U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan could someday be awarded medals for restraint that prevents civilian casualties in combat.
Full Story – HERE
Congratulations, you get a medal for not killing innocent people! Seems like unless your unit caused a total massacre, it would be pretty hard not to give this medal to everyone. If it will improve morale though, I’m all for it!
My girlfriend and I always joke that I have “Incredible restraint for a human being”, because when something really pisses me off I take a breath and move on rather than over reacting. To be honest I don’t really want a medal… A Starbucks gift card would be nice though. :P
Hat Tip: Guns&Coffee
Comments
9 responses to “Military Proposes Medal For Troops Showing Restraint”
That’s the opposite of what the Air Force did a few years ago! They stopped giving out the Good Conduct Medal because your always suppose to be good. In my opinion, anybody who doesn’t f-up for 3 years deserves a medal.
Yea I suppose there are a few ways to look at it.
This doesn’t sound like a terrible idea to me, and I think it’s quite a bit different than current medals for good conduct. I think there’s a valid argument that the good conduct medal is unnecessary because a soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine should be expected to conduct himself appropriately. If you were to put good conduct in the context of what this “restraint” medal is, it would be like giving a good conduct medal to someone who was surrounded by misconduct. It might be like rewarding a child born into a family of drug dealers in the ghetto who avoids the temptation to follow that path (something like that, I think you can see the comparison, vague as it may be). Someone making a difficult decision to do the right thing.
The article says: “situations where they refrain from using lethal force, even at risk to themselves, in order to prevent possible harm to civilians.”
I think that’s worthy of recognition. It’s not always easy to do the right thing, especially when your own personal safety might best be served by something that puts others in harm’s way. I would support an award for those that do.
I still think it will be a tough call on who to give the medal too and who not to. I think they would almost have to give that to everyone in a unit as a reward for handling a particular situation, rather than picking and choosing a few guys. Unless of course some individuals really stood out in the pack.
I’m heading for Trashcanistan this fall and I’m not enthused about the new emphasis on trading my life for an ungrateful Afghan public. I probably will not be getting this medal because I have a lot to live for and we’ve given the Afghans ten years to get their house in order. Apparently nothing has changed since I was there five years ago.
This medal is exactly what’s wrong with the modern military, and another reason why I will not be re-enlisting in the NG. The new emphasis on COIN pays no attention to how the Brits put down insurgencies, or how Pershing put down an insurgency. The new ROE and COIN policies are being written by hippies who hate the military and would like nothing more than to see lots more US veterans in pine boxes.
Hippies? hell no it’s being written by pencil pushers who care more about their career more than the troops under them….wait….perhaps it’s both
Stay Safe DC. I too would rather be alive and not get the medal, than be awarded one posthumously.
War is not meant to be humanitarian. Courageous restraint is for the diplomats..Marines and soldiers are not intended to be diplomats – they are meant to kill people and break things.
Period.
Use us rarely – we’d rather not do it, but if we must, take off the velvet handcuffs..
After we devistate, it makes the diplomat’s jobs a hell of a lot more credible and effective..
“Negotiate for a common goal, or you will assuredly experience a miserable demise.”
The more credible that reality is, the more effective the negotiation.
This “Couragoeus Restraint Medal” will probably be the most “awarded post-humanously” recognition (never mind the most despised) ever devised, and the most counter-productive.
Let’s keep our roles clear and unfettered. You negotiate, you deal, I make your consequences for not negotiating credible.
I’m a reluctant but dedicated warrior. I kill and destroy. If you want to make deals, you need me to be as nasty and terrible as I can be.
If the choice is between working with you or dealing with me, I want “them” so scared of me that working with you is the only credible option for them.
Take your courageous restraint medal and stuff it up your assinine view of reality.
Well crafted reply Cpl. What you said makes a lot of sense.