were a company commander in either OIF or OEF and you didn't get a Bronze Star due to your high calibre tactical and administrative skills  : you weren't likely ever to break into Field Grade ranks...  Unless that Bronze Star has a Valor device, which meant it was actually earned through gallantry in a combat action, in which case it was truly earned.

 

[tomahawk6]

The number of Bronze Stars is deceiving because it can be awarded for either heroism or meritorious service in a combat zone. Considering the number of troops that have served in combat is over 1.5 million in both theaters,the number of awards shouldnt be an issue.

 

[SeanNewman]

Matt,

Ours are quite clearly separated into three parts:

1. Valour.  The "in the face of the enemy" ones, with different medals for different levels.

2. Bravery.  Still brave but no enemy (rescuing someone out of a burning vehicle).

3. Commendation/Meritorious.  Doing a superb job at something or going above and beyond what is typically expected.

With the example you gave above, it would seem that bronze stars may be blurring into the realm of our commendations.

 

[Matt_Fisher]

Herein lies the problem with the US Bronze Star, is that it can be awarded for both merit or valor.  When it is awarded for valorous service, a V device is worn. 

What I take issue with is the nature of what constitutes truly meritorious service which deserves an award.  There are some truly outstanding commanders that have served in the field, whom are truly deserving of this award.  More often than not though, the service for which the Bronze Star has been awarded is grossly inflated in terms of importance, and in reality not deserving this level of award.

 

[tomahawk6]

The requirement to receive the Bronze Star for meritorious service in a combat zone is virtually the same as that for the Meritorious Service Medal.

Bronze Star:

The Bronze Star Medal is awarded to any person who meets specific qualifications:

While serving in any capacity in or with the Army of the United States after 6 December 1941, distinguished himself or herself by heroic or meritorious achievement or service, not involving participation in aerial flight, in connection with military operations against an armed enemy; or while participating in aerial flight prior to the establishment of the Air Force as separate from the army; or while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party. The acts of heroism are of a lesser degree than required for the award of the Silver Star. The acts of merit or acts of valor must be less than that required for the Legion of Merit but must nevertheless have been meritorious and accomplished with distinction. The Bronze Star Medal is awarded only to service members in combat who are receiving imminent danger pay.

Meritorious Service Medal:

Criteria: Presented to members of the United States Armed Forces who distinguished themselves by outstanding non-combat meritorious achievement or service to the United States subsequent to January 16, 1969. Effective 11 September 2001, this award also may be bestowed for non-combat meritorious achievement in a designated combat theatre. Normally, the acts or services rendered must be comparable to that required for the Legion of Merit but in a duty of lesser, though considerable, responsibility. A higher decoration, known as the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, is intended for similar services performed under joint service with the United States Department of Defense. Today, most MSM recipients are field grade officers (pay grades O-4 to O-6) and senior noncommissioned officers (E-7 to E-9), as exceptionally meritorious service at that level of responsibility is usually required for award of the medal

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

I think a big part of awarding medals for valour was to create living , breathing, heroes as role models to promote the war effort.  By chintzing on the VC and MOH, particularly to living recipients, PR potential is being lost.  Both reserve regiments I served in had living VC recipients and these guys were held in awe.

 

[daftandbarmy]

My frist trip to Hawaii was with the US 5th SF Group out of Washington State. We emplaned in Abbotsford in a C141, picked up some troops at McChord AFB, refueld over California and jumped into one of the hardest DZs I've ever experienced (volcanic rock anyone?) near Hickam field. Yes, I've been sucked by a C 141. We were essentially training fodder for the reservist aircrew, in support of a 25 ID (Tropic Lightening) exercise, so there was no real tactical stuff - just jolly jumping. As a result, I had the opportunity to wander around the 25 ID HQ building and look at their 'wall of fame'.

They had all their MoH recipients listed on one plaque, viz: http://www.25idl.army.mil/moh.html

I asked a SSgt in the HQ why there were so many MoH recipients in Vietnam (harbouring a sneaking suspicion that they were inflating the deeds of valour for political reasons etc). He gave me a very simple explanation. 1) The division was, because of the individual rotation system used by the US in that war, in continuous combat for several years: longer than in WW1, 2 & Korea combined 2) An infantryman on his one year tour was unlikely to be posted to any location that wasn't close to some serious threats posed by large and agressive NVA formations, and 3) Because of the nature of jungle fighting, most of their fights were short, sharp and vicious close combat actions between groups of from section to battalion size. You don't get a MoH for jumping on a grenade to save your buddies, for example, unless the bad guys swarm up close enough to shower them them into your hole faster than you can chuck 'em out again

I have no first hand knowldege of the situation there but, using this excellent rationale, I can only assume that fewer MoHs are being handed out in Afghanistan because the fighting there is not as prolonged, large scale, severe or 'man to man' as was experienced in conflicts like Vietnam - thank Gawd!

 

[jollyjacktar]

Reading some of our Cdn citations which described the act(s) of valour from Afghanistan, I was struck by frankly, how much was accomplished by some of these men.  Not to cheapen some of our earlier heros from previous conflicts, but some of the deeds I read were to my mind damn near as great if not as great.  This puzzled me as to why the awards were so few or of a lesser calibre.  Have we set the bar so artifically high in some mindsets that it will be nigh impossible to grant awards commensurate with the deeds?