PDA

View Full Version : Medal for 'courageous restraint' plan get mixed review from troops



CueSi
05-08-2010, 01:54 PM
Medal for 'courageous restraint' plan get mixed review from troops


By: Sara A. Carter
National Security Correspondent/Washington Examiner
May 7, 2010


EXCERPT:

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."

The rest of the Story (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/world/Medal-for-_courageous-restraint_-plan-get-mixed-review-from-troops-93007014.html#ixzz0nJu8sIDC)


~QC

lacarnut
05-08-2010, 02:55 PM
Friggin stupid. War is not about restraint; it is for killing the enemy. With dunces like this in charge we might as well get the hell out of there and go home.

Articulate_Ape
05-08-2010, 02:57 PM
Friggin stupid. War is not about restraint; it is for killing the enemy. With dunces like this in charge we might as well get the hell out of there and go home.

Amen. This is what a Liberal-run military would look like: medals for not fighting. What's next, will the troops have to learn to speak French?

lacarnut
05-08-2010, 03:05 PM
Amen. This is what a Liberal-run military would look like: medals for not fighting. What's next, will the troops have to learn to speak French?

And pray to Allah. A teacher in the UK was sacked for doing that.

djones520
05-08-2010, 07:22 PM
Curageous Restraint? WTF? When deadly force is acceptable, you pull the damn trigger. I'm not taking the risk of not coming home to my family for a medal. :rolleyes:

FlaGator
05-08-2010, 07:54 PM
That has got to be the most absurd thing the I've every heard in a long time.

Bubba Dawg
05-08-2010, 08:10 PM
No doubt, day in and day out, troops in combat have to make decisions about when to shoot and when not to shoot. Police officers face similar circumstances when they are confronted with a violent situation.

Non-combatants may be, and probably are, present in combat situations. It has to be difficult to tell the good guys from the bad at times. Sometimes actions such as calling in artillery or air support or even returning fire when fired on is compromised by the presence of non-combatants.

I think the intention of honoring restraint in such situations is well intented, but as a practical matter I think awarding a medal for such restraint creates too many problems to be effective.

Mainly, I don't see how it would be possible to arrive at reasonable criteria for awarding a medal for not doing something.

fettpett
05-09-2010, 12:50 AM
I agree for the most part, but one of the most couragous men to ever be in war was a conscientious objector, he saved many men's lives at Okinawa at the risk of his own. Desmond Doss was the first man to recived the Congressional Medal of Honor.THAT is a man that should be awarded, not pussy-footed libs that wont protect their fellow soliders

Sonnabend
05-09-2010, 01:52 AM
Thanks, fett...I didn't know this man's name or his accomplishments. Now I do, and you are right...the man was a hero.

fettpett
05-09-2010, 08:40 PM
Thanks, fett...I didn't know this man's name or his accomplishments. Now I do, and you are right...the man was a hero.

no problem. Many people can't or wont fight for various reasons, that doesn't mean that they can't do something to save lives or help in other ways.

Odysseus
05-10-2010, 06:38 AM
This is either a new name for something old, like refraining from returning fire at a terrorist who has surrounded himself with civilians, or it's something that nobody has ever written up an award for because it's not very heroic. The example given was a riot in Helmand Province (http://calamities.gaeatimes.com/2010/05/04/nato-explores-way-to-award-soldiers-for-not-killing-innocent-afghans-20788/), but the article doesn't say what the Marines did to deserve a decoration:


FORWARD OPERATING BASE RAMROD, Afghanistan — NATO commanders are weighing a new way to reduce civilian casualties in Afghanistan: recognizing soldiers for “courageous restraint” if they avoid using force that could endanger innocent lives.

The concept comes as the coalition continues to struggle with the problem of civilian casualties despite repeated warnings from the top NATO commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, that the war effort hinges on the ability to protect the population and win support away from the Taliban.

Those who back the idea hope it will provide soldiers with another incentive to think twice before calling in an airstrike or firing at an approaching vehicle if civilians could be at risk.

The sound byte that summed it up for me was this one:

“In a COIN campaign, however, it is critical to also recognize that sometimes the most effective bullet is the bullet not fired,” it said.
I didn't fire a shot in anger during my time in Iraq. Does that mean that I'm entitled to a Bronze Star for not shooting? In that case, I didn't shoot hundreds, possibly thousands of people. Does that mean that it can be upgraded to a Silver Star? How much inertia do you have to demonstrate to get a Medal of Honor?