[rujeltaoser]

The Pentagon has formally rejected the suggestion from a lawmaker that the process for awarding Medals of Honor is flawed and should be changed so more troops can receive the military’s highest honor.

The military brass has faced criticism for the historically low number of troops who have received the Medal of Honor for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., asked the Pentagon in October to review the process for selecting recipients.

In response, Jo Ann Rooney, acting undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, said her office conducted a broad review and found no problems.

You can read more here: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/1...-says-111711w/

Is the court correct for reconsidering its decision?

Is the criticism of the Pentagon correct?

Is the Pentagon correct in its findings?

What should happen next?

[artkolkovk]

Its our nations highest honor, damn right it should be harder then hell to qualify for. Bronze star medals are handed out like candy, would be nice to keep something that keeps its criteria high.

[Phywhewashect]

So...the request for my very own CMOH will be turned down, even though I had to go to the chow hall, and stand in a ferocious line of hungry people, many times?

[Pheboasmabs]

So...the request for my very own CMOH will be turned down, even though I had to go to the chow hall, and stand in a ferocious line of hungry people, many times?

Sounds fitting to me. After all, those who went before you made sure the food was fit for you to eat.

Now, if you were the first in line, and had to do your own food tasting, and you got poisoned, THEN you might have qualified!

[Nicihntm]

I guess this thread is supposed to be funny but it isn't to me. The following is a draft of a commentary I wrote for another publication (not Air Force Times). It hasn't previously been published in this form.

Why Gutierrez should receive the Medal of Honor
Commentary

By Robert F. Dorr

Staff Sgt. Robert Gutierrez Jr took a bullet and saved a dozen troops in an Oct. 5, 2009 firefight in Afghanistan where his personal heroism was unrelenting.
Gutierrez should receive the Medal of Honor.
He is scheduled to receive the Air Force Cross on September 21. This is a serious award that many Americans have earned with their lives. It should not be viewed as a consolation prize or as short change for Gutierrez.
The fact remains, as we enter our eleventh year of war in Afghanistan, as we continue conflicts in Iraq, Libya and the Horn of Africa, successive Republican and Democratic administrations and their Secretaries of Defense have been too tight-fisted with valor awards—more so than in past conflicts.
The president, in the name of Congress, has awarded 3,471 Medals of Honor to soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen since 1861. In World War II, 464 Medals of Honor were awarded. In Korea the total was 135. Afghanistan has lasted longer than those wars combined yet the total number of Medal of Honor awards is just six. For actions in Iraq, just four more have been awarded.
"There is a bogus argument that past wars were different," said Dwight Jon Zimmerman, co-author of "Uncommon Valor" and an authority on awards and decorations. Zimmerman and co-author John Gresham are Defense Media Network contributors. "When you're fighting and bleeding and sometimes dying because you chose to put everything at risk, the bullets are the same caliber whether it's a conventional conflict or an insurgency."
Gutierrez's shining example of gallantry is one of several in Afghanistan where the Medal of Honor should have been awarded.

SCREWUP IN THE SKY

In offering my opinion that Gutierrez merits the top medal, I'm drawing on decades of studying military actions, military awards, and—at times—military obstructionism. Up front, it must be said that only praise can be bestowed on the men and women who serve on review boards. Without their integrity, we would have nothing. However, review boards act only on recommendations that are given to them.
I have been writing about Medal of Honor recipients since the 1950s when I published articles in the men's pulp adventure magazines. I got to know several dozen recipients, including some who are not among the eighty-four recipients alive today. Magazines like Stag, Male and Argosy no longer exist but our fascination with our heroes and their deeds hasn't waned and new acts of bravery haven't halted. I've written about medal recipients in articles, newspaper columns and books. My current book, "Mission to Berlin," about American B-17 Flying Fortress crews, includes Medal of Honor actions.
One case tells us why commanders balk today. Call it obstructionism. "It takes too much investigation and paperwork to get a top award approved," a source told me. "It requires the signature of the service head and in some cases the president. The person receiving the award had better be a model citizen or it won't be considered. And even a squeaky-clean case can take 18 months to process."
Enter Maynard Smith.
On May 1, 1943, Sgt. Maynard "Snuffy" Smith was a gunner aboard a B-17F Flying Fortress attacking U-boat pens at St. Nazaire, France.
To put it charitably, Smith was a screwup.
He was an argumentative, rebellious, in-your-face character and at age 30 was very old to be flying missions. He was not well liked. "A moderately pompous little fellow with the belligerent attitude of a man trying to make up with attitude what his five-foot-four, 130-pound body left him wanting," wrote another Fortress crewmember, the future television commentator Andy Rooney.
Focke-Wulf Fw 190 fighters battered Smith's formation. Eighty-eight-millimeter flak hit his left wing. It cut the wing tank off. Gasoline poured into the aircraft and caught fire. Smith was in the ball turret. He lost his electrical controls and manually cranked the turret around, opened the armored hatch and got back inside the B-17. It was ablaze. The radioman became excited and jumped out a window without a parachute.

FOUNDERING FORTRESS

The pilot took the bomber down to 2,000 feet. Another crewmember panicked and tried to bail out but got caught on a .50 caliber gun. He jumped high, the stabilizer hit him and he broke into a dozen pieces.
Around Smith the radio equipment was on fire. Wires were burning everywhere. He put out the fire with fire extinguishers and water bottles. "I did the best I could while being shot at." Smith said. "They were coming in at us from both sides. While not fighting fire, I manned the workable waist guns. Every time they would make a swoop one or two more planes would go down. Eventually the fighters ran out of gas. In those days pursuit planes were limited to something like 25 minutes. We wound up with four B-17's out of our original 36." Smith had saved the lives of his crewmates and may have shot down two German fighters.
"The tail gunner came crawling out of the back," Smith continued. "He was all shot up real bad. Blood was coming out of his mouth. He had been shot on the left side of the back. I remembered from my classes on how to handle a situation like this. I laid him down, gave him a couple of shots of morphine which put him to sleep immediately. By doing this, he lived, I am very thankful for that.
The plane began bouncing. "I went forward to find the pilot and co-pilot pretty well shot up. I put tourniquets on them so they could maintain control of the plane. I then went back to put the control cables together as we had no tail control. I remember I repaired the six wires. I then threw all the ammunition out. I didn't receive burns during all this time because I had wrapped a scarf around my face and hands.
"Somehow we got the plane back. The plane was riddled with about 3,500 bullet holes. It was all burned out in the center. There was nothing but the four main beams holding it together. Ten minutes after we landed, the plane collapsed." The Fortress never flew again.
Secretary of War Henry Stimson, while across the Atlantic from Washington for an inspection, brought along a Medal of Honor that he presented to Smith—but only after the trouble-prone sergeant had to be summoned from disciplinary KP, or kitchen police, duty.

PREJUDICE AND PRIDE

My point about Smith, a hero who risked all for his buddies but didn't shine at Sunday school, is that a recommendation for a Medal of Honor for him today probably wouldn't even be considered. Smith, you see, was nowhere near squeaky clean. In a different era, he was judged solely for his heroism not for the larger picture painted by his 201 file. Today, he wouldn't get past military obstructionism.
Another form of obstructionism exists within the Air Force itself. In an officer-pilot culture, enlisted members feel prejudiced against: out of 18 awards of the Medal of Honor to Air Force members in Korea and Vietnam, only three went to enlisted men. Moreover, today's Air Force is hesitant to assert itself. " There is a lack of aggressive pursuit of these awards on the part of the Air Force," said Gary Solis, a retired Marine lieutenant colonel and judge advocate who is considered an advocate.
Airman First Class William H. "Pits" Pitsenbarger was a pararescue specialist aboard an HH-43F Huskie rescue helicopter in South Vietnam on April 11, 1966, when his crew was called in to help evacuate American casualties from a dense jungle 35 miles east of Saigon. An Army outfit, Charlie Company, 16th Infantry Regiment, was caught up in an ongoing firefight with Viet Cong guerrillas. From overhead, Pitsenbarger volunteered to ride a rescue hoist 200 feet down through triple canopy jungle. On the ground, he organized rescue efforts. He helped many seriously wounded to be lifted to safety.
Though he could have ridden home in his helicopter, Pitsenbarger took up arms alongside the besieged infantrymen. In vicious fighting, the Viet Cong breached Charlie Company's perimeter and fatally wounded Pitsenbarger.
One of Charlie Company's embattled soldiers, Sgt. Charles S. Navarro, described how Pitsenbarger repeatedly exposed himself to enemy fire to care for the wounded. "He risked enemy gunfire to gather and distribute vital ammunition to the American defenders," Navarro said. "As he crept from one isolated position to another across the broken perimeter, Pitsenbarger fired his M-16 [rifle], gathered ammunition, and tended to wounded men."
Said the HH-43F pilot, retired Lt. Col. Harold "Hal" Salem: "What Pitsenbarger did was far and above. Here was an Air Force guy, helping Army soldiers he didn't know, trying to rescue as many as possible." Salem pointed out that Pitsenbarger piled a body on top of Navarro to prevent Navarro from being killed by flying bullets.
Officials in Saigon killed a Medal of Honor recommendation for Pitsenbarger, possibly in part because he was an enlisted airman. He got the Air Force Cross. As I wrote above, that's a serious form of recognition. It's not short change.
Still, in the June 26, 2000 issue of the trade journal Air Force Times, I wrote that Pitsenbarger, since posthumously promoted to staff sergeant, should receive the Medal of Honor. Thanks to the efforts of a handful of key people including Air Force Secretary F. Whitten Peters, a presentation of the Medal of Honor was made on December 8, 2000—and I attended.
In an eerily similar reprise, a belated Medal of Honor went on September 21 of this year to Chief Master Sgt. Richard L. Etchberger, who was killed after a heroic fight in furious battle in Laos on March 11, 1968. His award was so late because of another prejudice: at the time, successive administrations, Democratic and Republican, did not want to acknowledge that American troops were in combat in that country. Pitsenbarger and Etchberger fought with boots on the ground just as Gutierrez did, and gave their lives—as Gutierrez very nearly did.
Only two other enlisted airmen have ever earned the top award. Staff Sgt. Henry "Red" Erwin was burned all over his body when he threw a renegade, burning phosphorus flare out of a B-29 Superfortress near Japan on April 12, 1945. Airman First Class John L. Levitow similarly threw a "hot" flare from a battle-damaged AC-47 Spooky gunship in South Vietnam on February 24, 1969. Both suffered severe burns and nearly died to save their aircraft and crews.

"CONSPICUOUS GALLANTRY.."

In that raging battle fought with guns and rocket propeller grades in Afghanistan's Herat province, Gutierrez took a wound, bled out, and lost fully half the blood in his body. After a medic jammed a syringe into his collapsed lung, Gutierrez continued fighting. He is credited with saving the lives of a dozen U.S. soldiers in his Special Forces unit. The Special Forces troops were out to get the no. 2 Taliban commander in the region but were pinned down and outgunned until Gutierrez set an example by refusing to either to die or to give up.
For more details of Gutierrez's sacrifice, see Defense Media Network's news reporting story here:

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/s...r-force-cross/

For his performance in an earlier action, Gutierrez received the Bronze Star with "V" device, signifying valor.

TIME TO ACT

Now, officials must bite the bullet, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta must rewrite criteria in order to make it easier for commanders to recommend top awards—and to have consideration given only to combat action, not to other aspects of an individual's life. Panetta must become pro-active in urging commanders to make recommendations and in getting them processed quickly.
Gutierrez and other service cross recipients—a heroic Marine named 1st Lt. Brian R. Chontosh comes to mind—should not be disqualified from receiving the highest award because of one final prejudice. They are alive. Of the shamefully low total of ten Medal of Honor recipients in Afghanistan and Iraq, only three are living awards and for several years we had no living recipients. "The first requirement for the award of a Medal of Honor shouldn't be a death certificate," said "Uncommon Valor" co-author Gresham.
Here's a good first step for Panetta to take. The Pentagon should start the process to get Staff Sgt. Robert Gutierrez the Medal of Honor.

[lungumnentibe]

Sounds fitting to me. After all, those who went before you made sure the food was fit for you to eat.

Now, if you were the first in line, and had to do your own food tasting, and you got poisoned, THEN you might have qualified!

Is this humor I detect? Who took over this handle?

[spamkillerj]

"Fair" and Right are not synonymous! Since O's are the tip of the spear in the AF I strongly suspect that the MOH is unoffically reserved for a Rated O to be awarded long before some enlisted spear carrier gets one! Just my thoughts and opinon based on the long history of scarce EM MOH in the AF.
BTW I met John Levitow back in 1970 since his was from the town next to where I lived Connecticut. He told me that part of why he left the AF was he felt like an outsider from the other Airment b/c of his MOH and the way hey was fawned over by the CoC everywhere he went. Sadly his death from cancer in 2002 was overshadowed by the Bush Gore catfight over Florida!!!!

[irresseni]

"Fair" and Right are not synonymous! Since O's are the tip of the spear in the AF I strongly suspect that the MOH is unoffically reserved for a Rated O to be awarded long before some enlisted spear carrier gets one! Just my thoughts and opinon based on the long history of scarce EM MOH in the AF.
BTW I met John Levitow back in 1970 since his was from the town next to where I lived Connecticut. He told me that part of why he left the AF was he felt like an outsider from the other Airment b/c of his MOH and the way hey was fawned over by the CoC everywhere he went. Sadly his death from cancer in 2002 was overshadowed by the Bush Gore catfight over Florida!!!!

Ding Ding Ding!!!! That is the correct answer!! Doesnt matter what an earthman does. He's not a zipper suiter so it will never happen. Aircrew get air medals for so many missions yet eathman gets one com/bsm/achievement for the whole tour. Sounds fair right?

[TeapseTic]

The Pentagon has formally rejected the suggestion from a lawmaker that the process for awarding Medals of Honor is flawed and should be changed so more troops can receive the military’s highest honor.

The military brass has faced criticism for the historically low number of troops who have received the Medal of Honor for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., asked the Pentagon in October to review the process for selecting recipients.

In response, Jo Ann Rooney, acting undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, said her office conducted a broad review and found no problems.

You can read more here: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/1...-says-111711w/

Is the court correct for reconsidering its decision?

Is the criticism of the Pentagon correct?

Is the Pentagon correct in its findings?

What should happen next?

I dunno - the historical lows in recipients is probably due to the fact that there just aren't too many opportunities to earn one. This is a "low intensity conflict" after all. Not to say it isn't dangerous, but we're for the most part not getting swarmed by human wave attacks. 99% of the time coalition forces have superior firepower, superior numbers, and of course total and absolute air superiority. Dire combat situations that usually result in a MOH just don't happen too much anymore - except when some officer screws up and leaves his people unsupported.

[golfmenorca]

I dunno - the historical lows in recipients is probably due to the fact that there just aren't too many opportunities to earn one. This is a "low intensity conflict" after all. Not to say it isn't dangerous, but we're for the most part not getting swarmed by human wave attacks. 99% of the time coalition forces have superior firepower, superior numbers, and of course total and absolute air superiority. Dire combat situations that usually result in a MOH just don't happen too much anymore - except when some officer screws up and leaves his people unsupported.

Yes there are low numbers, but there are events such as GZ that warrant them. The guy continued controlling assets while having collapsed lung returning fire, having a tube inserted into his chest and then humping it back to the HLZ. No there arent many opportunities but they have presented themselves. There have been situations where an ODA has come upon a force that outnumbers them but they have superior firepower and air power.

Its just some people are ignorant to what actually happens on the ground. No calling you ignorant because I dont know you.

The AF senior leaders for some reason seem to look down on earthman metaphorically since its obvious they would look down literally.

[Sierabiera]

"Fair" and Right are not synonymous! Since O's are the tip of the spear in the AF I strongly suspect that the MOH is unoffically reserved for a Rated O to be awarded long before some enlisted spear carrier gets one! Just my thoughts and opinon based on the long history of scarce EM MOH in the AF.

BTW I met John Levitow back in 1970 since his was from the town next to where I lived Connecticut. He told me that part of why he left the AF was he felt like an outsider from the other Airment b/c of his MOH and the way hey was fawned over by the CoC everywhere he went. Sadly his death from cancer in 2002 was overshadowed by the Bush Gore catfight over Florida!!!!

In the Army, the same "instant Godhood" takes place, resulting in the vast majority of awardees taking the MOH Pension and running to a quiet corner to gain back their equilibrium. This has happened so often that it remains extremely rare to find a recent MOH Awardee who has yet to retire.

[intisgunkas]

Yes there are low numbers, but there are events such as GZ that warrant them. The guy continued controlling assets while having collapsed lung returning fire, having a tube inserted into his chest and then humping it back to the HLZ. No there arent many opportunities but they have presented themselves. There have been situations where an ODA has come upon a force that outnumbers them but they have superior firepower and air power.

Its just some people are ignorant to what actually happens on the ground. No calling you ignorant because I dont know you.

The AF senior leaders for some reason seem to look down on earthman metaphorically since its obvious they would look down literally.

I understand there are a lot of brave people doing out of the ordinary and going above and beyond what was reasonably expected of them every day - but such was the case in every war. I don't see awarding medals as some sort of competition - that we need to award just as many MOH as we did in WWII or Korea.

But as far as being unfairly generous with officers while turning a blind eye to enlisted people who did something equivalent - I know for a fact that happens, and I've seen it happen. But I don't believe any amount of legislation is going to fix that. An organization run by officers for officers is always going to be like that, and I can't think of any way to fix it.

[artkolkovk]

I understand there are a lot of brave people doing out of the ordinary and going above and beyond what was reasonably expected of them every day - but such was the case in every war. I don't see awarding medals as some sort of competition - that we need to award just as many MOH as we did in WWII or Korea.

But as far as being unfairly generous with officers while turning a blind eye to enlisted people who did something equivalent - I know for a fact that happens, and I've seen it happen. But I don't believe any amount of legislation is going to fix that. An organization run by officers for officers is always going to be like that, and I can't think of any way to fix it.

Maybe if a mandated annual public report was made of the number of each decoration awarded to each rank in the military services would be a good place to start. Having to explain this in public might shame the O Force into explaining how so very few of the bulk of service member received so few awards while the smaller numbers of O's received so many in comparison. Maybe????

[Keendwainge]

The Pentagon has formally rejected the suggestion from a lawmaker that the process for awarding Medals of Honor is flawed and should be changed so more troops can receive the military’s highest honor.

The military brass has faced criticism for the historically low number of troops who have received the Medal of Honor for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., asked the Pentagon in October to review the process for selecting recipients.

In response, Jo Ann Rooney, acting undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, said her office conducted a broad review and found no problems.

You can read more here: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/1...-says-111711w/

Is the court correct for reconsidering its decision?

Is the criticism of the Pentagon correct?

Is the Pentagon correct in its findings?

What should happen next?

I'm not sure what your first question relates to....

The Pentagon decision is not unexpected... why would they criticize themselves? Not very likely.

What should happen next is for the Pentagon to answer this anomally.... 2 million served in two of the longest, most vicious, no holds barred, inhuman and thankless wars since Vietnam and not one of the Airmen that have served, no matter how heroically, no matter how unselfishly did they give of their life or limb for their fellow brothers-in-arms, did one, dead or alive receive the MOH.

I quote below, my previous comment:

"It’s a sad commentary that of the millions who have served in the past ten years of conflict in the WOT that so very few nominations for the MOH have been made, and a service shame that so many of our AF SPECOPs people have been wounded or killed in heroic actions against the enemy and not one, alive or dead, has received the Nations highest honor."

"The USAF, because of it’s “Obstructionism”, being possibly made up of perceived excuses such as too much effort, too difficult to investigate, not the pilot, officer image, not an action associated with the AF primary mission of flying, just enlisted ground ops, or even personal image, PT profile or any other obscure, negative criteria is quickly gaining the reputation of a prejudiced, discriminatory, not-in-touch-with-the-reality-of-this-conflict service."

"That image, quite possibly, will be the historical perception of our AF and show that we learned nothing about the shortcomings of AF thinking and its affect on enlisted awards during the Vietnam war and are about to magnify that fact during this conflict."


A sad commentary, indeed.

[TeveVikep]

Maybe if a mandated annual public report was made of the number of each decoration awarded to each rank in the military services would be a good place to start. Having to explain this in public might shame the O Force into explaining how so very few of the bulk of service member received so few awards while the smaller numbers of O's received so many in comparison. Maybe????

You mean like with their civilian "advisors?" Odd isn't it that when their income was limited and they actually had to report who they REALLY worked for, the number of retired flag officers that "advised" the DoD for six figures dropped from triple digits to single digits... Like THAT?

[Nopayof]

You mean like with their civilian "advisors?" Odd isn't it that when their income was limited and they actually had to report who they REALLY worked for, the number of retired flag officers that "advised" the DoD for six figures dropped from triple digits to single digits... Like THAT?

You and I both know that their is far too much backscratching going on in the senior ranks of all services. Those with multiple stars on their shoulders got there due to those retired multistarred "advisors" so rest assured that the "Good Old Boys" club will protect their own along with those up and coming Company & Field Grade Os !! Maybe just requiring this data to be publicly diseminated via the military email accounts and just like promotion list sent out in general announcements on a quarterly basis would be a good start.

[ftpsoft]

Maybe if a mandated annual public report was made of the number of each decoration awarded to each rank in the military services would be a good place to start. Having to explain this in public might shame the O Force into explaining how so very few of the bulk of service member received so few awards while the smaller numbers of O's received so many in comparison. Maybe????

It's not public but there is a quarterly EO report and one part of it is inputting, by BN, next to certain awards who received it and lists gender, rank, ethnicity, etc. QNSR I think is what it's called -I haven't done EO for awhile. But that is done to make sure there isn't "favortism" going on or certain ethnic groups aren't being ignored or rewarded - EO stuff. But I'm pretty sure rank is listed and you have to put how many of each. I can't remember exactly though. That could be made public.

[boleroman]

I'm not sure what your first question relates to....

The Pentagon decision is not unexpected... why would they criticize themselves? Not very likely.

What should happen next is for the Pentagon to answer this anomally.... 2 million served in two of the longest, most vicious, no holds barred, inhuman and thankless wars since Vietnam and not one of the Airmen that have served, no matter how heroically, no matter how unselfishly did they give of their life or limb for their fellow brothers-in-arms, did one, dead or alive receive the MOH.

I quote below, my previous comment:

"It’s a sad commentary that of the millions who have served in the past ten years of conflict in the WOT that so very few nominations for the MOH have been made, and a service shame that so many of our AF SPECOPs people have been wounded or killed in heroic actions against the enemy and not one, alive or dead, has received the Nations highest honor."

"The USAF, because of it’s “Obstructionism”, being possibly made up of perceived excuses such as too much effort, too difficult to investigate, not the pilot, officer image, not an action associated with the AF primary mission of flying, just enlisted ground ops, or even personal image, PT profile or any other obscure, negative criteria is quickly gaining the reputation of a prejudiced, discriminatory, not-in-touch-with-the-reality-of-this-conflict service."

"That image, quite possibly, will be the historical perception of our AF and show that we learned nothing about the shortcomings of AF thinking and its affect on enlisted awards during the Vietnam war and are about to magnify that fact during this conflict."


A sad commentary, indeed.

Once again ChiefB well put. Its exactly how the majority of our guys think and feel.