Truly pointless idea

[Totenkopf]

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/05/military_restraint_medal_051110mar

 

One doesn't need to get a medal for doing nothing. Seems like one more step in 2nd guessing the man in the field. If the worry is that innocent civillians might get killed during an operation, then you might as well not deploy troops at all. Then if civillians do get killed, you can salve your conscience that at least it wasn't directly your fault.

[vanir]

I heard about this on another site, courageous restraint. It's the Saving Private Ryan medal, I like it.

 

Don't worry nobody is saying you can't kill stuff. Just that you can have medals you can also be proud of instead of just ones which remind you there was no logical reason the guy next to you got blown to bits in a charge instead of you every time you put your dress uniform on.

 

It's about which memories make you truly proud and which ones make you want to chew a barrel. Taking a bullet so a pregnant lady nobody else cares about scrambles past an urban bunker alive, that's something to be proud of mate.

 

Getting a medal because the artillery hit over there and blew those guys up, instead of over here so you survived, not so much pride, just tears and a lump in the throat.

 

Also military atrocity is virtually institutional, it may seem childish but if the command is clearly stipulating congratulations are in order for having morals that's not such a bad thing.

[Totenkopf]

"Saving Pvt Ryan medal"? Didn't miss the part where they said people weren't being told they couldn't defend themselves (ie shoot the other side), just think it's pointless to start handing out medals for effectively doing nothing. The optimal goal is to have zero collateral human damage, but sometimes people are going to die. When the other side is using human shields and shooting at you, you fire back. Otherwise, you might as well just walk around w/targets painted on you and get knocked off piecemeal. Or, as I stipulated above, just not deploy your troops anywhere in the first place (including so called peace missions).

[jrrtoken]

Yes, practicing restraint and engaging the enemy only when in a clear line of fire is some sort of mortal sin, apparently. Certainly that earns them the badge of cowardliness in America's world.

 

Really, I don't understand the problem; it's a bloody medal, not a damned directive. If anyone is irate about this triviality, then they should also be speaking out against the Purple Heart, on the grounds that it promotes self-mutilation, or some other silly nonsense. I can't understand how regarding civilians is damning, though; usually it's the other way around.

[Totenkopf]

Yeah, and in asymetrical warfare the enemy always gives the other side a clear line of fire and never does anything as cowardly as hide behind civillians. You miss the point. It's a meaningless medal, an empty gesture. Btw, no one I've seen is saying that you should never try to get a clear line of fire whenever possible.

[vanir]

Totenkopf a rifleman shooting despite a human shield in a policing action is walking a dangerously close line with war crimes.

 

This is about rules of engagement. No unavoidable civilian casualties. Now if he's got a detonator and the explosives are right by your head, or a high value target then sure, you're going to get a teary pat on the back but you're not supposed to be reasoning how civilian casualties are justified, you're supposed to be damn upset that you had absolutely no other choice and if you could've taken a bullet so that civilian could've lived, you would have.

 

How do you not get this?

 

Let me give another example, actual. USAF rules of engagement in the Gulf or Bosnia. Precluding AWACS confirmation pilots must visually identify enemy a/c before firing on them. Let's say an Eagle vs Fulcrum.

On board track at about 50 miles.

Missile launch at about 20 miles.

Visual identification at about 5 miles on a good day if you're lucky and he rolls or turns to the side, so you get a planview on the enemy MiG. Otherwise much closer.

He locks you up at about 30 miles and fires at about 20 too, but what is common practise is using passive tracking sensors Russian a/c are equipped with until just before missile launch (EOS), they use ground spotters or EWR to track you until they get close enough for EOS and then flash radar just as they hit the trigger.

 

Thankfully Fulcrum analogue radars aren't the most reliable on the planet.

 

So the first moment you're really allowed to fire on him is when your RWR says you've been locked up and at the same time registers a missile launch, whilst you're both in BVR and at your own weapons long range. And even this only because self defence trumps rules of engagement.

And it is a first-look/first-shoot/first-kill environment. Despite the fact you saw him first, ROE demands you let him shoot first in this scenario, it's suicidal and a lot dependent on luck and better training you're going to survive.

 

Now if they haven't seen you, or they don't engage, they can fly right by you before you can do anything.

These are just the rules of engagement, because nobody wants to see an Eagle shoot down an Emirates Jumbo carrying British nationals because it strayed from its corridor because of all the signal jamming.

 

The thing to remember is these are not WW1 trenches we're talking about, they're normal everyday urban streets where these actions are taking place and regular tourists are flying overhead, with journalists running around in rentals below. Imagine a war going on at 64th street whilst you're over on Mills Blvd four blocks away trying to go to work. That's your typical Middle Eastern/Central Asiatic conflict.

 

You know what the big threat to Nighthawks in the Gulf was? Civilian mobile telephone networks. The local provider in Bagdad noticed moving gaps in the coverage and reported it to TACOM (they thought it might be of concern to coalition forces), who realised it matched the realtime location of the Stealth Fighters on their way to targets. Trufax.

 

These are wars in suburban streets in regular towns and cities. They're not using human shields, they're just locals in the middle of regular people. They're not hiding in communities, they grew up in them. Down the road from where you shoot "terrorists" with artillery there are teenagers in an internet cafe playing network games after school.

[Liverandbacon]

Gen. McChrystal may have just ended this joke of a medal:

http://www.military.com/news/article/mcchrystal-quashes-restraint-medal-rumor.html

 

Why do I say it's a joke of a medal? Because as Gen. McChrystal pointed out, saving civilians in a fashion that is courageous and out of the ordinary can already earn you a medal.

 

All this "Corageous Restraint" medal would do is keep on rewarding those people who do deserve a medal, but also award medals to soldiers who just do their job and don't kill civilians. Medals are meant to be earned for doing something out of the ordinary. And as much as many would like to believe that we all go over to Iraq and Afghanistan screaming GET SOME! and pumping rounds into civilians, as that really satisfies their need to hate the military, not killing civilians is far from being out of the ordinary. It's like parents giving candy to an already well-behaved kid for not attacking his teacher every day. Pointless.

 

We don't need a medal just for following the rules of engagement.

[JediMaster12]

Personally I think Mr. Miyagi said it best in Karate Kid II when he placed his had over Daniel's heart and said, "This say you brave" and then at the medal, "This say you lucky." I think true courage does come from the heart and that it make syou do things that you probably wouldn't do in a 'normal' situation.

 

Some may say that a medal is an attestment to that courage that particular soldier showed on the battlefield and that may be true but I think that the true attestment to the courage shown by the men and women in the armed forces are what comes as a result of their duty. Yes there are some things that are the downside of war and there are some good things too but do we really need a medal to honor those, as vanir draws out in detail, who follow the rules of engagment?

 

Frankly I think not. I do agree that ideally zero civvie casualties are best but we all know the real world doesn't work that way. People are taken hostage or used as shields, not unlike the situations that police have to go through. People get hurt on all sides. When a soldier does his job of protecting an innocent under fire while trying to take out the enemy, coldly he is doing a part of his job. Others can say he is doing the right thing. In the end though he is following the mandate he accepted when he enlisted. Giving a medal for following the rules of engagement sounds more like a waste of money to me. A good soldier knows that he has done right when he follows the ROE to the best of his ability.

 

I agree that medals shoudl be awarded for above and beyond the call of duty but as long as we recognize the sacrifice our troops are making, give recognition for their efforts, that would be worth more than a medal.

[Tommycat]

Gen. McChrystal may have just ended this joke of a medal:

http://www.military.com/news/article/mcchrystal-quashes-restraint-medal-rumor.html

 

Why do I say it's a joke of a medal? Because as Gen. McChrystal pointed out, saving civilians in a fashion that is courageous and out of the ordinary can already earn you a medal.

 

All this "Corageous Restraint" medal would do is keep on rewarding those people who do deserve a medal, but also award medals to soldiers who just do their job and don't kill civilians. Medals are meant to be earned for doing something out of the ordinary. And as much as many would like to believe that we all go over to Iraq and Afghanistan screaming GET SOME! and pumping rounds into civilians, as that really satisfies their need to hate the military, not killing civilians is far from being out of the ordinary. It's like parents giving candy to an already well-behaved kid for not attacking his teacher every day. Pointless.

 

We don't need a medal just for following the rules of engagement.

 

Thank you. As former military myself, I was going to say that following the ROI doesn't deserve a medal. Doing something out of the ordinary to defend a civvie deserves a medal. The example the general gave is the perfect example. Using your own body as a shield to defend a civilian deserves a medal. not firing on an enemy because you might hit a civvie, well that's part of the job. We aren't all like that door gunner in Full Metal Jacket.

 

Private Joker: How can you shoot women or children?

Door Gunner: Easy! Ya just don't lead 'em so much!

 

We're a long way from Vietnam. Heck even during Vietnam we weren't like that. Our military spends more time and effort on ways NOT to kill civilians, and minimize casualties. Precision Guided Munitions and smart weapons are thousands of times more expensive than dumb bombs. We wouldn't carpet bomb an area these days. Not because we can't. We could drop thousands of bombs for the cost of one PGM. We use PGMs because they hit the target with little to no effect to the surrounding buildings.

 

Ya don't give medals for doing your job. You give medals for doing your job exceptionally well.

[Totenkopf]

Totenkopf a rifleman shooting despite a human shield in a policing action is walking a dangerously close line with war crimes.

 

This is about rules of engagement. No unavoidable civilian casualties. Now if he's got a detonator and the explosives are right by your head, or a high value target then sure, you're going to get a teary pat on the back but you're not supposed to be reasoning how civilian casualties are justified, you're supposed to be damn upset that you had absolutely no other choice and if you could've taken a bullet so that civilian could've lived, you would have.

 

How do you not get this?

 

Not sure what you're on about, mate. I've nowhere said you should kill civillians w/o remorse or merely indiscriminately. You've constructed that strawman. My point was that avoiding shooting the enemy doesn't rate a medal. Tommy and Liver covered it well enough. Not sure why it's so hard to understand. It isn't SOP in the US military to shoot clearly identifiable civies, nor is it desirable/preferable to take a bullet so that they can live either.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

I kind of see this medal as something that will be awarded to soldiers who show an admirable amount of restraint or level-headedness while under extreme stress from whatever source. If someone's in a firefight with people who aren't easily recognizable as the enemy, and maybe sees some of his friends shot, but still shows enough restraint to not shoot and perhaps even stops some of his fellow soldiers from firing as well, and that action saves civilian lives, I'm okay with giving him a medal. Especially if there is a situation where a soldier does have to go against the people he's serving with, and perhaps even under.

[vanir]

So we've progressed argumentatively to semantics but at least accept the medal itself is a good idea. Just arguing over what conditions to award it.

 

That's enough and all to be expected I suppose.

[Totenkopf]

So we've progressed argumentatively to semantics but at least accept the medal itself is a good idea. Just arguing over what conditions to award it.

 

That's enough and all to be expected I suppose.

 

Come again? I haven't seen anyone here opposed to the idea change their minds. I think we all agree that indiscriminately killing civillians is a bad idea, otherwise.....

[Tommycat]

So we've progressed argumentatively to semantics but at least accept the medal itself is a good idea. Just arguing over what conditions to award it.

 

That's enough and all to be expected I suppose.

 

Negative. We all agree that killing civilians is a bad thing. We disagree that there should be a special award for which we already HAVE an award. Holding fire when there are civilians present doesn't deserve an award. It's like giving a PC tech an award for finding a virus. It's part of his job. Giving a bonus to the PC tech that writes code that cleans out the virus on the whole network. THAT's going above and beyond. Likewise not shooting civvies is just part of the soldier's job. Standard Operating Procedures(SOP) are not to engage if you cannot identify that the target might be hostile. There isn't much point in giving a medal for not shooting.

 

Also, it could cause soldiers to hold fire when they should open fire. I'm all for defending the innocent. But lets not get silly about it.

[Darth Avlectus]

I'd be interested to find out just what the criteria was for earning that medal and also how they'd go about objectively verifying that in an imminent danger setting on the battlefield.

 

Holding back sounds like a regular judgment call that I daresay minimally armed security guards even have to make on a daily basis. So I'm sorry, however I don't really get it...at all.

[urluckyday]

While I'm generally in favor of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, this idea of handing out medals was also prevalent in our most recent unpopular war...Vietnam. A record number of medals were handed out to soldiers to boost morale among troops as well as increase the public perception that things were going very well on the front. Not surprising in the least.

[HdVaderII]

A record number of medals were handed out to soldiers to boost morale among troops as well as increase the public perception that things were going very well on the front.

 

Luckily the reach of mass media and war reporting has expanded as to make sure that we know that it's the opposite.

[urluckyday]

Luckily the reach of mass media and war reporting has expanded as to make sure that we know that it's the opposite.

 

Actually things were A LOT more uncensored back in the days of Vietnam. The military actually censors a lot more and decides where the media can go nowadays BECAUSE of the outcry from Vietnam.

 

Remember this picture?

 

Even though it's not shown as him actually shooting the person, this was a wake-up call to many people during the war...pictures like this would never make it out of the military these days unless they were leaked.

[Totenkopf]

And even the WikiLeaks stuff was provided sans context.

[Drunkside]

I'd be interested to find out just what the criteria was for earning that medal and also how they'd go about objectively verifying that in an imminent danger setting on the battlefield.

 

Holding back sounds like a regular judgment call that I daresay minimally armed security guards even have to make on a daily basis. So I'm sorry, however I don't really get it...at all.

 

Yes, exactly why i find this very alarming. If you need to award your troops for not killing civilians there is something wrong with them.

[Tommycat]

Yes, exactly why i find this very alarming. If you need to award your troops for not killing civilians there is something wrong with them.

 

Which is why those of us who served feel this is an unnecessary award. They don't give a medal for shooting at the enemy. They shouldn't give an award for not shooting the civvies. That's just part of the job. The idea came from Europe by the way. Our generals know that the SOP is asses the situation, check your targets, get confirmation, open fire(please note I'm being very general and cutting out a few steps).

 

Heck look at how we fight wars now as opposed to even the first Gulf War. Carpet bombing is pretty well gone. Even "Shock and Awe" was very directed and pinpoint(relatively speaking of course). During WWII bombing was "target: Dresden" during this gulf war, it was, "Target: the bunker in between these two civilian buildings on this street" It's why our weapons cost a billion a piece rather than a few thousand. Its why we have accurate rifles rather than miniguns and grenade launchers. The hate America crowd loves to think that our soldiers are out there screaming "GIT SOME!" as they mow down anyone in their path. Truth is, ANY civilian casualty causes a review of those involved.

[Darth Avlectus]

Yes, exactly why i find this very alarming. If you need to award your troops for not killing civilians there is something wrong with them.

 

I'm just speaking common sense as someone who hasn't served in the military so I consequently don't have much to say about anything the military does, nor have any law enforcement involvement...well ok maybe just a little of that but not enough to call it much of anything.

 

I mean...you're there, you do your job duties, one of which is shoot to kill enemy combatants if deemed necessary. This award would fly in the face of that, in my humble opinion.

 

Which is why those of us who served feel this is an unnecessary award. They don't give a medal for shooting at the enemy. They shouldn't give an award for not shooting the civvies. That's just part of the job. The idea came from Europe by the way. Our generals know that the SOP is asses the situation, check your targets, get confirmation, open fire(please note I'm being very general and cutting out a few steps).

 

Heck look at how we fight wars now as opposed to even the first Gulf War. Carpet bombing is pretty well gone. Even "Shock and Awe" was very directed and pinpoint(relatively speaking of course). During WWII bombing was "target: Dresden" during this gulf war, it was, "Target: the bunker in between these two civilian buildings on this street" It's why our weapons cost a billion a piece rather than a few thousand. Its why we have accurate rifles rather than miniguns and grenade launchers. The hate America crowd loves to think that our soldiers are out there screaming "GIT SOME!" as they mow down anyone in their path. Truth is, ANY civilian casualty causes a review of those involved.

 

And a mess of paperwork at that, not to mention the rottweiler ACLU lawyers who are content to grind metal with metal as they prosecute our military members and drag all the media with them.

[urluckyday]

Yes, exactly why i find this very alarming. If you need to award your troops for not killing civilians there is something wrong with them.

 

It's not so much "not killing innocent civilians," so much as it is avoiding collateral damage while still getting the job done. There are soldiers that will do anything to get the job done no matter what the cost, but there are also soldiers who will try to find all alternatives to solve a problem before turning to something that will harm innocents.

 

While the basic idea of the medal is pretty pointless, at closer look, it kind of makes sense. The soldier will put his life and his well-being on the line because I'm sure ensuring the safety of civilians puts them more at risk than if they went into some place guns blazing...

 

Just my thoughts.

[Totenkopf]

Actually, the medal is still pointless. Joining the military (or even law enforcement in general) means that you may/will be put in harms way. Trying to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties and/or collateral damage are already part of the ROE. If you're wounded in combat (regardless of the reason), there's already a purple heart. As it's also been pointed out, NOT doing harm unnecessarily is not extraordinary and thus doesn't rate a medal. The medal seems like more of a way to second guess the operator in the field and potentially tie his hands by placing undue emphasis on hesitation under fire.

[Drunkside]

Which is why those of us who served feel this is an unnecessary award. They don't give a medal for shooting at the enemy. They shouldn't give an award for not shooting the civvies. That's just part of the job. The idea came from Europe by the way. Our generals know that the SOP is asses the situation, check your targets, get confirmation, open fire(please note I'm being very general and cutting out a few steps).

 

Heck look at how we fight wars now as opposed to even the first Gulf War. Carpet bombing is pretty well gone. Even "Shock and Awe" was very directed and pinpoint(relatively speaking of course). During WWII bombing was "target: Dresden" during this gulf war, it was, "Target: the bunker in between these two civilian buildings on this street" It's why our weapons cost a billion a piece rather than a few thousand. Its why we have accurate rifles rather than miniguns and grenade launchers. The hate America crowd loves to think that our soldiers are out there screaming "GIT SOME!" as they mow down anyone in their path. Truth is, ANY civilian casualty causes a review of those involved.

 

I find it hard to believe that ANY casualty causes a review. I mean, there are some in almost every bombing and if something happens to some locals during a battle and no one has seen anyone else doing it i doubt they start playing detectives.

 

Show spoiler

(hidden content - requires Javascript to show)

And by the way, you have these: