Jump to content

Drone pilots to get medals


12A54
 Share

Recommended Posts

You'd rather that crew got the UAV-medal than a DFC? Really?

 

In a way, yes. Who knows, in 15 years there might even be a valor device authorized.

Something else as I just read over the criteria for the DFC is that part of that criteria for the award is that the individual was actually "participating in aerial flight". Of course that term could be subjective but it otherwise sounds pretty explicit.

As far as the link, a lot has been made during this thread about WHERE the UAV operators were actually located, primarily stateside or out of theater but this squadron is right there in country and probably under the command of a rated pilot who could actually fly the aircraft if necessary.

 

I see your point now, but are we going to institute a new award for remotely-piloting a UAV from out-of-theater, and then use the current award system for tactical UAV pilots who are in-theater, but far away from the action? If not, what about the very-close UAV pilots at squad or platoon level? See how it gets hairy? (Don't forget your argument further on about subjectivity of award boards.)

 

Yes, it is but that is an example of the beginning of the recognition of what Space Command does. Today a campaign medal, tomorrow a "Deep Space Nine Medal {re: futuristic Air Medal or DFC}".

As far as being in~theater there are still currently established decorations that could be awarded for actual firing a rifle with one hand while jockeying the joystick with the other. Yeah, I'm caricaturing it but it wouldn't really be much different than an artillery unit under fire while lighting cannon fuses.

The hard part IS the subjectivity because that will vary with approving agency as it always has. One unit might figuratively be populated by Audie Murpheys while another under a different command is full of Sad Sacks though both perform equally well.

 

 

Let's grow this some more. This has spawned a really good debate about valor, what it means, and how we reward it. How about this question:

 

DOD has the new-ish "Cyber Command." A lot of folks here have expressed an opinion that valor includes a personal risk of bodily harm or death, andI totally understand that point of view. In fact, I might agree with that position, but I also recognize things are changing. Does anyone think the person who led the team who developed the stutsnet virus which attacked Iran's centrifuges deserves recognition? If so, what? Meritorious, valor, or do we need a new, third category? What if an operator at cyber command detects an electronic attack, stops/minimizes it, and identifies the attacker? Same question - What sort of honor to award there? Depending on the type of attack or how effective stutsnet was, these people could easily be saving hundreds of thousands of lives. Think an MSM covers that? How about a new "Distinguished eWarfare Cross" to rank between the DSC and DSM?

 

Maybe not so unrealistic since the Air Force has already begun to acknowledge the contribution of those who work in "Space, the final frontier": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_and_Space_Campaign_Medal

 

True, but that's a campaign medal. I'd like to hear your (or anyone's) answer to the questions I posed above. How would you recognize service at a level that saves hundreds of thousands, but involves no face-to-face interaction with an enemy? It's an important, and I think relevant, issue very similar/germane to the OP issue/question.

 

That's a tough one but maybe if we look backward to the Cold War where routine awards were given for not so routine jobs of sitting in missle silos or stalking the Bear while submerged for longer than I would care to be. The technology and enemy was different but the mission was the protection of the American people. Now, technology and conventional weapons are employed to attack more singular enemies who may have catastrophic mayhem in mind. Who knows, the Israelis may soon actually employ dozens of long range UAVs to deter a threat to them and others in their own region. Maybe this future isn't so far off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this Germain, he asked?

 

Depends on if you think there is a difference between being an assassin and being a member of the military put in to a war situation.

 

Remember somebody writing earlier in this string:

The Chicago mafia of the past would understand that point of view. What does that say for the CIA's drone operators? What does it say for the present state of affairs in America?

I'm still not sure how you're trying to associate this with the subject of this thread. Wasn't there more to that quote that really had to do with the stresses of the job and not what you seem to be characterizing as a group of murderers akin to the lawlessness of the Depression era?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps, in handing out medals, there should be a distinction between what a drone operator in direct command of the military who acts in direct support of troops on the ground does and what CIA commanded drone operatives do. Yet....all of the drone operators seem to be protected from any question by orders of the commander in chief. Other actual military people don't have that protection.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...scuers-pakistan

 

Similar things (to the article you linked) were promulgated by the anti-war press in Vietnam. I think the buzzword then was "atrocities." If we look back in history, this has happened since there's been warfare, typically (dare I say 'universally'?) by both/all sides of most conflicts. The interesting point here really, is that it's being done by remote-control via UAVs, which is germaine to our conversation, but remotely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No Glory ? No thrill of conquest and capture...no triumphal homecoming?

A war fought by machines... nothing decided....no valor... no man's manhood reaffirmed?

 

I'm glad I won't be around to see it !

 

Lieutenant General George S Patton late 1945

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No Glory ? No thrill of conquest and capture...no triumphal homecoming?

A war fought by machines... nothing decided....no valor... no man's manhood reaffirmed?

 

I'm glad I won't be around to see it !

 

Lieutenant General George S Patton late 1945

Prophetic only for him, sort of. The last real triumphal homecomings were in 1945 and wasn't Patton one of the earlier ones to foresake horses for armor? Please don't think I'm attacking your post just making note of the changes you are quoting of him. Jules Verne and others like him certainly envisioned, in the context of their era popular science fiction that no longer is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

88thcollector
I'm still not sure how you're trying to associate this with the subject of this thread. Wasn't there more to that quote that really had to do with the stresses of the job and not what you seem to be characterizing as a group of murderers akin to the lawlessness of the Depression era?

 

 

As the quoted one, I was in no way whatsoever trying to associate drone pilots with murderers or assassins. I have great respect for the pilots. Maybe because I never served in the military, I have no branch or unit prejudice and see this job differently. It looks like a horrible job to me. You watch a man or woman for days or weeks, almost get to know them and then kill them, often without actually seeing them perform a hostile act. I get the stress and burnout level.

 

I don't know if they deserve a valor medal but I can see the reason for something more than a qualification badge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

88thcollector
What, you don't know who is responsible for allowing the Enemy to move here and live, to immigrate here in very large numbers ?

 

 

Well,

 

It is probably not fair to blame President Bush for us being caught so off guard on 9/11. True, he did do all he could to throw open our borders so his agribusiness and construction pals could have an unlimited supply of cheap labor, thus allowing lots of bad guys to slip in also, including the 9/11 terrorists. True, he did blunder around in foreign policy and manage to turn most of the moslem world, even the few moderates that traditionally supported us, against us. True, he did make many blunders after 9/11 and allowed bin Laden to escape and continue to murder Americans.

Fortunately, the current President has tried to fix the mess he inherited, ordered bin L to be killed and launched an unprecedented assault on al Quaeda murderers all over the world. For the first time in a couple of decades we have been largely safe from terrorists attacks against civilians in the continental US, except, of course, from right wing white boys with far too many guns and bombs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it is but that is an example of the beginning of the recognition of what Space Command does. Today a campaign medal, tomorrow a "Deep Space Nine Medal {re: futuristic Air Medal or DFC}".

As far as being in~theater there are still currently established decorations that could be awarded for actual firing a rifle with one hand while jockeying the joystick with the other. Yeah, I'm caricaturing it but it wouldn't really be much different than an artillery unit under fire while lighting cannon fuses.

The hard part IS the subjectivity because that will vary with approving agency as it always has. One unit might figuratively be populated by Audie Murpheys while another under a different command is full of Sad Sacks though both perform equally well.

 

(Well, not to get side-tracked, but NASA already has a whole heirarchy of space flight medals, in case you weren't aware...)

 

But, to get back on track: See, that "Deep Space Nine" medal is a perfect example of how this will grow and grow out-of-hand, if unchecked. Soon there'll be 100 medals between the MoH and the Good Conduct medals. Outlandish? We're already at 36, 37 if you count the Combat Action Ribbon... We'll be at 38 if the "UAV-Cross" goes through.

 

In fact, personally, I think it's time we discontinue the DFC and AM. There's no reasonable justification for separating out performance in aerial flight any more. It's routine. Not only that, but where's the "Distinguished Undersea Cross" and "Submarine Medal" for the submariners?!? They are and have been (contemporaneously to the aviation community, mind you) doing just as dangerous of a job, in just as technologically-challenging and cutting-edge equipment, in just as challenging and remote of environments, but they weren't singled out for the amazing feats they accomplish in their environment with whole special categories of awards. (Granted, number 1, it's the Navy, and they under-award their people; number 2, it's the "silent service;" number 3, there was the "N" device for Nautilus' PUC and the "Globe" device for Triton's PUC.) But my point does show that these decorations for aerial flight are unnecessary, especially at this point in time. Re-write the criteria for the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, and MSM to include aerial flight whether valorous or meritorious (and while we're at, let's include remote-control so we can be done with this non-sensical new medal), and get everyone on a streamlined, logical awards system. (Get rid of that silly Aerial Achievement medal too, and fold it into the Commendation and Achievement medals.) One of the side-benefits of this -- Replacing the DFC with the Silver Star while expanding the Silver Star's criteria gets rid of the backlash of the "real pilots" not wanting the RC-plane video-game kids from getting "their" medal. Now, it's everyone's medal, to include pilots, ground-pounders, submariners, etc... No need for a "UAV Cross."

 

Perhaps that streamlining and logical approach might even lead to a situation where what service you are in doesn't effect your awards for same/similar service... While we're at it, let's get rid of the Def. Merit. Svc. Med. Who dreamt that dang thing up!?! All five services use the same MSM, so what does the DOD do? Cluster-bang everything up that was simple, streamlined and logical and say - "we have to have a different medal to show it was awarded for a joint command/unit/operation." Dumb! Same thing with the Def. Sup. Svc. Med. -- All the branches use the LoM! So can the Joint units/commands/DOD!!!!!!!! The Def. Dist. Svc. Med. could still be used, since every branch has their own Dist. Svc. Med., and it was certainly a problem with branches awarding one person their own medal for the same service, so that one actually makes sense, but it should still be a joint award, so only given for end-of-tour generals/admirals in Unified Commands or Chairman JCS. Yes, this is somewhat following the lead of the British a few years ago, but I wouldn't go as drastic as they did. I think the various services should have different Distinguished awards and Commendation medals.

 

This award situation should not be so subjective. A nice, logical, graduated system with clear criteria for all services would be best:

 

1) MoH - in a class by itself

 

2) Def. Dist., DSM, DSC, NC, NDSM - Valor and Merit at a level just below the MoH

 

3) Silver Star, Legion of Merit, & Lifesaving Medals - Valor, Merit, and lifesaving (at risk of one's own life) at the next level in the pyramid of honor

 

4) Bronze Star, MSM, & Purple Heart - Valor, Merit, and wounded-in-battle recognition at the fourth level

 

5) Various services' Commendation medals - Valor, Merit, and other suitable acts (such as: life-saving without risk to oneself)

 

6) Various services' Achievement medals - Valor, Merit, and other.

 

(Then, there are the "others" that lie here at the bottom of the heap, but still above the Good Conduct. Medals which don't fit neatly into the levels and which have generally been forgotten. Personally, I think the POW medal should rate up with the Bronze Star, possibly just above it - about equal to the Lifesaving Awards. If it was honorable service while you were a POW-and that IS a criteria for being awarded the medal-, it's worthy of a much higher place in the pyramid, IMO. Likewise the Combat Action Ribbon. It's the naval equivalent of a CIB, but I sympathize with the logic the Navy tries to infuse - that badges are for qualifications, not for awards, which is what ribbons/medals are for. Perhaps it should be changed to a full medal and moved up to just below the Bronze Star and above the Commendation Medal. Now, as far as the AF "Combat Readiness" medal. I can see the importance and effort to qualify for that award, but I think it fits more appropriately between the unit awards and the Good Conduct. Maybe not. It might be fine where it's at, below the Achievement medal, but above the Good Conduct. I'd have to go back and look at the criteria for it's award again to decide...)

 

 

 

That's a tough one but maybe if we look backward to the Cold War where routine awards were given for not so routine jobs of sitting in missle silos or stalking the Bear while submerged for longer than I would care to be. The technology and enemy was different but the mission was the protection of the American people. Now, technology and conventional weapons are employed to attack more singular enemies who may have catastrophic mayhem in mind. Who knows, the Israelis may soon actually employ dozens of long range UAVs to deter a threat to them and others in their own region. Maybe this future isn't so far off.

 

I agree, and just to be clear, my own - hidden until now - opinion, is that these are team efforts more often than not. In fact, I imagine it would be incredibly rare for a single individual to be responsible for writing code to conduct the attack like Stutsnet, or to single-handedly "catch" a mass-catastrophe cyber-attack. The correct award in these cases, IMO, is a unit award. BUT, I don't think we need a "Joint Cyber-Distinguished Unit" award either! :w00t:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How/Why are we dragging politics into a medal discussion? There are big philosophical issues to discuss, but not in the political arena. I know it's an election year, but I doubt any activity on here is going to effect the vote.

 

The real question is/should be - what do you think of the idea of a separate medal for UAV pilots?

 

I think if you want to have an internet fight, there's plenty to fight over just with that question. For example, I personally believe having a "separate-but-equal" decoration for unmanned a/c pilots is disparaging to their honor/credit/recognition. We don't have to go into the political ramifications of where and when it's right.

 

(Just to be clear, none of our opinions amount to beans about that question, anyway. Pseudo-military, para-military, and civilians have been part of combat forever as well, just as atrocities have happened... There were "spies" in the American Civil War, OSS in WWII, and Spooks in Vietnam. Whether you agree with their actions/existence/participation, just doesn't matter. They're going to happen... BUT, a new UAV-Cross does NOT have to happen! :o )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Courage and valor are synonyms. They mean exactly the same thing.

 

No. They don't. Valor carries with it an inherent exposure to extreme personal danger. In some scenarios, I can see a drone operator being courageous in applying very difficult and challenging decisions and skills - but he would not likely be exposed to a situation that required valor.

 

A general I once worked for defined courage as "a conscious decision not to quit", and valor as "a conscious decision not to quit when one's life is at risk". I think that captures the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to hear your (or anyone's) answer to the questions I posed above. How would you recognize service at a level that saves hundreds of thousands, but involves no face-to-face interaction with an enemy? It's an important, and I think relevant, issue very similar/germane to the OP issue/question.

Dwight Eisenhower commanded millions of men in combat in WWII. He did not lead directly from the front on the battlefield but he did make decisions every day that affected their lives, some of which saved thousands of lives and some of which ultimately cost thousands of lives on both sides. He probably carried more direct responsibility than any American in history, yet his chest was not filled with valor awards. During his career he received a Legion Of Merit, a Navy Distinguished Service Medal and five Army Distinguished Service Medals. If that was good enough for Ike, why is it not good enough for a UAV operator?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dwight Eisenhower commanded millions of men in combat in WWII. He did not lead directly from the front on the battlefield but he did make decisions every day that affected their lives, some of which saved thousands of lives and some of which ultimately cost thousands of lives on both sides. He probably carried more direct responsibility than any American in history, yet his chest was not filled with valor awards. During his career he received a Legion Of Merit, a Navy Distinguished Service Medal and five Army Distinguished Service Medals. If that was good enough for Ike, why is it not good enough for a UAV operator?

Thanks Sean, great analogy, I think! In the specific example I gave, it wasn't a UAV operator, but a Cyber Command scenario. Overall, I think I get the gist of your post though: great, tremendous contributions not in the face of personal danger deserve a meritorious award signifying the level of the service/contribution. So, answer this:

 

Lets' say intel. knew the target of the mass attack included the area where Cyber Command is located, and this information was shared with the e-soldier, and he decided to stay in the potential danger zone, even though the attack was imminent, because he knew his best chance of stopping the attack was with the equipment at his post.

 

Does that change the DSM to a DSC?

 

What if intel. knew it, but didn't tell the soldier, so he had no idea he was in personal danger?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is, imo, making much a-do about nothing. This is not to protect the DFC. It is to protect the egos of manned-aircraft pilots who have (or aspire to) the DFC and feel UAV crews are not worthy of an equal-status award. A similar argument was made in the Royal Navy about submariners in the 1900s-1930s - something along the lines that "sneaking in under the waves wasn't cricket," and so submariners were held in very low esteem. Sound similiar to today's US aerial jockeys and their disdain for "RC planes"?

 

I don't agree with your opinion. The difference between manned flights and UAVs is monumental. Manned flight actually involves real danger to the aviator, the same is not true in regards to the UAV operator. This has nothing to do with egos. Your submarine argument is also flawed because the submariners actually faced death. This discussion is more about the definition of courage and valor, and what should or should not be awarded as a combat award. Flying a UAV is an important job, and I think the operators need a specific award (other than the DFC or Air Medal) to document these special achievements. Just my opinion and I am sure your opinion is different. I however, respect your opinion and welcome the discussion.

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well,

 

It is probably not fair to blame President Bush for us being caught so off guard on 9/11. True, he did do all he could to throw open our borders so his agribusiness and construction pals could have an unlimited supply of cheap labor, thus allowing lots of bad guys to slip in also, including the 9/11 terrorists. True, he did blunder around in foreign policy and manage to turn most of the moslem world, even the few moderates that traditionally supported us, against us. True, he did make many blunders after 9/11 and allowed bin Laden to escape and continue to murder Americans.

Fortunately, the current President has tried to fix the mess he inherited, ordered bin L to be killed and launched an unprecedented assault on al Quaeda murderers all over the world. For the first time in a couple of decades we have been largely safe from terrorists attacks against civilians in the continental US, except, of course, from right wing white boys with far too many guns and bombs.

 

:lol2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree with your opinion. The difference between manned flights and UAVs is monumental. Manned flight actually involves real danger to the aviator, the same is not true in regards to the UAV operator. This has nothing to do with egos. Your submarine argument is also flawed because the submariners actually faced death. This discussion is more about the definition of courage and valor, and what should or should not be awarded as a combat award. Flying a UAV is an important job, and I think the operators need a specific award (other than the DFC or Air Medal) to document these special achievements. Just my opinion and I am sure your opinion is different. I however, respect your opinion and welcome the discussion.

 

Chris

 

I totally see your point, Chris, and I agree about that aspect of my submarine analogy, but what about the relationship that submariner's never had a separate 'undersea warfare cross'? As far as the differences between manned flight and unmanned, the real issue we're talking about is defining the difference between valor and merit. If you say there's no risk to the UAV pilot, why couldn't he/she just be awarded the LoM rather than a DFC or some new medal?

 

Why do we need a new UAV medal at all? In fact, do we really need a DFC at all? Couldn't valor be represented at this level by award of the Silver Star and merit be rewarded with a LoM? (And these would apply equally to everyone?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No disrespect meant to flyers, but the AF has a long tradition of giving awards to the "Flight suits' while ignoring the ground and support troops. I'm retired AF having retired in 2008. I have seen ground and support troops deserving of high awards, including myself that were looked past or ignored, in order to write another Bronze Star, Silver Star, Air Medal, Aerial Achievement Medal etc for the flyers. There were/are times that I felt that the name Air Force was appropriate due to all the awards given to the flyers. Sure you hear them preach it takes everyone working together to get the job done, but we know who the glory goes to.

 

I know personally of an admin troop that got the Bronze Star for working to get everyone deployed, getting paperwork done, dependants taken care of etc. In my case the actions that could have been written up as Bronze Star or Meritorious Service Medal, was left out and I was written an end of tour Commendation Medal. But hey I do got the 8x10 glossies of the incident to look back at, and remember that I did go above and beyond.

 

Do they need to make another medal for the UAV folks? No, just use one of the common canned medals to reward them for doing their job. The AF already has more medals, ribbons, awards then the other branches combined.

 

Awarding them Air Medals directly violates the requirements outlined for award of that medal. You'll never see a pax on a heavy that helps when it hits thet fan, get one awarded, so why do they feel they are entitled to be awarded one!

 

Okay I'll get off my soap-box now and go back to my "Lurker Corner" and be quiet now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

aerialbridge

An insult to combat pilots who put their actual asses on the line way up in the wild blue yonder, not sitting on the ground in front of a computer screen. Ridiculous to the nth degree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How has this horse managed to keep running? I suspect that no opinions will be changed.

Perhaps it is time to move onto another topic. I'm just saying.

 

You guys want drama, Google the status of the Briggs Cunningham 1960 Corvette Lemans #1 race car.

Now that is a mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is too good to resist: http://www.f-106deltadart.com/71fis_Pilotl...ding_580787.htm. So the brave pilot jumps from his supposedly stricken aircraft which then goes on it's merry way to a landing in a different cornfield than the pilot. The plane and pilot are both recovered and returned to duty and nothing is ever heard of the pilot again. Does that mean the pilot learned from his error or just never encountered another situation that required decisive action on his part?

Another incident I recall with a '106 driver who encountered engine problems so he flew faster to get back to the base quicker though the tech order called for retarding the engine to safer RPMs. Yep, you guessed it. The engine failed and the pilot had to jump out.

I have met a lot of stupid pilots in my time and am thankful I flew with any of them in a crew environment and others not at all. I accept that bravery and valorous acts are subjectively acknowledged. As the recipient of some of the decorations spoken of here I am completely satisfied that the proposed awards are appropriate and will go to those who deserve them. I wholeheartedly support the purpose behind this medal which is to maintain the integrity and distinction of those awards already existing while recognizing the vital & unique contribution to our fighting forces by these officers and NCOs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While those who operate Drones/UAVs do some great work, I do not feel that they deserve a seperate class of medals or combat related medals.

 

They should use the noncombat medals in existance. If the need really exists to set them apart, create a device/clasp for the merit based medals(Achievement, Commendation, and Meritorious Service Medals).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...