(Analyst's note: Whatever happened to the mission to close with the enemy by fire and maneuver in order to destroy or capture him, or to repel his attack by fire, close combat, or counterattack? Now we are going to place our Marines in very real and unforgiving combat situations and then reward them for not fighting. What am I missing here? Americans really don't want our Marines -- a long treasured fighting resource -- to become a "peace corps." This kind of thinking is going to kill more of our sons as they hesitate in battle simply because some of the Generals have forgotten what it takes to win. And this because of a form of misguided global political correctness. If you don't want the Marines, then don't ring our bell.
As quoted from NATO & US Generals' Medal Madness?, " from The Daily Bell -- "Let's put this all together now. The Taliban is a Pashtun fighting force, and the Pashtuns occupy the interior of both Afghanistan and Pakistan. The US and NATO troops are urging the Pashtuns not to support the Taliban (their brothers, fathers and husbands) but at the same time, these troops are eradicating Pashtun/Afghanistan agricultural lifestyles, empowering other ethnicities in Afghan and regularly committing violence against Pashtun civilians. This is essentially cultural genocide. And a medal will help ... how?"
General McChrystal -- if in fact you've "put the kibosh" on such plans -- don't you dare change your mind on this one! Semper Fidelis)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal may have put the kibosh on plans to establish a valor award for troops who hold fire rather than risk the lives of innocents.
Talk of a so-called Courageous Restraint Medal has gotten a great deal of attention in the past 24-hours, especially since radio talker Rush Limbaugh took to the airwaves on May 12 to blast the concept. The story seemed to have merit since an Air Force officer was quoted in news reports as saying such an award “is consistent” with Coalition forces’ approach to defeating the insurgency while limiting civilian casualties.
But McChrystal, who is leading coalition forces in Afghanistan, told reporters during a press conference at the Pentagon today that the military does not need a new medal to recognize a particular kind of valor.
Today, in reply to a reporter’s question about the rumored medal, McChrystal said the military already has “a number of ways to recognize courage.”
“I think courage in uniform can come under enemy fire in the most traditional ways or if you come under actions that may not be as expected or as traditional and involve killing,” he said. “It may involve protecting civilians.”
He referred to a photo that came out of the fighting in Marjah, in which a Marine is seen using his own body to shield an Afghan man and child from harm.
“He wasn’t shooting anyone, he didn’t kill any Taliban,” McChrystal said of the Marine, “but I would argue that he showed as much courage as any that I’ve seen on the battlefield.”
“So when you talk about courage, I don’t think we need a ‘different’ medal to differentiate different kinds of courage.”
The idea for the medal originated with British Maj. Gen. Nick Carter, NATO commander of troops in southern Afghanistan, according to a May 5 report in The Daily Mail. The British paper said Carter floated the idea during a visit to Kandahar in April by British Army Command Sgt. Maj. Michael Hall.
British and U.S. forces have accidentally killed innocents in the past, with those incidents sparking outrage among the civilian population that Coalition forces are trying to win over.
While some have said there is merit to recognizing that courage is involved when a soldier does not open fire on questionable targets, the flip side is that troops may put themselves and allies in jeopardy by second-guessing threats or reacting too slowly.
