In requiem for more than 16 United States Navy Seals. Should 16 US Navy Seals be awarded the medal of Honor Posthumously?

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 06 Jun 2015 06:48:58 -0400

In requiem for more than 16 United States Navy Seals. Controversial.

The Medal of Honor is the nation's highest award for valor in combat. It
is the only military medal that is worn around the neck. Its recipients
are the only individuals whom the President salutes as a matter of custom.
It is awarded by the President, in the name of Congress, to a member of
the armed forces who “distinguishes himself conspicuously by gallantry and
intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty”

"ABOVE AND BEYOND THE CALL OF DUTY"

When compared to the exploits of WWI medal of honor recipient Alvin York
and the exploits of 16 Navy Seals that successfully apprehended and killed
Osama Bin La din and did not receive medals of honor, there are controversial
issues surrounding award of the Medal of Honor to current U.S. Army and U.S.
Marine Corps MOH recipients. It is argued that current MOH awardees actions
in combat operations were all within the call of duty. i.e. in a combat situation,
service members are expected to save the lives of their comrades, resuscitate
and transport the wounded, engage the enemy, call for fire support, and to
react to enemy strategy and tactics with doctrinal battle drills and
or immediate action drills. It is argued that current U.S. Army and Marine Corps
Medal of Honor awardees performed within the call of duty only. It is further
argued that current U.S. Army and Marine Corps Medal of Honor awardees failed
to accomplish their missions. With that said,

Is it prudent to award the nations highest award when the actions of the
recipient were within the call of duty? Is it prudent to award the nations
highest award when the recipients mission was not accomplished? Is it prudent
to award the Medal of Honor when the recipient disobeyed lawful orders resulting
in severe injury to himself and others? Is it prudent to award the Medal of Honor
when the recipient failed to adhere to current U.S. Army doctrinal immediate
action battle drills resulting in severe injury to himself and the death and
severe injury of others?

Further, shouldn't 16 United States Navy Seals receive the Medal of Honor for
mission success in neutralizing the most wanted international terrorist in
United States history in lieu current United States Army and Marine Corps Medal
of Honor awardees who failed to accomplish their units planned mission, failed to
adhere to lawful orders, failed to preposition appropriately according to approved
tactical doctrine, failed to pre-plan fire support, failed to implement current U.S.
Army approved doctrinal battle drills appropriate for reacting to enemy grenade
attacks, near and far ambushes, and last but least became casualties and a burden
upon the unit due to incompetence. Current Medal of Honor awardees
claims to fame are that the lives of comrades were saved. Within the Law of
Land Warfare, U.S. soldiers are required to protect each other, to perform
first aide, to transport and protect life. It is a requirement within the call of duty.
Controversial and hot!!! Your views?

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 6 at 2015 7:01 AM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 06 Jun 2015 07:01:30 -0400

Absolutely not. The historical precedence for missions like this have already been set. The Son Tay Raid is a classic example of this. Both instances have strategic effects. With the Son Tay Raid, Silver Stars were issued to the bulk of the raiders. Nothing higher is deserved for just being there.

There is also an expectation that the valor displayed in a SOF unit must be higher than that displayed in a conventional unit by virtue of the being surrounding by more competent individuals and a more robust support infrastructure on call (a fact well documented).

Also you cannot compare the actions of 16 SEALs from a Tier 1 unit to a lone farm boy, especially since the lone farm boy acted alone, knocked 32 machine gun nests, killed at least 20 Germans and captured 132 Germans.

Also, this is not controversial or hot.

Response by CPL Zachariah Chitwood made Jun 6 at 2015 7:10 AM

CPL Zachariah Chitwood — Sat, 06 Jun 2015 07:10:50 -0400

I don't feel that they rate the MOH, in my opinion. Did they do an amazing job? Absolutely. Do they deserve credit? Undoubtedly. But it is the same thing as those who feel that CPO Chris Kyle deserves the MOH. What they did was their job. They trained for it, they executed it and it was successful. I don't feel that any of those men should be standing alongside the likes of MSG Roy Benavidez and the others like him. They didn't go above and beyond, as bad as that may sound. They did what they were trained to do.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 6 at 2015 9:17 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 06 Jun 2015 09:17:44 -0400

No.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Jun 6 at 2015 9:19 AM

COL Charles Williams — Sat, 06 Jun 2015 09:19:38 -0400

I hope this is your question, and not something DOD or the Administration is considering? @MAJ James Hill? Of course they don't warrant the MOH. That would cheapen the award to say the least.

Response by CPO Joseph Grant made Jun 6 at 2015 12:16 PM

CPO Joseph Grant — Sat, 06 Jun 2015 12:16:51 -0400

I don't feel they rate the MOH. We've watered down our awards too much already.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 6 at 2015 2:12 PM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 06 Jun 2015 14:12:27 -0400

Great! I have witnessed some outstanding discussion reference this issue. The discussion encompasses a very good representation of the rank structure. The key accomplishment in this discussion is that participants reinforced and solidified what the United States Navy and the United States government has already decided. No Medals of Honor for 16 U.S. Navy Seals. Now the next issue. How do we coach, train, and teach, our warriors on the battlefield to adhere to current Army doctrine to better preserve American lives and equipment. Do we reinforce improper procedures on the battlefield with the award of a medal or do we refrain from the medal and reinforce doctrine. It is complicated in most circles at echelons above corps because we all want to preserve Army pride. Do we relax good judgement and sound Army doctrine on the battlefield for the preservation of Army pride, or do we coach, train, and teach to standard in the interest of preserving American lives. Of course in some Army circles it is alleged that recent Medal of Honor awardees, although their actions are worthy of medals, their actions are not worthy of the Medal of Honor because their actions be within the guidelines that the United States Army has established as the call of duty. In the call of duty, American soldiers are required to save the lives of their comrades, return fire upon the enemy, perform first aid, call for fire support to suppress the enemy, to obey lawful orders, and to diligently resist capture. All within the call of duty. What examples should we establish for our junior enlisted and junior officers to emulate? Powerful testimony across the rank structure in this discussion. A few insubordinate statements and a few violations of Army doctrine supported but yet an overall exciting discussion. Your thoughts?

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 6 at 2015 2:30 PM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 06 Jun 2015 14:30:50 -0400

Of course I am a participant on another social group discussing this issue. It is alleged that our Medal of Honor awardees are worthy of medals but not the Medal of Honor. Shocking to some, unpatriotic to others. In example, the following is alleged; SFC Leroy Petry, a U.S. Army Medal of Honor Awardee, retrieved an enemy grenade in violation of US Army doctrine reference the proper battle drill or immediate action drill when encountering an enemy grenade and subsequently lost an arm doing so. The penalty for not responding with the proper immediate action drill. His actions are not beyond the call of duty but simply a blunder in judgement resulting in the loss of an arm. We do not seek to degrade the recipient of the medal but to simply preserve the proud tradition of the medal. In reading the testimony of several other recent Medal of Honor recipients, it is clear and apparent that significant failure to comply and or adhere to US Army doctrine, resulted in multiple KIA and WIA. For example; Captain Swenson, another recent Medal of Honor awardee, could not obtain artillery support to assist him in relieving enemy pressure upon more than 5 U.S. combatants caught in an enemy kill zone. A far ambush. Captain Swenson repeatedly attempted to get fire support, over the radio. Fire support that he failed to pre-plan for. Because of his failure to submit a fire support plan and failure to establish final protective fires prior to his mission, Captain Swenson and his training element fell into an enemy far ambush and could not acquire artillery support and he further failed to initiate appropriate US Army doctrine to react to an enemy far ambush resulting in multiple U.S. KIA's. Did Captain Swenson have enough personnel to initiate appropriate U.S. Army doctrine to react to an enemy far ambush? He did have but failed to take appropriate action which resulted in the death of 5 U.S. Military personnel. 20 afghan border police and 20 Afghan army soldiers were available for initiating the proper response to a far ambush. It is alleged that Captain Swenson failed to take appropriate action and is awarded the Medal of Honor in error. How should we respond to this? Do we protect Army pride or do we enforce proper procedure on the battlefield for the sake of American lives. Your opinions?

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 6 at 2015 3:07 PM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 06 Jun 2015 15:07:13 -0400

They were simply doing a job. Doesnt rate.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Jun 6 at 2015 3:07 PM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Sat, 06 Jun 2015 15:07:38 -0400

There is no doubt that "operators" go above and beyond what is expected of the typical SM and this mission is no exception. However, IMHO, this does not warrant a blanket award of the MOH simply because of the nature of the mission.

Response by SPC(P) Jay Heenan made Jun 6 at 2015 4:15 PM

SPC(P) Jay Heenan — Sat, 06 Jun 2015 16:15:44 -0400

Against my better judgement, I will share my feelings about this topic. I guess I would pose a question in response. Considering the mission of our Special Operators, what kind of actions would be considered MOH worthy? There was a big political push years ago to have some 'recent' award earners. At one point, there were two (I believe) recipients on JBLM at the same time. I am not saying that those folks who earned the award were not deserving, but when you read the citation, well, lets say that I know some still serving active duty guys that should be wearing it as well.

The bigger issue, in my own opinion, is the way awards are given. Granted, I am extremely bitter and biased regarding this issue. To go on a deployment and already know who is getting what award is complete crap. Some dribble about 'scope of responsibility'. I had to re-write my 638 because my E-6 was getting an MSM and I could only get a ARCOM. But I digress, sorry to stray off topic.

Response by SGT Anthony Bussing made Jun 7 at 2015 1:02 PM

SGT Anthony Bussing — Sun, 07 Jun 2015 13:02:35 -0400

no...because they did a job...if we do this...we might as well just start handing it out like the bronze star...

the Medal is something that should be held in the HIGHEST of regard...like...if you ever see one in real life, it just takes your breath away...

one Medal awardee I am acquainted with...got his in Viet Nam by swimming back and forth in a river during an attack, dragging his men to safety...knowing full well, that at the time this was going on...he didnt know how to swim...

his Medal of Honor ceremony was the one used in "Forrest Gump"

and I quote:

"Rank and organization: Sergeant, U.S. Army, Battery C, 2d Battalion, 4th Artillery, 9th Infantry Division. Place and date: West of Cai Lay, Republic of Vietnam, 18 November 1967. Entered service at: Indianapolis, Ind. Born: 1 November 1946, Dayton, Ohio. Citation: For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action at the risk of his life and beyond the call of duty. Sgt. Davis (then PFc.) distinguished himself during the early morning hours while serving as a cannoneer with Battery C, at a remote fire support base. At approximately 0200 hours, the fire support base was under heavy enemy mortar attack. Simultaneously, an estimated reinforced Viet Cong battalion launched a fierce ground assault upon the fire support base. The attacking enemy drove to within 25 meters of the friendly positions. Only a river separated the Viet Cong from the fire support base. Detecting a nearby enemy position, Sgt. Davis seized a machinegun and provided covering fire for his guncrew, as they attempted to bring direct artillery fire on the enemy. Despite his efforts, an enemy recoilless rifle round scored a direct hit upon the artillery piece. The resultant blast hurled the guncrew from their weapon and blew Sgt. Davis into a foxhole. He struggled to his feet and returned to the howitzer, which was burning furiously. Ignoring repeated warning to seek cover, Sgt. Davis rammed a shell into the gun. Disregarding a withering hail of enemy fire directed against his position, he aimed and fired the howitzer which rolled backward, knocking Sgt. Davis violently to the ground. Undaunted, he returned to the weapon to fire again when an enemy mortar round exploded within 20 meters of his position, injured him painfully. Nevertheless, Sgt. Davis loaded the artillery piece, aimed and fired. Again he was knocked down by the recoil. In complete disregard for his safety, Sgt. Davis loaded and fired 3 more shells into the enemy. Disregarding his extensive injuries and his inability to swim, Sgt. Davis picked up an air mattress and struck out across the deep river to rescue 3 wounded comrades on the far side. Upon reaching the 3 wounded men, he stood upright and fired into the dense vegetation to prevent the Viet Cong from advancing. While the most seriously wounded soldier was helped across the river, Sgt. Davis protected the 2 remaining casualties until he could pull them across the river to the fire support base. Though suffering from painful wounds, he refused medical attention, joining another howitzer crew which fired at the large Viet Cong force until it broke contact and fled, Sgt. Davis� extraordinary heroism, at the risk of his life, are in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon himself and the U.S. Army."

http://www.cmohs.org/recipient-detail/3256/davis-sammy-l.php

sorry...but those SEALS dont quite make the cut, in my book, to be awarded the CMH

CMOHS.org - Private First Class DAVIS, SAMMY L., U.S. Army

Response by TSgt Kenneth Ellis made Jun 7 at 2015 1:19 PM

TSgt Kenneth Ellis — Sun, 07 Jun 2015 13:19:11 -0400

Not to say they are not worthy. If you awarded it to everyone. Wouldn't you be diminishing it.

Response by SGT Anthony Bussing made Jun 7 at 2015 1:28 PM

SGT Anthony Bussing — Sun, 07 Jun 2015 13:28:13 -0400

this also smack of of jealousy....at least thats the way Im reading into this...

but one thing I do know from over 25 years experience...is that while we train to fight our next war the same way we fought our last one...never works...

Response by SSgt Everett Jones made Jun 7 at 2015 2:59 PM

SSgt Everett Jones — Sun, 07 Jun 2015 14:59:27 -0400

Actions that result in the awarding of the MOH are always spur of the moment , not pre-planned. You spoke of Sgt Alvin York, his actions were not Army doctrine, he left his unit to perform his actions solo. Audie Murphy's actions also were not Army doctrine. The actions of MOH recipients are decisions made as they went along, you never pre-plan jumping on a grenade. When you follow a plan and execute it, you are simply following orders, regardless of the hazards of the plan. It is the unplanned actions taken by individuals that set them apart from the crowd that make them exemplary, the ones who do go above and beyond in order to save their fellow soldiers.

Response by LCDR Bruce Cooley made Jun 8 at 2015 3:58 PM

LCDR Bruce Cooley — Mon, 08 Jun 2015 15:58:16 -0400

This is a tough call.....Yes they did eliminate the "head" of the current (at the time) Snake of international terrorism.....but then again, do not the intel personnel also share in that??? Admittedly, the intel personnel could not (Probably) have carried out the raid....but it raises the question. They are Special Warfare sailors, so the unusual and dangerous is their everyday 'playground'......but then again, this mission had zero room for errors and yet they still carried off the mission IN SPITE of losing a chopper. In the final AAR though, Yes, I think they DO deserve the Medal.

Response by CSM Bill Roy made Jun 8 at 2015 6:47 PM

CSM Bill Roy — Mon, 08 Jun 2015 18:47:33 -0400

I find it disheartening to say they failed in their mission. Their actions were above what is expected and showed great valor
Not sure why the author is trying to put them down
Ok so Seals got Osama. That warrants a MOH just cos they were there. Not my place to judge but let's not down play others actions

Response by CSM David Heidke made Jun 9 at 2015 2:04 PM

CSM David Heidke — Tue, 09 Jun 2015 14:04:01 -0400

So you want them to get the Medal of Honor because they are Seals? or because of the outcome of the mission? Or because they subsequently died in a helicopter crash?

None of which makes them eligible for the award.

You really have to go above and beyond, not just go on a mission and be successful.

....so no.

Response by PO3 Jordan Davis made Jun 11 at 2015 5:37 PM

PO3 Jordan Davis — Thu, 11 Jun 2015 17:37:57 -0400

In my opinion, no.

Response by MSgt Mike Brown; MBTI-CP; MA, Ph.D. made Jun 12 at 2015 7:45 PM

MSgt Mike Brown; MBTI-CP; MA, Ph.D. — Fri, 12 Jun 2015 19:45:39 -0400

Go to Youtube and listen To Cpl. Kyle Carpenter's story, and also Sgt. Dakota Meyers... More than just, "Doing your duty." What I believe is a national shame is the case of St. Perelta: Navy Cross for jumping on a grenade, and ending his life to save the lives of fellow Marines -- some surgeon behind a desk deemed it unlikely that he could have done such a thing, with the gravity of would sustained -- but how in the hell would he know what a Marine/Sailor/Soldier/Airmen/ is capable of in the final seconds of life? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t5b7qriF1Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vahLBesP3yk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NysxMe-2dPk

The President Awards the Medal of Honor to Corporal William "Kyle" Carpenter

President Obama awards Corporal William "Kyle" Carpenter the Medal of Honor for his courageous actions while serving in Afghanistan, June 19, 2014.

Response by MSgt Mike Brown; MBTI-CP; MA, Ph.D. made Jun 12 at 2015 7:58 PM

MSgt Mike Brown; MBTI-CP; MA, Ph.D. — Fri, 12 Jun 2015 19:58:27 -0400

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9ldSEsECQU