Center for a New American Security

Medals exist for one reason –

Medals exist for one reason – to recognize an achievement. There are many actions deserving of recognition for an achievement that do not involve anything to do with a battlefield or an act of valor (hence the additional “V” device to specifically recognize acts of valor). There are many actions deserving of recognition that occur during times of (relative) peace or during humanitarian actions which would be eliminated for recognition via a medal by what you propose.

It is a basic aspect of human nature to want to be recognized for going above and beyond what is expected of you. It is also a responsibility of leadership at every level to ensure you acknowledge when your subordinates go above what is required of them to accomplish the mission, especially when that involves special circumstances (i.e. when a specific action “above and beyond” was critical to mission accomplishment, resulted in a higher level of success, etc.)

My civilian counterparts receive recognition for their exceptional performance in many ways – bonuses, letters of recognition, extra vacation time – there are a whole slew of mechanisms that companies use to reward and/or recognize the performance of their employees. In the military, we don’t get bonuses. We get medals and other awards to recognize achievements. It’s part of our shared military tradition.

If you have a problem with award inflation, then I agree with you. I think many times awards are made to recognize routine performance or an extended period of good performance (such as the notorious “end or tour” award). The solution for that is not to eliminate the awards themselves, the solution is to hold leaders accountable and ensure that medals are awarded for appropriate actions and for exceptional performance.

The problem isn't the award,

The problem isn't the award, but rather the process. There is no reason that CPT+ or E7+ rank should equal an automatic meritorious BSM after a single tour. MSM-level awards were somewhat starved before 9/11, therefore the wars have given fruit-salad chasers reason to make a run on them before they slow again.

In addition, you'll notice most Purple Heart recipients also receive a BSM, sometimes with V device. The vast majority of PH "earners" I know got theirs for riding in the turret of an HMMWV, not for valorous actions under fire. I know that this is highly anecdotal, but it is merely to illustrate that the V-device isn't always necessarily an indicator of heroics.

What is the difference between a "kudos" award for getting blown up and a "kudos" award for not screwing up throughout a 9-month tour?

I used to work for the Awards

I used to work for the Awards and Decorations Branch at Army HRC and my experience primarily lies with unit awards (I did Campaign Participation Credits which was nice because so long as you deployed for a single day with 65% of your MTOE you got it, it was rather boolean and not subjective and didn't feel inflated). Nonetheless, when HRC was at Alexandria (i.e. when I worked there) everyone in the ADB worked in very close proximity and the person sitting directly behind me (who happens to be a good friend) was in charge of all the DSMs and senior decorations (which sometimes strayed into MSM territory). The other person that did the senior decorations I didn't like very much and didn't ever talk with her.

From my experience, I don't like the idea of getting rid of service awards but I can say that we just toss them out like candy. It seemed like every foreign officer on an exchange program got a Legion of Merit (and you could tell who was just marking time because their citation was our super generic one) and every SGM and COL+ basically got a DSM.

But my real beef is with the unit awards. Every now and then I would help out the Unit Awards teams with MUCs and VUAs which where the most inflated combat related/valor awards ever. Not to hate, but given that the MUC is traditionally for superior service for a non-line unit and we were basically issuing MUCs to every self described "best laundry battalions in the history of warfare" or VUAs for a full campaign as opposed to a single action (which is what the award was traditionally made for), I would say the grossest inflation would be in unit awards. Mainly on the grounds that it is technically a valor or combat related award being issued for the wrong reasons and outside a standard of reasonableness. It really dilutes the meaning of the award when every battalion basically is sporting a MUC.

I might actually go so far as to say that an individual was far more likely to be rejected for a CAB (if you didn't get the CAB paperwork done in theatre or 90 days after retrograde then it came to us) than a unit being rejected for a MUC.

This is an intriguing post.

This is an intriguing post. While I do agree that rank and bureaucracy seem to play a big role in certain award processes (such as the CPT/E-7 automatically getting BSMs for deployments), I would be hesitant to eliminate awards for service for a couple reasons. First, AAMs, and their equivalents in other branches, serve as an incentive for young enlisted soldiers to go above and beyond. I remember receiving my first AAM as an E-2 for completing a flawless IG inspection as a unit armorer. This award helped reinforce my belief that if I worked hard and showed initiative, it would be recognized. That said, I do think there would be some merit in a policy that dictates what awards you can wear after you reach a certain rank. After all, once I made E-5 and had a BSM and ARCOM with "V" those AAMs lost a majority of their initial significance to me. As far as the BSMs go, I earned one for service during my Afghanistan rotation. I was only an E-5 (one of my soldiers got one as an E-4 for getting blown up like 6 times in a Husky), so it had the same impact on me as the AAMs I earned as a private. It showed me that the Army still recognized my accomplishments, serving as a squad leader (E-6 billet) for an entire rotation as an E-5. So I do think the service awards have their purpose, but I do think some policy changes could make an impact on enhancing the warrior ethos of the military.

If this link will work, here

If this link will work, here is another take on awards published in the Marine Corps Gazette this month: http://www.marinecorpsgazette-digital.com/marinecorpsgazette/201204?pg=7...

The author proposes keeping the awards system in place for enlised Marines, but doing away with awards for officers entirely.

Our OIF III tour went from

Our OIF III tour went from January 2005 to January 2006. We had to submit end of tour awards for by August. The excessively detailed, and ever-changing, administrative requirements for these awards were so cumbersome that we had to begin submitting drafts in May.

There were several revisions to each submission. If you did not think that someone was deserving of an award, then the chain of command (not sure if it was BDE or DIV Co) demanded an explanation why. The default was an award on par with rank. Generally, SFC and up got BSMs. SSG and below got ARCOMs. Slight deviations upward (a BSM for an SSG, for example) were for those who actually did perform extremely well. If you thought an SFC or above only merited an ARCOM, that required an explanation, too.

Initially, I pointed out the obvious: with my crystal ball on back order from the Army supply system, I am incapable of forecasting, in May or even in August, what my Soldiers will achieve by January. Nonsense, I was told. I was promptly shouted down and told to just follow the guidance. So, I did my best to forecast achievements for all of my subordinates. In between days jam-packed with patrols, maintenance, sporadic enemy contact, generator outages, and other distractions that could be collectively referred to as "our mission," I managed to type up award packets for my subordinates.

My primary weapon system was an outdated version of FormFlow. My secondary weapon: MS Word 2000. I cannot count the number of toner cartridges and reams of paper we went through, printing out draft, after draft, after draft, after draft, from the dust-covered CP, in an abandoned building in our patrol base. Emailing drafts would have made more sense, in this otherwise senseless endeavor, but we lacked the bandwidth to email an attachment larger than a txt file. Why not use a USB stick, you ask? They were permitted back then, right? Yes. But S-1 wanted paper copies. And the XO backed up the S-1 on that. Remember, the mission is to issue awards. Degrading the insurgency was a distraction. Put down that 5988E and get back to work on that 638. Focus less on rehearsing battle drills and focus more on contriving achievements performed 5 months from now.

But, despite the lack of a crystal ball, I guess things turned out okay. My predictions turned out to be excessive for some, and too conservative for others. But, the awards were approved. It was a generous mix of BSMs and ARCOMs. Those awards really meant a lot to my Soldiers when they read what they achieved and tried to figure out when they achieved those things and/or why their actual achievements were not mentioned.

George Marshall and Dwight

George Marshall and Dwight Eisenhower -- how much empty space on their chests? Gee, a lot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:General_George_C._Marshall,_official_m...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EisenhowerChiefofStaffPortrait.jpg

1. Neat comments. 2. 42 years

1. Neat comments.
2. 42 years ago, SPEC 4's got end of tour ARCOMs if they didn't piss anybody off. E-5 and up got BSM. AAM's didn't exist.
3. CIB award notification was a list of names on a carbon copy posted on the 1st SGT's BBoard -outside his bunker.
4. Criteria was said to be a month in the unit on operations.
5. PH's were handed out for everything except nose bleeds. Award authority: the unit medic.
6. Awards to officers were done privately -for very sufficient reasons that don't translate well to folks serving in today's forces. A good thing.
7. Wish the admin types didn't have such a tight hold on the major awards for valor.
8. Troops need heroes -and not just an unending procession of special operations studs.
9. Guess that's a side effect of the codification and rigidity that has produced a more professional force.
10. When twilight time rolls around, the only qualification that still matters is having been there. Not as far away as you think.

Just because Napoleon says

Just because Napoleon says it's so doesn't make it so. In my experience Marines smell out a BS award before it's done being read in formation. That said, the award system is bloated and well off-track. I'd be all for getting rid of peacetime awards with the exception of life saving medals. The Brits seem to have a good system focused on real ops.

Visitor on April 17, 2012 -

Visitor on April 17, 2012 - 2:04pm

I see your meaning. Still they are resumes all the same, be it the short form. What is a resume other than your professional accomplishments. The higher the level, the less that is volunteered on a resume which is part of the message a professional sends about their judgement.

The military functions as a whole. You might consider making the medals that you trying to get rid of mean more. How would you weigh combat awards equally with the award for a purely logistical function. Combat does not happen unless the equipment makes it to the battle.

Exum think of it this way. If your medal for press carried the weight of the Pulitzer prize would you be embarrassed to explain what it was? If the AAM was harder to get, their would be less fruit salad on the table.

It is about continuous improvement and raising the bar. Saying that you appreciate a person's accomplishment is the most valuable way to raise self-esteem. It also enables the organization to steer core capabilities.

BTW... As the wars winds down and the need for head count is reduced, I really do not think handing out medals will be the issue.

From an outsider's point of

From an outsider's point of view, the preponderance of medals and ribbons in the military seems less a by-product of a diluted and bureaucratized awards system than a colorful and pretty efficient way to summarize a given person's career. In business, when you want to know the education and employment history of someone new, you meet and talk to them, you look them up on LinkedIn, or, if they're important enough, you read their bio on their company's website. Obviously this gives everyone plenty of creative license to embellish their resumes, even completely invent stuff, just to make themselves look more impressive. I could see plenty of situations where a standardized system of recognitions and acknowledgments pinned to everyone's lapel might come in handy in sizing up the quality and the qualification of the other people around you.

[As an aside, in the world of finance, I can't tell you how many times I've heard other investment bankers say that they were "intimately involved" in this or that multi-gazillion dollar merger, only to learn subsequently that their role consisted mainly of sitting in the boardroom as a well-dressed ornament, or else getting coffee for the junior guy whose own responsibility was to make photocopies for the next least junior guy. I will not suggest that military guys, as a professional class, are anywhere near as vain and self-conscious as ibankers. But I am guessing that they *do* tend to share the quality of an aggressive, ambitious personality and therefore are a little prone to bragging, whether or not they are aware of it.]

Separately, someone else on here mentioned that in the civilian world, for doing good work you get stuff like cash or stock bonuses, signed letters of thanks from your manager, your name on a plaque in the lobby, and so on; in the military, you get ribbons and medals. To the argument that most of these awards mean very little in comparison to medals won in combat--eg, that getting an award for writing nice press releases makes one look like a "clown"--I would counter with this question: What do the "legit" medals and ribbons really mean to the men who have earned them, sometimes with their own blood and sweat? Does the military really believe that Bronze Stars, or Navy Crosses (or, for that matter, the Medal of Honor) completely captures and honors the brave acts and amazing feats of arms of the people who win them; or are these the equivalent of having your name etched onto an Employee of the Month plaque, an official acknowledgment of actions whose true heroism and significance can anyway never be properly appreciated by generals, politicians and the millions of others who were not there?

My point is twofold: (i) I do not see how the value of a medal won in combat is diluted by its position right next to a medal won for good prose, even as I *do* see the practical value of both as a way of identifying and distinguishing talent and achievement; and (ii) True badassery isn't a story well-told by someone's chest-gear anyway.

There are, in my view, two

There are, in my view, two main approaches to wearing decorations. Either one decides to wear only a single decoration (the highest, or the one given for valour), or one wears also the low ones. The reason for a general to wear an AAM is to give his subordinates a clear signal: the AAM they have got is appreciated also by the general, even though he has many others, much more exalted decorations.

Dempsey only wears the top

Dempsey only wears the top two rows of his ribbons which is BS. Where in 670–1 does it say that? If he's only going to sport the very senior personal decorations, and not the lesser ones or service ribbons, then he should not wear the unit awards either.

for what its worth, generals

for what its worth, generals aren't bound by the auspices of AR 670-1, so they can wear whatever they feel like wearing, or not. If you were to look at Odierno or Dempsey official photos when they weren't generals, you'd see all their medals and awards. so i'm not sure what your point is using these guys as examples. it also seems that the author, who hasn't been on active duty for what, 6 or 7 years now, has forgotten the value of things like AAMs and ARCOMs, especially for junior enlisted Soldiers trying to get promoted.

I got a medal for that. And I

I got a medal for that. And I then had to explain all that to anyone who asked about it. Folks, I did not feel like a warrior. I felt like a clown.

The US tendency to hand out medals for pretty much anything is pretty odd - and comic- from a foreign point of view. In the British army you get medals:

if you go on an operational tour
for acts of exceptional gallantry
for exceptional command and leadership
for 15 years' long service (or 10 in the reserves)

...and that's pretty much it. You don't get a medal for being top-cover in a vehicle; that's your job.

This whole discussion misses

This whole discussion misses the fact that the Army should want to reward things besides Valor. Valor is exceptionally important in battle but the entirety of war is not battle. Also America's military wins logistical wars. For every one guy on the ground, there are 15 making sure he has boots, beans, and bullets. Rewarding the logisticians for getting the right resources to the right guys at the right time is important in making sure it actually happens.

In any event the problem I saw with Awards in Afghanistan was that they are very subjective to unit and place. Does a soldier who volunteers for extra time outside the wire to help buddies who have sustained multiple 'wear and tear' injuries deserve an award for that? What about mortarmen who execute fire missions on time and on target despite enemy fire being specifically directed at them? What about a FSO who does crater analysis and IDs a fortified mortar position and destroys it? None of these are really "Valor" award material according to my unit. With the exception of the mortarmen, I tend to agree. But the Army should still want to reward these activities in some way. How much is it, hey, that's your job, and how much does it take to make it exceptional? And how much should local conditions drive what's exceptional? If everyone at a base spends two weeks at a remote and violent outpost, then is any of that considered exceptional anymore? What about compared to a a similar MOS who is eating ice cream because he is at a different base? For the most part, I think that piece is less relevant to most soldiers who only care about how it will look to their immediate buddies. The main problem that I saw was that politics played a bigger part than actual events.

Only scouts or infantrymen were up for valor awards because calling for fire and providing those fires wasn't valorous. So you'd have 11 series LTs who never seeing combat getting BSMs and 13Fs exposing themselves and calling in dangerous close missions getting ignored. Cooks defending mortar positions and mechanics volunteering for OP duty were also similarly ignored or downgraded.

Still, the solution is not to make it more difficult for anyone to get anything but instead make the process less political. Either take some of the subjectivity of the award process away or give into in an even greater fashion. I think the military could use a more granular scale of medals.