"Will war in Afghanistan pass without a VC?"

[The Bread Guy]

Canadians are a humble bunch. Maybe too humble.

Within a few weeks, Gov. Gen. David Johnston will bestow a final batch of bravery decorations on Canadian troops who fought in southern Afghanistan, but the list likely won’t include the nation’s highest battle honour: the Victoria Cross.

The notion that Canada will exit its first major shooting war in 60 years without such recognition has some asking what precisely a Canadian soldier must do to win the honour — and whether the criteria in a professional, often self-deprecating military is too stringent.

The British, the Australians, and New Zealand have all given out a handful of VCs for actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, while the United States has awarded 10 Medals of Honour, the American equivalent, in both wars.

The lack of Canadian Victoria Crosses is also strange in light of the intensity of fighting that took place in the heartland of the Taliban insurgency, as well as the Harper government’s apparent fondness for military pageantry.

The military recoils at the suggestion that politics comes within a country mile of deciding who is awarded the country’s highest decoration for “extraordinary valour and devotion to duty while facing a hostile force.” The stringent process that sees a nomination pass through no less than three committees of senior officers ensures that selection is based on merit.

Even still, throughout the war in Afghanistan, there were quiet murmurs within the ranks and questions about why some of the 17 Stars of Military Valour, the country’s second-highest decoration, handed out to date were never considered worthy of elevation to the Victoria Cross.

That concern —along with the perception that medals were handed out more freely later in the Kandahar campaign than at the beginning — prompted former chief of defence staff Gen. Walt Natynczyk to quietly strike a special committee which reviewed the files.

“What I said to my guys, there was no intent here to change any of the awards, it was just a review to make sure we were consistent throughout the conflict,” said Chief Petty Officer 1st Class Bob Cleroux, the military’s top non-commissioned officer, who served on the committee.

“After the review, we found that two were a little bit weak, but were still deserving and two were very, very strong. And that’s all that happened.”

Cleroux, who spoke recently to The Canadian Press, stood by the decisions that were made, saying “we award medals based on what we see is in the file. And if medals are awards, it’s a decision of his excellency, the Governor General.”

Final approval does belong to the Queen’s representative, but it is almost always a formality and relies heavily on the recommendation of the chief of defence staff and the Defence Department’s awards and honours branch.

Asked about the last batch of bravery decorations on the vice-regal desk, Cleroux would not say whether a VC winner is among them.

“Because it’s honours in confidence, I can’t say anything else.” ....

The Canadian Press, 8 Nov 12

 

[Edward Campbell]

The Korean War did.

More troops in contact with the enemy, lots of tough fights, plenty of brave men ... no VC for a Canadian.

 

[Haggis]

My guess would be "no".

Having written up several folks who I beleived deserving of recognition and having sat on numerous Honours and awards boards, I beleive that the process is hindered by two factors:

1.  despite the wording of the nomination instructions for national awards which are meant to encourage recognition of our people, the criteria are artificially very narrowly and stridently applied; and

2.  the narrative is more important than the deed.

What I mean by point 1, is that we have survived for too long on accepting that rare high standard of work or deeds as the SOP.  That leads to a mindset that "we don't reward people for doing what's expected of a professional and dedicated service member.".

Closely related is point 2.  The standards for narrative and citation writing are incredibly high.  So much so that a skilled wordsmith can take a mundane and routine act and make it worthy of national recognition, whereas a lesser skilled writer cannot "sell" a highly noteworthy deed on paper.

From this falls the belief that it's just too difficult to get a nomination through the system and the chances too slim that all that effort will pay off.  This is paticularly true for other than valour and bravery awards which require independant witness statements.  Many folks toil tirelessly in obscurity supporting the mission.  But if no one takes the time to write them up for it, it goes unrecogniozed and unrewarded.

Apologies for the tangential rant.

 

[Infanteer]

The Korean War did.

More troops in contact with the enemy, lots of tough fights, plenty of brave men ... no VC for a Canadian.

Good point.

2.  the narrative is more important than the deed.

Yep.

 

[mariomike]

The Korean War did.

More troops in contact with the enemy, lots of tough fights, plenty of brave men ... no VC for a Canadian.

That was almost true of the 10,659 RCAF aircrew who were killed in Bomber Command during World War Two.

Only one was awarded the Victoria Cross.

There were no living V.C.'s. awarded to Canadians in Bomber Command.

 

[jollyjacktar]

That was almost true of the 10,659 RCAF aircrew who were killed in Bomber Command during World War Two.

Only one was awarded the Victoria Cross.

There were no living V.C.'s. awarded to Canadians in Bomber Command.

Guy Gibson was alive to receive his VC for the Dam raids.

 

[mariomike]

Guy Gibson was alive to receive his VC for the Dam raids.

There were no living V.C.'s. awarded to Canadians in Bomber Command.

Guy Gibson was RAF.

 

[hagan_91]

If a VC was awarded, the liberal people of this country would have been upset. It would show Canada was at war and not just policing Afghanistan.

 

[dapaterson]

Canada was not at war in Afghanistan.  There was no declaration of war.  There was no mobilization of the nation's resources.

"War" has a very clear legal definition.  Canada's involvement in conflict in Afghanistan does not meet that definition.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Canada was not at war in Afghanistan.  There was no declaration of war.  There was no mobilization of the nation's resources.

"War" has a very clear legal definition.  Canada's involvement in conflict in Afghanistan does not meet that definition.

Is a properly declared war one of the criteria for a Canadian VC?

 

[The Bread Guy]

Is a properly declared war one of the criteria for a Canadian VC?

Good question - this from DHH (highlights mine):

.... In accordance with the 1993 regulations, the new decoration is to be “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.” The definition of the “enemy” was expanded to reflect the new reality of warfare in the 1990s, the Department of National Defence noting it entailed “a hostile armed force, including armed mutineers, armed rebels, armed rioters and armed pirates.  Canada does not have to be at war to acknowledge the existence of an enemy which fits this description.  It is broad enough to encompass Canadian involvement in UN peacekeeping operations.”  Any member of the Canadian Forces or member of an allied armed force serving with the Canadian Forces on or after 1 January 1993 is eligible for the award and, like its British counterpart, the Victoria Cross can be awarded posthumously ....

 

[Haggis]

Is a properly declared war one of the criteria for a Canadian VC?

Deleted because of Tony's excellent answer, above.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Thanks, folks. (There were an awful lot of rules and regulations about which I neither knew nor cared during a long and undistinguished career in uniform.)

 

[dapaterson]

As I recall, one of the earliest VCs (one of the real, "For Valour" VCs, not the more recent, never-awarded creation of the "Pro Valore" VCs) was for saving people from a runaway train, not in war.  Details are fuzzy, though.

My comment about Canada not being "at war" was directed at the preceding poster; I probably should have quoted him for context.

 

[Strike]

As I recall, one of the earliest VCs (one of the real, "For Valour" VCs, not the more recent, never-awarded creation of the "Pro Valore" VCs) was for saving people from a runaway train, not in war.  Details are fuzzy, though.

My comment about Canada not being "at war" was directed at the preceding poster; I probably should have quoted him for context.

And it was awarded on Canadian soil:

http://warwriting.blogspot.ca/2005/08/only-victoria-cross-awarded-in-canada.html

 

[Old Sweat]

As I recall, one of the earliest VCs (one of the real, "For Valour" VCs, not the more recent, never-awarded creation of the "Pro Valore" VCs) was for saving people from a runaway train, not in war.  Details are fuzzy, though.

My comment about Canada not being "at war" was directed at the preceding poster; I probably should have quoted him for context.

That was the only VC awarded for a deed performed in Canada. It happened during one of the Fenian invasions and involved a member of the British Army - 4th Battalion, 60th Rifles I believe - fighting a fire in a train car loaded with ammunition which was parked near a train full of people. The recipient later died of exposure in one of the Australian deserts. Without googling that is as close as I can come, although I think he had an Irish name.

Edit to add: Re the description that Strike posted, the events are accurate, but the writer's description of the 1866 invasion of Niagara is wildly inaccurate.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

//off topic

Thought you would remember your trench partner's name at least......

;D

//on topic

 

[The Bread Guy]

Canada was not at war in Afghanistan.  There was no declaration of war.  There was no mobilization of the nation's resources.

Hell, two Ministerial statements kicking off Vets Week didn't even MENTION Afghanistan - check here and here.