"Courageous Restraint Medal"

[Bluehawk]

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/world/Me...s-93007014.html

 

Medal for 'courageous restraint' plan get mixed review from troops

By: Sara A. Carter

National Security Correspondent

May 7, 2010

 

 

A proposal to grant medals for "courageous restraint" to troops in Afghanistan who avoid deadly force at a risk to themselves has generated concern among U.S. soldiers and experts who worry it could embolden enemy fighters and confuse friendly forces.

 

Lt. Col. Edward Sholtis, a spokesman for Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who commands NATO forces in Afghanistan, said that no final decision has been made on the award, which is the brainchild of British Maj. Gen. Nick Carter.

 

"The idea is being reviewed at Headquarters ISAF," Sholtis said. "The idea is consistent with our approach. Our young men and women display remarkable courage every day, including situations where they refrain from using lethal force, even at risk to themselves, in order to prevent possible harm to civilians. ... That restraint is an act of discipline and courage not much different than those seen in combat actions."

 

However, professor Jeffrey F. Addicott, a former senior legal adviser to the Green Berets and director of the Center for Terrorism Law at St. Mary's University School of Law in San Antonio, said "It's an absolutely outrageous proposal to our fighting men.

 

"The implication of this award is that we do not engage in war fighting that is appropriate," Addicott said. "They're sending a chilling message to our troops that we are not complying with the law of armed conflict. It's a propaganda victory for our enemies."

 

Sholtis disputed that the award would limit troops' ability in the battlefield.

 

"We absolutely support the right of our forces to defend themselves," he said. "Valuing restraint in a potentially dangerous situation is not the same thing as denying troops the right to employ lethal force when they determine that it is necessary."

 

The medals proposal is consistent with NATO rules of engagement aimed at reducing civilian casualties in Afghanistan as a way to win the support of the populace. But some soldiers say rewarding "restraint" while risking their own lives is a troubling concept.

 

The directives "are confusing and the mixed messages from command is making it more difficult for us to defend ourselves," said a U.S. Army soldier in Afghanistan.

A U.S. Marine captain who has served in Iraq, said that he understands the intentions of the award but believes "it's just a bad idea." He said, "They teach us not to second-guess our decisions in dangerous situations. When people second-guess themselves they can be putting lives at risk."

 

Some soldiers shrugged at the proposal. "It's good, but just like with valorous medals, guys are going to do the right thing because it is the right thing," said Army Lt. Joseph Cooper said. "I think our year in Maiwand [Afghanistan] has shown that in frightening and confusing moments the U.S. soldier will consistently make the right choice time after time."

 

But other soldiers saw the medal proposal as a reinforcement of troubling rules of engagement. "Unfortunately, we are being reduced to a police force," said another U.S. soldier. "There are troops that never leave Bagram or Kandahar airfield. ... Maybe if they left us all on base and never sent us out to confront the enemy, we could all be honored [for] valor."

 

[email protected]

[bobgee]

:yucky: Gag me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Bobgee

[Teamski]

Yeah, that needs to be nixed, big time! That is a pathetic attempt at being PC on the international stage. I E-Mailed my Congressmen on this issue after reading this post. Thanks for the heads-up on a friggin' ridiculous medal.

 

-Ski

[trenchbuff]

Another finger right in the eye of our military. Come on, wake up America!!!

[Darktrooper]

I've seen an advance prototype of this medal.

 

Its a bullseye with the words "SHOOT ME" on the outside ring of the bullseye.

 

Im glad that Im getting out now.

[teufelhunde.ret]

This is RIDICULOUS.... Who's in charge of this British asylum?

[USMCRECON]

It fits perfectly into this administration's concept of warfighting. Now please excuse me while I go and throw up. :yucky:

[Brig]

wow, I think the world just got a little bit softer...I was wondering why I suddenly woke up at 10:04 am

 

courageous restraint. yeah, you can engrave that on my head stone when I'm KIA because they tightened the ROE handcuffs a few more clicks

[ROY222]

Sadly the way this administration operates the war on terror or as they call it "some guys that don't like us" or some other PC BS, this could very well get approved.

[blkjack07]

This country has got to get over the notion that you can fight a war without hurting people. :ermm:

I think "courageous restraint" means "I should've shot but I didn't because I was afraid they'd court-martial me and it damn near got us killed." If those medals are approved, most of them will be awarded posthumously.

[Endgame 1945]

This sounds like the sort of beauracratic BS the UN pulls. Courageous Resraint my A**!

[mmerc20]

That is pretty bad. Now, get this one. I saw this "essay" written up last year and thought it was a joke. I can't think of any person that would EVER wear it. Who would possibly want to advertise something as traumatic as this:

 

 

Medals for Military Sexual Trauma: A Proposal

by

Carolyn Gage

 

On March 16, 2009, a bill titled the “Military Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Response Act”

(H.R.840) was referred to a House subcommittee. This is a bill to reduce sexual assault and domestic

violence involving members of the Armed Forces and their family members and partners through

enhanced programs of prevention and deterrence, enhanced programs of victims services, and

strengthened provisions for prosecution of assailants.(1) I want to propose that part of these services

and programs include the awarding of medals to victims of Military Sexual Assault.

 

Medals provide tangible testaments to valor, courage, loyalty. They give occasion for public

recognition, and in the cases where they are awarded posthumously, they can provide for some

closure. Finally, they offer incentive. They aggressively proclaim that surviving assault is valorous,

something to be proud of; thereby counteracting any herd-animal instinct to separate from the

wounded.

 

 

It's a long essay so the whole thing can be read at:

http://www.quietmountainessays.org/Gage2.html

 

Mike

[CorsairAce]

This is absurd. Are you guys trying to tell me that we can't fight a war without allowing someone else to die??? You think you learn everything during the semester then you get home and you learn something new. Wow I had no idea.

[Captainofthe7th]

This was it for me. I just wrote a lengthy letter to my congressman regarding this and a number of other issues.

 

Rob

[BEAST]

I believe one of the problems is shown in the words of McChrystals' spokesman. "Sholtis disputed that the award would limit troops' ability in the battlefield.

 

"We absolutely support the right of our forces to defend themselves," he said. "Valuing restraint in a potentially dangerous situation is not the same thing as denying troops the right to employ lethal force when they determine that it is necessary."

 

"...to defend themselves" implies we are not on the offensive. That we will not push out and take the risks necessary to win a war. This phrase makes it sound like we are a homeowner that shot a burglar. The homeowner is not out looking for a fight, but rather sitting in the security of the four walls of their home. The bunker strategy is not how you win a war, but rather how you mark time until you can get out of the AO.

[ROY222]

That is pretty bad. Now, get this one. I saw this "essay" written up last year and thought it was a joke. I can't think of any person that would EVER wear it. Who would possibly want to advertise something as traumatic as this:

Medals for Military Sexual Trauma: A Proposal

by

Carolyn Gage

 

On March 16, 2009, a bill titled the “Military Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Response Act”

(H.R.840) was referred to a House subcommittee. This is a bill to reduce sexual assault and domestic

violence involving members of the Armed Forces and their family members and partners through

enhanced programs of prevention and deterrence, enhanced programs of victims services, and

strengthened provisions for prosecution of assailants.(1) I want to propose that part of these services

and programs include the awarding of medals to victims of Military Sexual Assault.

 

Medals provide tangible testaments to valor, courage, loyalty. They give occasion for public

recognition, and in the cases where they are awarded posthumously, they can provide for some

closure. Finally, they offer incentive. They aggressively proclaim that surviving assault is valorous,

something to be proud of; thereby counteracting any herd-animal instinct to separate from the

wounded.

 

 

It's a long essay so the whole thing can be read at:

http://www.quietmountainessays.org/Gage2.html

 

Mike

 

 

So they want a victim medal!!!

[Bluehawk]

"... include the awarding of medals to victims of Military Sexual Assault."

 

JAYSUS!

[teufelhunde.ret]

Medals for Military Sexual Trauma & Political Correctness... what's next, a new Good Conduct Medal for making thur an in theater tour? These are ludicrous ideas and proposals!

[Bob Hudson]

I think they produce this one in honor of the late congressman from my hometown, who will always be remembered for the charming way he called eight accused Marines cold blooded killers (they were since accquited).

 

[MAW]

This is what happens when liberal politicians practice social engineering on our military.....political correctness run amuck.

[topdcnut]

Whaaaattt? Corurageous Restraint Medal ? The last time I checked restraint is the starting point always....... killing is when you are given no other option............which seems to be the option Islamoterroists only leave open ........... Man! I am sick of those who always say Dialogue ....unless dialogue comes from marines or soldiers on the front lines............................crap...................................you can interpet crap to mean any thing you choose.

[Bob Hudson]

Okay folks I deleted a few intermural disputes here - instead of barking at the British, the French and each other, save the energy for barking at - er, huh, politely communicating with - your Congressman and Senators: they're the ones who can actually impact on such things.

[Dave]

I think they produce this one in honor of the late congressman from my hometown, who will always be remembered for the charming way he called eight accused Marines cold blooded killers (they were since accquited).

 

That's okay, 'cause they're already naming a ship after him anyway... :pinch:

 

Seriously, isn't this why they have other medals? If someone gets to a point where they have to show restraint, in that rare circumstance they should be awarded a Army/Navy Commendation Medal, or in really serious cases, a Bronze Star...and those are in those really super rare, ultra-unusual, circumstances that warrant adherance to a non-escalatory ROE vice raising tensions and causing a possible international incident by opening fire...

 

Dave

[Terry K.]

I need to go puke, excuse me.

[jweitkamp]

I deserve one of these with a cluster for simply keeping my thoughts and comment to myself.

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/world/Me...s-93007014.html

 

Medal for 'courageous restraint' plan get mixed review from troops

By: Sara A. Carter

National Security Correspondent

May 7, 2010

 

 

A proposal to grant medals for "courageous restraint" to troops in Afghanistan who avoid deadly force at a risk to themselves has generated concern among U.S. soldiers and experts who worry it could embolden enemy fighters and confuse friendly forces.

 

Lt. Col. Edward Sholtis, a spokesman for Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who commands NATO forces in Afghanistan, said that no final decision has been made on the award, which is the brainchild of British Maj. Gen. Nick Carter.

 

"The idea is being reviewed at Headquarters ISAF," Sholtis said. "The idea is consistent with our approach. Our young men and women display remarkable courage every day, including situations where they refrain from using lethal force, even at risk to themselves, in order to prevent possible harm to civilians. ... That restraint is an act of discipline and courage not much different than those seen in combat actions."

 

However, professor Jeffrey F. Addicott, a former senior legal adviser to the Green Berets and director of the Center for Terrorism Law at St. Mary's University School of Law in San Antonio, said "It's an absolutely outrageous proposal to our fighting men.

 

"The implication of this award is that we do not engage in war fighting that is appropriate," Addicott said. "They're sending a chilling message to our troops that we are not complying with the law of armed conflict. It's a propaganda victory for our enemies."

 

Sholtis disputed that the award would limit troops' ability in the battlefield.

 

"We absolutely support the right of our forces to defend themselves," he said. "Valuing restraint in a potentially dangerous situation is not the same thing as denying troops the right to employ lethal force when they determine that it is necessary."

 

The medals proposal is consistent with NATO rules of engagement aimed at reducing civilian casualties in Afghanistan as a way to win the support of the populace. But some soldiers say rewarding "restraint" while risking their own lives is a troubling concept.

 

The directives "are confusing and the mixed messages from command is making it more difficult for us to defend ourselves," said a U.S. Army soldier in Afghanistan.

A U.S. Marine captain who has served in Iraq, said that he understands the intentions of the award but believes "it's just a bad idea." He said, "They teach us not to second-guess our decisions in dangerous situations. When people second-guess themselves they can be putting lives at risk."

 

Some soldiers shrugged at the proposal. "It's good, but just like with valorous medals, guys are going to do the right thing because it is the right thing," said Army Lt. Joseph Cooper said. "I think our year in Maiwand [Afghanistan] has shown that in frightening and confusing moments the U.S. soldier will consistently make the right choice time after time."

 

But other soldiers saw the medal proposal as a reinforcement of troubling rules of engagement. "Unfortunately, we are being reduced to a police force," said another U.S. soldier. "There are troops that never leave Bagram or Kandahar airfield. ... Maybe if they left us all on base and never sent us out to confront the enemy, we could all be honored [for] valor."

 

[email protected]