MOH - only for the dead?

[nuke41]

OK, this is sure to spark some controversy, but here goes. One things that been bothering me is that DoD only seems to award the Medal of Honor posthumously for actions since Vietnam. Don't get me wrong, all those that have been awarded it post-Vietnam SURELY deserved it, but haven't we had any actions from living soldiers that could have merited the award of the MOH? I came into the military in the mid 80s, and we had several MOH recipients still on active duty, I met a few, and several more that were retired. Meeting those guys and seeing them still walking around in uniform was an inspiration. Granted, the type of performance required to earn the MOH often results in death, and a very high percentage in the past were posthumous, but with everything that has happened since 9/11 no military member has performed an act meriting the MOH and lived to tell the tale? Is it because the MOH has attained such mythic status that we cant give one to a living military member? The previous post on the Seals funeral that earned the MOH was very touching, but our young troops today should also be able to listen to a living recipient, share a beer with them after duty, or get mentoring from them as a supervisor. I'm not saying decrease the MOH award standards, I'm just wondering if we've raised the bar so high that we'll never see another living MOH recipient? Any thoughts?

[IMPERIAL QUEST]

I think what we are witnessing in the award of the Medal of Honor is a steadily progression of "raising the bar" that seems to redefine itself within the parameters/scope of each new conflict. I can't help but think that when the medal is finally authorized, the current act of valor has been compared on some level to previous actions. Almost as if each award is held to a higher degree of accomplishment, feat, and valor. During the Civil War, the medal was passed out rather freely at times for actions that, compared to modern awards, did indeed NOT rise to the level of valorous acts of WW I, II and so on. I remember reading about stories early into WW II where a service member was awarded the MOH, but late in the war a comporable action would be rewarded with the Silver Star or DSC, simply because these acts of valor became almost common place. This measure was taken to preserve the integrity of the award.

 

All of that being said, now, the awarding seems to be operating in the reverse order of previous conflicts. Perhaps the reasoning is that since there have already been Posthumus awards made at the outset, an award to a living candidate would in some way lessen the sacrifice of the dead recepients. Just thinking out loud here....

[ww2vault]

Hmmm, a very interesting topic. Even though the ultimate sacrifice is giving your life in service, and certainly does merit a MOH, I think some actions by living soldiers are just as equally deserving as well. So to answer your post, yes, I think the bar on awarding the MOH should be lowered some what.

 

- Jeff

[Teamski]

This isn't any different than those awarded the Victorian Cross. The vast majority of those awardees died as a result of the action that merited the medal. I remember reading an article on this very subject in regards to the VC, so the subject isn't new. I think the US is just keeping the award of the MOH to a high standard.

 

-Ski

[nuke41]

I think the US is just keeping the award of the MOH to a high standard.

 

-Ski

 

I agree, but is the standard so high that it can no longer be awared to a living person? Think of Murphy, York, and all those others, would their impact have been the same if their medal had been pinned to a casket?

[Teamski]

I agree, but is the standard so high that it can no longer be awared to a living person? Think of Murphy, York, and all those others, would their impact have been the same if their medal had been pinned to a casket?

 

Don't forget that the sheer numbers of troops in action when those guys were awarded their medals change things significantly to the small, limited wars we are seeing today. You are probably right, a soldier may most likely die in an action to get the MOH in today's service. Is it wrong? I don't necessarily think so. Check out the awards of the VC and you will see that it was always at a high cost.

 

-Ski

[Rattle]

Don't forget that the sheer numbers of troops in action when those guys were awarded their medals change things significantly to the small, limited wars we are seeing today. You are probably right, a soldier may most likely die in an action to get the MOH in today's service. Is it wrong? I don't necessarily think so. Check out the awards of the VC and you will see that it was always at a high cost.

 

-Ski

 

But at least one VC was awarded in the Iraq war to a still living soldier, Private Johnson Beharry, 25,

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4358921.stm

 

Regards,

Stephan

[Teamski]

But at least one VC was awarded in the Iraq war to a still living soldier, Private Johnson Beharry, 25,

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4358921.stm

 

Regards,

Stephan

[Ricardo]

Hi,

 

In advantage the topic, please which is the more decorated American soldier in service today?

 

Best regards,

 

Ricardo.

[nuke41]

Hi,

 

In advantage the topic, please which is the more decorated American soldier in service today?

 

Best regards,

 

Ricardo.

 

Outside of the MOHs awarded there have been a couple of Air Force and Navy Crosses and DFCs, but I dont know that anyone has been identified as the "most decorated" soldier like Murphy was at the end of WWII.

[lastpost]

The MOH has been an area if fascination to me for quite a while – after having seen a photograph of Tom Custer wearing two which he received during the American Civil War.

 

I too have noticed this trend towards making getting oneself killed in action a necessary criteria for being awarded the MOH. This whole mindset seems a bit off kilter to me.

 

Let me post the following example to make my point. Here is a report (many of you may have seen it already) of the award of the Navy Cross to Marine Capt. Brian R. Chontosh for an action in Iraq, 2004:

 

While leading his platoon north on Highway 1 toward Ad Diwaniyah, Chontosh's platoon moved into a coordinated ambush of mortars, rocket propelled grenades and automatic weapons fire. With coalitions tanks blocking the road ahead, he realized his platoon was caught in a kill zone.

 

He had his driver move the vehicle through a breach along his flank, where he was immediately taken under fire from an entrenched machine gun.

 

Without hesitation, Chontosh ordered the driver to advance directly at the enemy position enabling his .50 caliber machine gunner to silence the enemy. He then directed his driver into the enemy trench, where he exited his vehicle and began to clear the trench with an M16A2 service rifle and 9 millimeter pistol. His ammunition depleted, Chontosh, with complete disregard for his safety, twice picked up discarded enemy rifles and continued his ferocious attack. When a Marine following him found an enemy rocket propelled grenade launcher, Chontosh used it to destroy yet another group of enemy soldiers.

 

When his audacious attack ended, he had cleared over 200 meters of the enemy trench, killing more than 20 enemy soldiers and wounding several others.

 

In my mind that kind of action would have resulted in Chontosh being awarded the MOH during WWI, WII. Or Korea. I have a feeling that if he had had the misfortune of being killed as the result he his incredible heroics he would have been recommended for the MOH but instead he received the Navy Cross.

 

The question is does being KIA really make an action more heroic than if that same person survives happens to survive? Ask anyone who has been in combat and they will tell you that aside from those who die as a result of their own stupidity getting killed is pretty much luck of the draw. One guy lives and the other guy does not. Chrontosh could easily been killed but survived and I bet he could not tell any of us why other than perhaps by the grace of God. Did he do less because he did not get hit by that random bullet?

 

True in many cases the awarding of a MOH has been the result of the conscious act of supreme sacrifice by a soldier such as the throwing of oneself onto a live grenade to save those around him. But just as many have been awarded to soldiers who simply acted at a specific moment. Many heroes will tell you that they had no idea what they were doing when the became a “hero” it just happened spontaneously.

 

I truly believe that there should be room for the living on the rolls of the MOH. This country need heroes – living ones too.

 

Would U.S. Army sergeants Gordon and Shughart (awarded the MOH posthumously for their part in the “Blackhawk Down” incident in Somalia) have felt slighted knowing that Chrontosh had received the MOH? Somehow I think not. They probably would have shaken his hand and said well done.

[nuke41]

This country need heroes – living ones too.

 

Amen! My point exactly.

[Teamski]

Well stated. You make a very good point.

 

-Ski

[doyler]

This thread reminds me of a Marine who was recommended for the MoH and then it was down graded.He was originally from Iowa.He was wounded several times during the course of this action and his actions saved the lives of several commrads.If I remember correctly he was down to defending the position with his sidearm....9mm Berretta.

 

I agree with last post.We need heros that are living.All the men/women in uniform serving are heros.All the ones who made the trip of the ultimate sacrifice are heros.I can remember the old news reels and documentaries where the MoH reciepients were out on bond tours and drumming up support for the war.Believe it or not even in WW2 the patriaotism was wanning toward the end of the war.Why are these new heros not being presented in public and honored?

 

I think for some reason the criteria has fallen under some sort of politics.Is it the political correct crowd not wanting to put these heros up and on public display for fear of the country looking like as a whole we are glorifing the war on terror by honoring our heros?Someone some place has to decide to down grade or deny the award.The answer is out there.I think I will email our congress men and or state reps and see if they have an answer why these heros are not being awarded what I feel is warrented and has meet the criteria for which other awards were presented in previous conflicts and wars.

 

Thanks for letting me rant.This has bothered me for a long time.

 

RON

[nuke41]

Someone some place has to decide to down grade or deny the award.The answer is out there.

 

The obvious freedom of information act request is; how many MOH recommendations have been made since 9/11? That would be followed up with "what happened to the ones that werent approved and why?".

[J_Andrews]

Two cents:

 

First cent: I do not recall who, but someone once told me that a general criterion for award of the MOH instead of something lower in the pecking order was: Did the potential recipient have any expectation of NOT dying? And, was he accepting death in order to complete the mission and/or save other soldiers?

 

Second cent: In VN, I heard that the Army wanted fewer MOHs to go to survivors because some many of the WWII and Korean recipients had stayed in the service and never done anything good again, with many being non-productive alcoholics who got promotions simply because of the MOH. At the time, this sounded like sour-grapes.

 

If you think the citations for MOHs make stirring reading, find some for DSCs (any war). Finding one that makes you wonder why it wasn't an MOH ain't hard.

[willysmb44]

Funny, I brought this exact point up on another forum recently and pretty much got called a traitor for it! Some folks think of it as lowering the bar. That could be, but I wonder if it is instead "raising the bar higher than it ever was before." I really wonder if Somalia set a terrible precedent. After that, I'm not sure if anyone wanted to be the one to put a "live" hero up front. I looked around and couldn't find a reference to anyone who has yet been put in for the award who is still alive. That doesn't mean nobody has started the process or it got denied at a lower level. I think there's a pressure on unit commanders to not even attempt this unless the person is question practically walks on water. Consider the pressure of putting someone in for this and later find out they abused their kids or went nuts after they got home (or worse of all, became an outspoken opponent of the current war)? I can't help but wonder if the military is considering all these things right now. I know when I was active duty, I put in several of my soldiers in for various awards only to have them booted back or downgraded because the higher level command didn't think it looked "good enough." I found out a long time after the fact that I had been put in for a medal for something that happened to me as a 2LT and the commander of the unit I was under at the time was quoted as saying, "I'm not starting him out in his career with a medal. He needs to pay his dues first!" Well, at least we can say for certain that the current military isn't "manufacturing" heroes and awarding the medal for headlines.

WW2 isn't a good comparison in all of this. I think most folks would have to agree that early in the war, you'd get a MoH for things that later in the war would have gotten you a silver star (if that). Go read the exploits of Colin Kelly and ask yourself would he have gotten one if he'd been shot down at the end of war instead of right at the beginning when America needed "heroes" badly? There were also "political" awards and limitations on the medal in some campaigns. For example, each division at Normandy was allowed to submit ONLY ONE MoH recommendation. Does anyone here think that was fair? How about the one awarded to BG Theodore Roosevelt Jr for telling his men to move inland on Utah Beach? What the heck ELSE was he going to do? Can anyone here say that was more deserved than probably several of his Division's men in that fight inland? I've also read that there was push to give medals to people from the same home state (home towns were even better) as a Division Commander. I'm sure it happened from time to time.

I asked a WW2 awardee two years ago what he felt about the current medal criteria. He agreed that it seemed odd to him that no living person had at that time even been put in for a MoH at that point.

[doyler]

Here is the link to a small artical on Sgt.Mitchell,USMC.The man I reffered to in an earlier post

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1674141/posts

 

RON

[kphfun]

Outside of the MOHs awarded there have been a couple of Air Force and Navy Crosses and DFCs, but I dont know that anyone has been identified as the "most decorated" soldier like Murphy was at the end of WWII.

Col. Daved Hackworth had a pretty big collection if i recall right. I miss the Hack!

[Mr-X]

Col Robert L. Howard may be the most highly decorated living US Soldier, but I am not sure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_L._Howard

[gecko NZ]

Check out the awards of the VC and you will see that it was always at a high cost.

 

i cant confirm it cause i cant find it on the net but to get the VC you have to be in a situation where there is something like a 90% chance of you being killed, a New Zealander of the NZ SAS earned it in Afghanistan in 2004 but was awarded it in 2007 (because of the mission being SAS related) what a moral booster, our whole country seemed to be behind him and happy that he was a Kiwi, so i can see why it would be good to have a MOH awarded to a living vet.

[TJM]

I do not recall his name, but I do remember meeting an Infantry Colonel in 1986 at the DCSOPS Christmas party who won the MOH -- quite a site seeing the medal around the neck of someone in Mess Dress. He received it while a Captain for calling artillery on his location when being overrun by VC. He was very much alive at the time.

[Brig]

I definately think some living members should have received it. SgtMaj Kassel, for one, who received the Navy Cross

 

I believe we are raising the standards. I know the Marine Corps is. The Bronze Star without the V has even become practically a combat valor away, and the Silver Star is rarely awarded. I know the Army still awards Bronze Stars without V's for meritorious service, I saw 42 awarded to Army personnel during my first tour. To every Staff NCO with their task force and higher, and a few below. Excessive? Maybe. But I know in the Marine Corps, the view of it being awarded like that creates a feeling that the Army has lost value for the award. Or have the standards just been raised so much that that's the view it currently creates?

 

It's the same of all awards. Even in the Marine Infantry, the Navy & Marine Corps Achievement Medal is getting harder and harder to get. I know some stellar Grunts who have been in around 10 years who are yet to receive one, though they litterally have a stack of Meritorious Masts and Certificates of Commendation

 

Even the Combat Action Ribbon has gotten harder to earn the last few years, after they handed it out a bit too readily for the invasion. I know that one from experience

[lastpost]

The whole idea of posthumous only MOH’s seems really bizarre to me. Please anyone feel free to correct me on this point but was there any provision for the awarding of the MOH posthumously when it was first created during the American Civil War?

 

The Brits had been going through this very same dilemma recently with the Victoria Cross. I read in more that a few places the concern that the Medal was becoming a medal for the dead. The criteria for the medal being raised to the point that it could not be earned unless the potential recipient was dead. This was a very odd situation considering that fact that when the Cross was instituted by Royal Warrant under Queen Victoria in 1856 there was absolutely no provision for the awarding of the Cross posthumously. In any such case a mention was made in the London Gazette stating simply that he “would have been recommended for the Victoria Cross had he lived”.

 

The criteria for the Cross states: ”... most conspicuous bravery, or some daring or pre-eminent act of valour or self-sacrifice, or extreme devotion to duty in the presence of the enemy.” You will notice the both words “valour or self-sacrifice” and not just self-sacrifice.

 

The Brits to there are hopefully going about to rectify this growing aberration and have seen fit the begin awarding the Cross to soldiers who have survived their ordeals. New Zealand also recently awarded a Cross to a living member of their forces.

 

President Theodore Roosevelt issued an executive order in 1905 that stated that the recipient "will, when practicable, be ordered to Washington, D.C., and the presentation will be made by the President, as Commander-in-Chief, or by such representative as the President may designate." This seems hardly to infer that said recipient would be anything other than alive at the time.

 

The MOH criteria states that it is bestowed on a member of the United States armed forces who distinguishes himself "…conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States…". The emphasis is mine but it does clearly state “at the risk of his life” not the giving of his life. Clearly the medal was intended for bestowal upon living recipients.

[nuke41]

I do not recall his name, but I do remember meeting an Infantry Colonel in 1986 at the DCSOPS Christmas party who won the MOH -- quite a site seeing the medal around the neck of someone in Mess Dress. He received it while a Captain for calling artillery on his location when being overrun by VC. He was very much alive at the time.

 

I too remember meeting Vietnam era MOH winners on active duty when I came into the service in the mid 80s. To bad our young troops will never see the same sight at one of their Xmas parties.