Medal of Honor recommended for living recipient

[Bill McIntyre]

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news..._honor_070110/

[flyingfishr]

I disagree with the statement near the bottom regarding the evolution of warfare compared to WWII or Vietnam. Yes warfare has evolved, but that shouldn't be a determining factor of one's heroism. Running through a hail of AK-47 fire vs. running through a hail of Mauser fire can't be too different other than the former might provide a more dense wall of lead to negotiate. The soldier being recommended isn't being looked at because he de-armed an IED or because he didn't engage an insurgent using civilians for cover. He's being recognized because he put his life on the line for his brothers in arms above and beyond what would normally be asked, and regardless of the nature of your conflict or when it took place that doesn't change or evolve. I do think the process for the MOH selection needs to be looked at, whether the potential recipient survived or not, should not be a determining factor in whether they receive the appropriate acknowledgement of their actions.

[Bill McIntyre]

Originally Posted by flyingfishr

I disagree with the statement near the bottom regarding the evolution of warfare compared to WWII or Vietnam. Yes warfare has evolved, but that shouldn't be a determining factor of one's heroism. Running through a hail of AK-47 fire vs. running through a hail of Mauser fire can't be too different other than the former might provide a more dense wall of lead to negotiate. The soldier being recommended isn't being looked at because he de-armed an IED or because he didn't engage an insurgent using civilians for cover. He's being recognized because he put his life on the line for his brothers in arms above and beyond what would normally be asked, and regardless of the nature of your conflict or when it took place that doesn't change or evolve. I do think the process for the MOH selection needs to be looked at, whether the potential recipient survived or not, should not be a determining factor in whether they receive the appropriate acknowledgement of their actions.

I think you are misinterpreting the statement.

Those earlier wars frequently involved close conflict with an organized enemy formation, for instance, while today's fighting is against non-uniformed insurgents who use remotely detonated roadside bombs, suicide bombers, sniper attacks and other tactics that avoid the risk of engaging personally with U.S. forces.

It doesn't say that running through a hail of AK-47 fire is any less dangerous or worthy of a medal that running through a hail of Mauser fire. Its just saying that the nature of warfare now provides less opportunities for that. They don't present us with a hail of AK-47 when they can blow us up with IEDs and avoid the risk of us shooting back.

[CaptainLeo]

For some reason, I can't put to words what I want to say. Anyway, although he was awarded the Navy Cross, there are many that think SgtMaj. Kasal should have received the MOH. Read this and you will understand why. I am also honored to say that I knew and trained with him when he was a SSGT. Great man, great Marine, great leader.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Kasal

[flyingfishr]

Bill, you are correct. I did misinterpret what was being said in the later portion of the article. That being said, I still think the process for evaluating and approving individuals for this medal and others needs to be examined more closely. In our most recent conflicts it seems as though the ultimate qualifying factor is whether or not the potential recipient died as a result of his heroic actions. SgtMaj. Kasal is an example, Capt. Chontosh is another example. Either way, it's a good subject for discussion and professional development.

[cdog3]

Originally Posted by flyingfishr

In our most recent conflicts it seems as though the ultimate qualifying factor is whether or not the potential recipient died as a result of his heroic actions.

It really does seem like that is the case.

SgtMaj. Kasal - WOW, ultra grit

[spaghetti]

Not only a US thing. In Italy too they tend to appoint the highest military honour (MOVM: gold medal to military valour) only when they get killed.

Interestingly we do have a living recipient of MOVM for relatively recent operations (in Mogadishu, Somalia, back in 1993). But this living recipient is a guy who got permanently disabled for the wounds he sustained, doomed to a wheelchair for the rest of his life.

I think it's quite sad to see how underestimated is the sacrifice of the men that our governments send around to risk their lives. Seems quite like their sacrifice is given value only if they loose their lives, or when their lives are completely devastated.
What price that filmsy plaque of gold...

[mepps1]

Am I the only one who's suspicious that political expediancy has dictated the recent dearth of living recipients?

A living MOH recipient might express inconvenient opinions about politicians or the war. Dead recipients are a lot more politically reliable.