Truly pointless idea

[Q]

Bah, what's next; a no flatulation in public medal?

[Tommycat]

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:

 

There is a review after EVERY firefight(I think it's called Post Action Review). Any civilian casualties resulting from that are investigated more in depth. There is also a review of the "gun cameras" on every bombing run. You do realize that every time a soldier fires his weapon he has to justify his actions. They must account for every round they are issued. When a soldier says they don't know where a round went, the response is, "Was something wrong with your weapon's sights? Then WHY DON'T YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE SHOOTING AT?"

 

And Metal Storm has not been deployed. When it IS deployed no doubt only an officer will be able to give the order to fire it. It's too expensive to fire off all those rounds for enlisted men. So I would guess that it would have to be really controlled circumstances for it to be used(if it's ever deployed at all).

[Liverandbacon]

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.

 

On a somewhat unrelated to the main topic note: Although it is definitely right that we spend all that extra money to avoid killing civilians, ironically it has made many hate the military more. When countries routinely used carpet-bombing and other such sledgehammer tactics, the civilian deaths were large enough that they became just statistics. The outcry was not nearly as large as when nowadays, a modern, more precise (and way more expensive) weapon accidentally kills 5 people. A tragedy, to be sure, but far from a reason to condemn a military which is spending huge amounts of resources on minimizing civilian deaths.

 

OT:

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 what's wrong with us, it's what certain groups love to believe about us, and some European officer's plan (nothing against our European allies, everyone has a few dumb officers) to try and convince them there isn't anything wrong with us. Which unfortunately is a pointless plan that only makes people jump to the false conclusion you did, and may make soldiers hesitate a second longer under fire, resulting in their deaths. Thank god McChrystal squashed it before it got here. Hopefully some officer will do the same for the other coalition members.

[Drunkside]

It's not what's wrong with us, it's what certain groups love to believe about us, and some European officer's plan (nothing against our European allies, everyone has a few dumb officers) to try and convince them there isn't anything wrong with us. Which unfortunately is a pointless plan that only makes people jump to the false conclusion you did, and may make soldiers hesitate a second longer under fire, resulting in their deaths. Thank god McChrystal squashed it before it got here. Hopefully some officer will do the same for the other coalition members.

 

And there we go. I didnt directly say there was anything wrong with american troops, but anyone who has to be awarded for such.

 

And now i will say it: there is something very wrong with the recruitment methods the us army uses. Military service an option for jail? In my opinion thats crazy, you just teach criminals to be more effective. Thank the heavens the us army training program is of such basic level. You know, you cant even join the army here if you have something more severe on your criminal record than drunk driving. And we have compulsory military service.

[Tommycat]

And there we go. I didnt directly say there was anything wrong with american troops, but anyone who has to be awarded for such.

 

And now i will say it: there is something very wrong with the recruitment methods the us army uses. Military service an option for jail? In my opinion thats crazy, you just teach criminals to be more effective. Thank the heavens the us army training program is of such basic level. You know, you cant even join the army here if you have something more severe on your criminal record than drunk driving. And we have compulsory military service.

 

Um, you might actually TRY to learn the modern recruitment practices before you say it needs to change. The days of Jail or Service are long gone(actually gone since the late 80's early 90's). And good riddance. If I'm going to be in a fox hole with somebody, I'd rather be in that foxhole with someone who wanted to be there in the first place. There is a 2+year waiting list for the US Navy. Army won't even take prior military with an RE-4(sadly what I got, "Personality disorder" my a3). Drug use, criminal records and a host of other things disqualify one from military service. The Army USED to be more lenient. But not anymore. They only want the best.

[machievelli]

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.

 

A bit of probably unwelcome fact.

 

The man with the gun is a South Vietnamese Intelligence officer. They had captured a Viet Cong officer with intelligence they needed. He gave them the information with the usualy codicil you get in a case like that, you lie, you die.

 

The information was false. The reporter caught just the end, not the wounded from a bomb in the residence they had raided.

 

Under international law, a spy can be shot out of hand, you don't have to even have a trial. Being in full civilian gear makes you a spy, not a soldier, again, international law

[urluckyday]

A bit of probably unwelcome fact.

 

The man with the gun is a South Vietnamese Intelligence officer. They had captured a Viet Cong officer with intelligence they needed. He gave them the information with the usualy codicil you get in a case like that, you lie, you die.

 

The information was false. The reporter caught just the end, not the wounded from a bomb in the residence they had raided.

 

Under international law, a spy can be shot out of hand, you don't have to even havge a trial. Being in full civilian gear makes you a spy, not a soldier, again, international law

 

Too bad the mass public isn't smart enough to figure it out. To them, this is just a ruthless murder of a Vietnamese man who is unarmed and looks like a civilian. And once that idea is in the public's mind...there's no stopping it.

[Liverandbacon]

And there we go. I didnt directly say there was anything wrong with american troops, but anyone who has to be awarded for such.

 

And now i will say it: there is something very wrong with the recruitment methods the us army uses. Military service an option for jail? In my opinion thats crazy, you just teach criminals to be more effective. Thank the heavens the us army training program is of such basic level. You know, you cant even join the army here if you have something more severe on your criminal record than drunk driving. And we have compulsory military service.

 

Since you're not from the US, I'll let that misconception slide. Jail or the military is long gone. Nowadays, you need to go through a fairly tough process to get a "moral waiver" for things as minor as having been caught smoking weed once as a kid. EDIT: Just saw that tommycat already addressed this... sorry for double teaming you.

 

Also, I'd like to know where you get the idea that the US army's training is "of such basic level". Soldiers get taught what they will need to do. If any country is sending a decidedly non-combat MOS, such as say, 60K: urologist, to high level programs like MFF school or Ranger school, they're wasting money. There are flaws in the training program, yes, but no more than in 99% of other countries.

[machievelli]

Too bad the mass public isn't smart enough to figure it out. To them, this is just a ruthless murder of a Vietnamese man who is unarmed and looks like a civilian. And once that idea is in the public's mind...there's no stopping it.

 

One of the most famous quotes from the Vietnam Era came from our good Friend Peter Arnett.

 

A North Vietnamese attack hit a regional capitol, and devestated it. A small force of South Vietnamese troops supported by a few dozen Americans slowed them enough that help could arrive.

 

Afterward, an American Air Force Lieutenant Colonel commented, "It was a nice town, a pity they destroyed it'.

 

That became the infamous, 'We destroyed the village to save it'.

 

Why do you think Arnett published it, and everyone touts it as proof of American perfidy?

 

By the same token, why do you think that every reporter except Arnett was thrown out of Iraq during the Gulf War?

 

As for the Medal the thread is about, give me a break. In the US MIlitary there are already two medals of the same sort, though only one can be won by anyone below officer rank.

 

The first is a Good Conduct Medal, which is given if you have never had a disciplinary action during your tour of service. The other is the Staff Officer's medal, which is given if you went through two years of Staff officer duty without being brought up on charges, been arrested for a crime such as drunk and disorderly, or been caught shtupping a General's daughter without his consent.

 

Give a medal for not doing something? You don't send military trained troops to be cops.

[urluckyday]

Saw this on World News Tonight a few days ago...

 

clicky

 

I think situations like this is where this kind of medal would be due. The pilot should get a medal for getting the job done and protecting the troops on the ground while making the hard choice to not just drop his payload and ensure the troops would be secure while accepting the consequences of destroying the school or killing people inside. He made the choice to strafe the enemy not only once but strafing a second time as the enemy closed in on troops...he put the ground forces in harms way, but he did his job the way it was meant to be done by trusting his instincts and avoiding collateral damage.

[machievelli]

Saw this on World News Tonight a few days ago...

 

clicky

 

I think situations like this is where this kind of medal would be due. The pilot should get a medal for getting the job done and protecting the troops on the ground while making the hard choice to not just drop his payload and ensure the troops would be secure while accepting the consequences of destroying the school or killing people inside. He made the choice to strafe the enemy not only once but strafing a second time as the enemy closed in on troops...he put the ground forces in harms way, but he did his job the way it was meant to be done by trusting his instincts and avoiding collateral damage.

 

Having watched the video, I agree he was the master of restraint. However telling a soldier 'your were right' it this situation is not something you give him a medal for. His job it to eliminate the enemy. We cannot train in some cases for years to assure a perfect meshing between ground controllers and aircrews, then throw in 'oh but don't hit that' on top of it. We now expect a man (Or woman) to react not in the drawn out time of hindsight, but in split seconds to a possible threat.

 

You have to remember that the pilot in that video had maybe two seconds to make his determination, where as any detractor had minutes if not hours to ake his 'I am so much better' determination.

 

The problem with hindsight is that you have all the advantages the man on the scene did not; you have plenty of time to determine every possible rammification before your finger pulls the launch button, unlike the poor bastard on the front line.

 

By that token, the Sergeant at the Warsaw Ghetto who was tried for refusing to simply execute Jewish prisoners after they had surrendered deserves a Nobel prize.

[True_Avery]

I look at it like any other career choice. A plumber is supposed to replace a pipe, but upon inspection discovers that removing that pipe would over pressurize another and cause damage, so he goes beyond his orders to insure he can get that original pipe fixed without damage to the house.

 

Another example would be a police officer if given a lethal force permission, enters a house, but gets an unarmed man to the ground without needing to use the force, or talking a man down to dropping his gun, or something else that is expected of someone of his uniform, but doesn't exactly coincide with his initial orders.

 

Its a job that, currently, you sign up for and do your job to get your paycheck. Going beyond that line of duty to save one leaky pipe to replace a broken one isn't really in line for a raise or medal; just a pat on the back and the earning of your check at the end of the month.

 

Sorry if that sounds a little anti-military of me and speaking of ignorance (which I am), but just sayin that a lot of this, as a few people seem to be saying, just seems to be due course for the job.

[urluckyday]

Having watched the video, I agree he was the master of restraint. However telling a soldier 'your were right' it this situation is not something you give him a medal for. His job it to eliminate the enemy. We cannot train in some cases for years to assure a perfect meshing between ground controllers and aircrews, then throw in 'oh but don't hit that' on top of it. We now expect a man (Or woman) to react not in the drawn out time of hindsight, but in split seconds to a possible threat.

 

You have to remember that the pilot in that video had maybe two seconds to make his determination, where as any detractor had minutes if not hours to ake his 'I am so much better' determination.

 

The problem with hindsight is that you have all the advantages the man on the scene did not; you have plenty of time to determine every possible rammification before your finger pulls the launch button, unlike the poor bastard on the front line.

 

At that point, however, the lives of those French soldiers are in the hands of the pilots. If they decide not to drop the bomb, and the soldiers die because of it, they are ultimately at fault...I think they went above and beyond normal duty in order to both protect friendlies as well as civilians...idk everything about how the military works, but I would assume it'd be a judgment call for the one holding the weapons...

 

Just my thoughts.

[True_Avery]

At that point, however, the lives of those French soldiers are in the hands of the pilots. If they decide not to drop the bomb, and the soldiers die because of it, they are ultimately at fault...I think they went above and beyond normal duty in order to both protect friendlies as well as civilians...idk everything about how the military works, but I would assume it'd be a judgment call for the one holding the weapons...

Sounds less heroic when you break down it down to a gamble. By not dropping his payload and following orders and instead going on a strafing run he is doing exactly that; not following orders. Now, understandably, judgment calls need to be made on a changing situation and need to be made quick but his gamble could have just as easily cost the lives of all the friendlies on the ground. Then he doesn't go home a hero, but has to answer to his superiors on the lives of people that were supposed to be in his hand.

 

This inverse of this situation was actually quite recently seen in the shootout by the guys who made the judgment call that troops were carrying RPGs. There was a fight nearby, they saw suspicious looking equipment and so they decided to fire. In the crossfire, both enemies and civies went down and now there has been some answering to for the many different stories, sides, slants, and so on. On the offchance that they were completely right and no civies were harmed, that entire situation would be similar to these guys.

 

This medal is not a medal for "doing nothing", or not following orders, or what have you. It is a medal that rewards gambles that pay off well. That is not to say that it is very awesome when a gamble works for everyone, but judgment calls are apart of their job description. Sure, you can hold fire to help people, but it doesn't look nearly as good when your held fire costs friendly lives. If this guy had held fire and those in his group were killed he would be held for insubordination and taken to court. That is just an ignorant exaggeration on my part, but you get my point.

 

Its like... hmm...

 

Its like, you hit some rocks on a wet road. You lose control of the car. To your left there is a dirty incline and bushes/trees at the bottom, and to the right there is a rocky cliff-face and slants upwards. You have roughly half a second to make a snap decision on which way to turn before all control is lost. Right, or left?

 

When I crashed my car in this exact situation two months back, I chose right and spun my car into the rock face. It climbed up the face for a moment and crashed, hard, upside down on the road. I got out pretty much fine, but upon inspection of the car a day later I realized that the entire passenger side had crushed pretty much down to the seat, but the driver had stayed fairly high, which is why I didn't sustain much of any injury.

 

That was a judgment call on my part made in a second. I got out OK, but if I had a passenger they would have most likely died, and then I'd have to ask what would have happened if I had gone down the incline and if I could have stopped the car before reaching the trees. Chances are I could have upon retrospect. I got out alright but, seeing the passenger seat, a fall a little more evenly on the top and I may have killed myself.

 

Point is, calls similar (not really similar, but its the closest I can relate) are made by troops all the time. They are trained for it. It is a game of chance, and while a sigh of relief is in order when a gamble goes right... you get my drift.

[Tommycat]

Sorry if that sounds a little anti-military of me and speaking of ignorance (which I am), but just sayin that a lot of this, as a few people seem to be saying, just seems to be due course for the job.

 

Actually, it's not anti-military in the least. Those of us who have served know full well that protecting civilians is just part of the job. Sure the ultimate goal is to take out the enemy, but it's in our SOP(standard Operating Procedures) to avoid civilian casualties at all costs. News reports don't cover things like us not bombing a suspected insurgent site because there is a chance there might be children inside(how could they, "Today, fifty suspected insurgent sites were not bombed...."). Those kinds of judgment calls are made far more often than the calls to open fire.

 

And Avery, you are very correct in that a judgment call if it went wrong(ie the pilot was in the wrong and the ground troops were killed). The pilot must then face a Court Martial where he can lose rank, money, his job as a pilot(permanently grounded) or even serve time breaking big rocks into little rocks at Ft Leavenworth. He was lucky in his call, however he most likely quickly assessed the situation and decided that there was less to be lost by strafing runs rather than the risk he might have faced had he released his payload. It's what we're trained to do. It's what a good pilot would do.

 

It IS just part of the job. Just like a police officer can't just wholesale fire his gun into a crowd of people, neither can soldiers. They hold fire more often than they open fire. Just part of the job.

[urluckyday]

Sounds less heroic when you break down it down to a gamble. The guy could have still dropped the bomb on orders, and being that he took orders the ones that may get the brunt of the trouble would be the ones who gave that order, not counting the occasional corrupt superior who'd move blame.

 

In this case they weren't disobeying orders; rather, they denied a request by an allied officer who they did not answer to directly. I feel like it's almost more heroic because they put the faith in their ability to stop the enemy by using a maneuver that requires more precision and concentration than just pressing a button to drop a bomb. By doing so, they also saved a school and possibly civilian lives.

 

This might beg the question, though...what makes a hero? Aren't heroes made when they take a gamble?

[True_Avery]

Aren't heroes made when they take a gamble?

You still need to "win" the gamble. You can gamble a hundred dollars at a casino, but you don't get a medal if you lose it all in a game of poker. As Tommy said, you mess up on a judgment call and there is plenty waiting for you back at base if you survive.

[Totenkopf]

In this case they weren't disobeying orders; rather, they denied a request by an allied officer who they did not answer to directly. I feel like it's almost more heroic because they put the faith in their ability to stop the enemy by using a maneuver that requires more precision and concentration than just pressing a button to drop a bomb. By doing so, they also saved a school and possibly civilian lives.

 

This might beg the question, though...what makes a hero? Aren't heroes made when they take a gamble?

 

I'd say that esp given the man's rank and knowledge about the effects of a GBU38, it wasn't heroics on display, but prudence. As to what constitutes a heroic display, that is likely something of a judgement call. It many times involves putting oneself in dire circumstances specifically to try to save fellow soldiers (dropping on a grenade, drawing enemy fire to take pressure off fellow soldiers, rescuing a comrade under fire, etc..) In the case of someone like Sgt York in WW1, flanking and successfully capturing many enemy troops all/mostly by himself. It's likely that for every man that gets a medal (Bronze Star and up) for courageous acts in a combat zone, there are likely several/many more who don't for any number of reasons.

[machievelli]

I'd say that esp given the man's rank and knowledge about the effects of a GBU38, it wasn't heroics on display, but prudence. As to what constitutes a heroic display, that is likely something of a judgement call. It many times involves putting oneself in dire circumstances specifically to try to save fellow soldiers (dropping on a grenade, drawing enemy fire to take pressure off fellow soldiers, rescuing a comrade under fire, etc..) In the case of someone like Sgt York in WW1, flanking and successfully capturing many enemy troops all/mostly by himself. It's likely that for every man that gets a medal (Bronze Star and up) for courageous acts in a combat zone, there are likely several/many more who don't for any number of reasons.

 

Every man who has ever one the more valorous medals, Medal of honor, Distinguished Service Cross, Victoria Cross, all say pretty much the same thing. "It had to be done, so I did'. One man who was graced with the CMO was also deined something even simpler. Rodger Young, a National guardsman from Ohio who served during WWII, had requested a demotion from sergeant to private. He had poor eye sight and his request was because he did not feel it would be safe for his men if they depended on him reacting in an emergency.

 

On New Georgia after being wounded by machinegun fire, he signaled his platoon to wait, and crawled toward it until able to engage with hand grenades. He was wounded according to witnesses four more times, the last time being killed.

 

Yet this man was denied a posthumous promotion back to Sergeant because he had to have been busted to private for some offense. A backhanded slap at a hero.

 

 

The other thing most medal winners will never explain is what was going through their minds.

[Totenkopf]

Didn't realize the guy had been a sergeant. Saw a pic of him at that rank, but thought he'd only been a private (ie, never higher than). Interesting sidebar.

[urluckyday]

"It had to be done, so I did'.

 

I think this is exactly what this pilot would say.

 

I'd say that esp given the man's rank and knowledge about the effects of a GBU38, it wasn't heroics on display, but prudence.

 

I don't discern between the two. If we're taking Avery's approach...he was putting a lot on the line (his reputation, possibly rank, and most importantly the lives of others). I highly doubt anyone would question his integrity if he had dropped the bomb and ended up destroying the school because he accomplished the mission by killing or diverting the insurgents thus saving the ground troops. I think in this sense, he is most definitely a "hero." He not only accomplished his mission by helping the troops, but he also ensured the safety of school/students/teachers.

 

I do think that you have to gamble to be a hero because there's no going back after you make the decision to risk it all...and I think that this pilot did risk everything but his own life (which isn't always a necessary quality in my mind).

 

I mean...I consider most people in the military "heroes" just because of what they stand for, but that's me.

[Totenkopf]

By putting their lives on the line, most people in the military (esp the combat arms) are heroes in a generic sense. Many "heroes" (ie medal winners) are often somewhat disdainful of their medals (ie, their motivation was NOT to win a medal, but to do their job as best as possible). I think the Colonel showed good judgement under the circumstances, but he would likely say that his actions didn't merit special recognition. He acted honorably. Had there been heavy enemy fire coming from the school, he very likely would have delivered the ordinance on target.

[Tommycat]

Lets face it, what makes a person a hero isn't the medals. It's in the knowledge that they did right. A hero doesn't need recognition for what they did. Generally a "Thank you" is all they need.

 

On that note: A hearty Thank you to all those who are serving and have served to protect liberty.

[urluckyday]

A hearty Thank you to all those who are serving and have served to protect liberty.

 

Amen.

[Ctrl Alt Del]

The last paragraph of the article is pretty much why I think this medal has been issued:

 

According to the United Nations, more than 2,400 civilians were killed last year, although estimates vary widely. From March 21 to April 21, 173 civilians were killed in Afghanistan — a 33 percent increase over the same period the previous year — according to the Associated Press, citing Afghan Interior Ministry figures.

 

To me, they're doing whatever is possible to minimize those nefarious statistics.