The Medal of Honor
Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, a Marine veteran who sits on the House Armed Services Committee, is leading an effort to loosen the standards being applied to the awarding of the Medal of Honor for combat in Afghanistan and Iraq. In an Oct. 4 letter to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Hunter argued that Medals of Honor are being denied in cases where they appear to be well-deserved and that the process of approving awards takes too long. He asked the Defense Department to conduct a review of hundreds of such cases. “Properly recognizing these actions through the awards process is not just important to the individuals involved, but it is also essential to upholding the tradition of the armed forces and inspiring others to step forward,” Hunter wrote.
Great: now we have an advocate for heroism inflation.
It is true that the Medal of Honor has been approved at a much lower rate for Afghanistan and Iraq combatants than in past wars. Only ten have been awarded, for a rate of approximately one per million troops in contrast to a 20th Century rate of 2.3-2.9 awards per 100,000. Nonetheless, the Defense Department says that its standards haven’t changed, and that the nature of modern combat and especially the conditions in the Middle East conflicts , where most casualties have come from IEDs rather than direct combat situations, limit the opportunities for traditional combat valor.
Hunter’s argument is well-meaning, but misguided. To use the numbers of awards to justify giving out more of them inevitably cheapens their value and meaning, harming past recipients as well as future ones. The military respects awards of valor, and has no reason to refuse to honor genuinely deserving soldiers. Political pressure like Duncan’s can have only one result, and that is to destroy the integrity of the Medal of Honor and the criteria for awarding it. Next: complaints that awards to not match the racial, ethnic and gender composition of combat troops, followed by quotas. At that point, the Medal of Honor becomes nothing but a piece of junk metal.
Rep. Duncan’s argument also becomes less persuasive the more he talks about it. On CNN this morning, goaded by a sympathetic host, he appeared to be arguing that combat conditions were more stressful and deserving of honors for the current wars than past ones. As a recent veteran, he has a right to his biases, but I’d like to hear him make that case to a veteran of the jungle fighting in Vietnam; or to survivors of the Battle of the Bulge, the beaches of Normandy, Wake Island or Guadalcanal in World War II; or gassing victims in the First World War; or participants in the hand-to-hand combat of the Civil War, when tens of thousands of soldiers were slaughtered in single battles.
Of course the honor, like all awards including military honors, is never going to be perfect. My father, a Silver Star (and Bronze Star) recipient during World War II, told me that certain officers were known for making excessive numbers of recommendations for medals of valor, and that indeed their troops received disproportionate decorations. He said that in many units the practice was to automatically kick down any recommended commendation to the next level: he had originally been recommended for a Congressional Medal of Honor, in fact. When I read the account of what he had done—repeatedly diving under water to attempt to rescue soldiers trapped in a submerged Jeep while being fired upon by German troops—I said that it sure seemed to me that he deserved one. “Nah,” Dad said. “That’s for the real heroes.”
Of course, all our men and women in combat are real heroes. And we honor them best by maintaining the integrity of awards designed for special heroism. Let the military decide on its standards, and stick to them.Once Congress starts getting involved in deciding who deserves the Medal of Honor, it will all be about politics, and honor will be lost.
[Note: I know I’ve been referencing my father a lot in recent posts, and I don’t really know why. It is coming up on two years since his sudden death, and I can’t seem to stop thinking about him; lately, everything reminds me of a conversation with him or some wisdom he imparted over the years. I apologize; this blog is not supposed to be about me, and I do not want to burden readers with my personal issues. I’m aware of the abuse, and I’ll deal with it. Thank you for your patience.]
Ethics Alarms 
We are all part of who we are from; I love hearing about your dad. Among other things, he is an integral part of who you are. Please don’t stop talking of him.
Jack, please don’t stop talking about your father. Examples from the real lives of people who have made a difference because of what they did and how they thought are always appropriate. You just happen to know about these because your experienced them first-hand. Primary sources — always better. Besides, I agree with what John said (above). You might not (probably wouldn’t?) have the perspective of high ethical sensitivity that you have were it not for his influence on you. Keep talking about him.
I second John’s comment. The personal commentary that you insert into your posts serve to humanize your blog, and you are abusing nothing and no one.
Jack there has been a growing movement for years in the military to look at how The Medal is awarded. The Marine Corps, which notorious for the low number of awards it issues, has been concerned that the standard by which the MOH is awarded has been raised by civilians to such a point that you have to die to get it, and sometimes not even then when every military commander up to and including the Commadant of the Marines Corps has signed off on it. And also the average combat soldier today sees is doing multiple tours and seeing more actual combat time then the veterans or previous wars.
By the way its not the military who has a problem awarding it , it the civilians. Duncan’s problem is with how the civilians in the chain of command are second guessing the military commanders. For an example see how Sec. Gates ignored the CMC’s reccomendation concerning Marine Sgt. Rafael Peralta’s MOH reccomedation after Sec. Gates added a board of review at his level that bad never been their before or since. Sgt. Rafael Peralta by all accounts deserved the MOH but was denied it by people who ignored all the reports and invesigations from the military commanders.
I’d like to echo John, Patrice, and Karl. You relayed input from your dad in the midst of an exchange you and I had several years ago. I don’t remember any details of the discussion, but the memory of a feeling of fondness for your dad remains with me. I hope you continue to share his input into your character.