This thread should garner about 6 responses... But I know they will be great responses... Quality, not quantity!

QUESTION?

Is congress diluting the Valor of the Congressional Medal Of Honor by demanding more CMH's be awarded?

Personally I think so... I look at this as affirmative action. Now do not get me wrong. Every ultimate sacrifice is honorable, but the CMH is beyond special.

I was reading this late tonight, as I can not sleep for some silly reason....

"Eight years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq. About 4,000 members of the U.S. military killed in action. More than 34,000 wounded. Just six considered worthy of America's highest military award for battlefield valor."

For some veterans and some members of Congress, that last number doesn't add up.

They question how so few Medals of Honor -- all awarded posthumously -- could be bestowed for wars of such magnitude and duration.

Pentagon officials say the nature of war has changed. Laser-guided missiles destroy enemy positions without putting soldiers in harm's way. Insurgents deploy roadside bombs rather than engage in firefights they're certain to lose.

"It seems like our collective standard for who gets the Medal of Honor has been raised," said Hunter, R-Calif.

"The basis of warfare is you've got to take ground and then you've got to hold it. That takes people walking into houses, running up hills, killing bad guys and then staying there and rebuffing counterattacks," he said. "That's how warfare has always been no matter how many bombs you drop and how many predators you have flying around."

Military officials said they welcome the opportunity to conduct an in-depth review of the award process. Still, they dispute Hunter's theory.

"Nominations go through no more or less scrutiny than in the past," said Eileen Lainez, a Pentagon spokeswoman. "The standard for the Medal of Honor is high, as one would expect for our nation's most prestigious military decoration."

Now get this.....

The Medal of Honor has been awarded 3,467 times since the Civil War.

Almost half -- 1,522 -- were awarded in the Civil War.

The next highest tally came from World War II -- 464.

In the Vietnam War, 244 were awarded.

To earn the CMH, at least two eyewitnesses have to view a deed so outstanding that it clearly distinguishes gallantry above and beyond the call of duty. No margin of doubt is allowed.

Nominations make their way through military channels until eventually they're approved at the highest levels of the Pentagon and then by the president.

My take is this... The CMH need not go the way of the football hall of fame. Where there has to be a certain number of inductees every year..

War has changed I do not want to see the CMH being watered down by even 1%.

4,00 killed in 8 years in Iraq and Afghanistan... TRAGIC.

However, There were 7.000 American casualties in 20 fricken minutes in the Civil War attack on Cole Harbor. There were no smart bombs, Lazer guided cannons... It was face to face... Flag to flag.

Awarding the CMH for the sake of awarding the CMH is a slap in the face of every true hero in the history of this great country who truly earned the CMH.

R.P.

---

I agree R.P.
Add more "just because?" Thats stupid. The reason it's so important of an award is because it takes so much to earn it. If it gets to "Well, we haven't given one out in the last week.......hmm......George there just swerved his Humvee to avoid running over a squirrel.......guess we will give one to him."
Thats just stupid, and is a slap to the REAL heroes that have EARNED it.

---

First off, let me take this opportunity to set the record straight on what the medal is.



The short answer to the question is no.

You really don't have to trust the politicians for me to be correct.

There are an incredible number of incredibly conspicuous acts of gallantry that are reported and recommended for the medal by the folks that were actually there that get "knocked down" to Navy,Army or Air Force Crosses, or Silver Stars by the REMFS in higher command.

The purity and sanctity of that award would be in absolutely no danger if they ran the number of recipients off the charts, as long as there were no politics involved. The simple political act of saying there should be more, even a whole lot more, would on the surface seem to indicate that what would happen is in fact a dilution.

I appreciate how that would appear.

No way. Not while the folks putting up folks for the award remain steadfast in the principles of duty, honor and country. Since they always have, I think it pretty safe to assume that they always will.

Edit--A small additional word on this aspect.

A young Captain that makes that recommendation on behalf of a member of his command is making a profound statement. He is putting not only his knowledge but his honor absolutely on the line. He is saying I know the history of this award. I know what it takes to deserve to wear that medal. I know that this person, in those circumstances, has met that criteria in the context of all that has come before. You can pretty much bet he is also saying and meaning, "So help me God."

It is also largely self-policing. No one could ever wear that medal that did not "deserve it" in the eyes of all of the active duty, retired and veterans that are in this country. The political clout of that combined group is enormous, and if they felt that by Congress meddling in such matters was wrong or diluting that honor, the hue and cry would be heard throughout the land.

That is how I see it. It is an opinion, and I thank R.P. and anyone else that would find this of concern.

By the same token, Foster, the Bronze Star (at least in the army) has been shamefully watered down to the point where it is worthless for anything but padding promotion packets. In many units, mine included, everyone of the grade E-7 and above -- including cherry lieutenants -- receives a Bronze Star automatically after returning from deployment, regardless of what, if anything, they did while on deployment. And this isn't true just of pogue units -- it happens in combat arms units as well. For that reason, as much as it grieves me, I have no respect for the award anymore. Whenever I see a Bronze Star plate drive by, my response is "Mff."

And that's really, really sad.

---

That is a jarhead/doggie/officer and enlisted discussion.

And completely irreleveant when discussing the moh. Not being harsh or argumentative...being accurate. I could have easily mentioned what occurs in the Army as regards that award, or how it gets awarded so easily in the Corps to undeserving officers (imo-comparatively).

Really about it, though. No one is giving away silver ones, even in the doggies. (I hope)

I was actually about to make that point. I think the integrity of the Silver Star remains intact.

As for the Medal of Honor, I'm proud (irrationally so, I admit) that per capita, the greatest number of MoHs has gone to members of my chosen profession: medics. At medic school (AIT), I used to chafe at the bit when they'd harp on us not to rush into aid until the "scene is safe." If you read the histories of MoH recipients, most of them were probably lucky they were KIA, because many of them likely would have been court martialed had they survived. They earned their fame charging into the aid of their buddies in the face of orders to the contrary. The way I see it, the sacred duty of a medic is to be willing to sacrifice his own safety and well-being for that of his comrades wounded in action. If that means defying the orders of REMFs, then so be it, as far as I am concerned.

---