Posted on Mar 1, 2015
Should you be considered a veteran of a particular campaign, if you have never actually been on the ground there?
32.2K
273
122
15
15
0
I have seen earlier discussion(s) about Vietnam Era Veterans vs. Vietnam Veterans. The later group being ones who actually served in the RVN combat theater of the operations (AOO), or (I assume) the area of responsibility (AOR). This includes ground forces in the AOO, and supporting forces in the (AOR).
The gray area, which always seems to be the area of confusion and often consternation, are those who support the AOO from outside of its boundaries and what type of support are they actually providing.
A few examples:
1. I served all over Iraq, and in Baghdad for 15 months during the Surge. As you know service members in Kuwait, Qatar and other places around the AOR, many of whom never entered Iraq, are (A) considered OIF campaign veterans, and (B) were entitled to the same pay benefits (CZTE - IDP) as we were. Serving in Baghdad, in places like Sadr City the like, I was as times frustrated that my peers on Qatar (who could even drink there) were getting the same benefits that we were. I think the only difference was they could not award combat awards and decorations.
* During a really bad time (week) during the surge, I got a photo from a buddy on email, who was on the 6 month CENTCOM rotation into Qatar, of him sitting in a Jacuzzi drinking a beer, in Qatar. I know they received CZTE, but not sure about IDP. But, they are OIF campaign veterans like me. That still bothers me. Yes, I know I need to let it go.
2. During Allied Force, USAF pilots were flying bombing missions from Aviano Italy into Kosovo and back in the same day. I don't think they qualified for any pay benefits aside from what they get normally, but there was a big "to do" when they tried to award combat medals to USAF personnel who never left Italy or EUCOM HQ (Stuttgart).
3. Today B2 Bombers fly from Missouri to current combat theaters and back in 24 hours... Are they OEF veterans? Should they be?
I am not saying only ground forces deserve credit, as I believe both those serving in the theater on ground, as well as those who provide direct support into or over the combat theater deserves the same campaign credit. Examples would be USN or USAF flying missions into the area, but returning to bases/carriers outside the AOO or even AOR. Blue water Navy providing support in the AOR etc. I suspect there are many I don't see or know about as a Soldier.
I am sure you have many examples, and I have my opinions, which are based on my experiences. I am interested in what you think, so I can broaden my perspective.
The gray area, which always seems to be the area of confusion and often consternation, are those who support the AOO from outside of its boundaries and what type of support are they actually providing.
A few examples:
1. I served all over Iraq, and in Baghdad for 15 months during the Surge. As you know service members in Kuwait, Qatar and other places around the AOR, many of whom never entered Iraq, are (A) considered OIF campaign veterans, and (B) were entitled to the same pay benefits (CZTE - IDP) as we were. Serving in Baghdad, in places like Sadr City the like, I was as times frustrated that my peers on Qatar (who could even drink there) were getting the same benefits that we were. I think the only difference was they could not award combat awards and decorations.
* During a really bad time (week) during the surge, I got a photo from a buddy on email, who was on the 6 month CENTCOM rotation into Qatar, of him sitting in a Jacuzzi drinking a beer, in Qatar. I know they received CZTE, but not sure about IDP. But, they are OIF campaign veterans like me. That still bothers me. Yes, I know I need to let it go.
2. During Allied Force, USAF pilots were flying bombing missions from Aviano Italy into Kosovo and back in the same day. I don't think they qualified for any pay benefits aside from what they get normally, but there was a big "to do" when they tried to award combat medals to USAF personnel who never left Italy or EUCOM HQ (Stuttgart).
3. Today B2 Bombers fly from Missouri to current combat theaters and back in 24 hours... Are they OEF veterans? Should they be?
I am not saying only ground forces deserve credit, as I believe both those serving in the theater on ground, as well as those who provide direct support into or over the combat theater deserves the same campaign credit. Examples would be USN or USAF flying missions into the area, but returning to bases/carriers outside the AOO or even AOR. Blue water Navy providing support in the AOR etc. I suspect there are many I don't see or know about as a Soldier.
I am sure you have many examples, and I have my opinions, which are based on my experiences. I am interested in what you think, so I can broaden my perspective.
Posted in these groups: 
Combat
Deployment
Combat Deployment
Edited 11 y ago
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 54
1
1
0
A Veteran is a Veteran of a campaign for which they received credit. They served where they were assigned. None is more than another, except in their own mind.
With regard to those who exaggerate, or outright lie, about their experiences, it doesn't bother me because it is their shortcoming. It is nothing new, and isn't limited to military service.
For your entertainment, the VA considers combat duty anywhere since 1990, as the Gulf War period, not as Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, etc. For the VA, Vietnam Era period is February 28, 1961 – May 7, 1975 for Veterans who served in the Republic of Vietnam during that period; otherwise August 5, 1964 – May 7, 1975. So, that's one of the sources of the Vietnam Era Veteran who never served in combat. It's based on law.
With regard to those who exaggerate, or outright lie, about their experiences, it doesn't bother me because it is their shortcoming. It is nothing new, and isn't limited to military service.
For your entertainment, the VA considers combat duty anywhere since 1990, as the Gulf War period, not as Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, etc. For the VA, Vietnam Era period is February 28, 1961 – May 7, 1975 for Veterans who served in the Republic of Vietnam during that period; otherwise August 5, 1964 – May 7, 1975. So, that's one of the sources of the Vietnam Era Veteran who never served in combat. It's based on law.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
I can't speak for all the branches but I can tell you that it took all of our era personnel to help us accomplish our mission in country. This is a significant issue with those of us who were USAF. let me try to explain it by giving an example of something that confronted us all the time. We would continuously hear something like this from the Army and Marines: "What would you guys know about combat, you're just Air Force. Supprising though that we didn't hear it from Special Forces guys...why? Because they knew what we went through to support them and in many cases the price we paid to do it.
Just my opinion, but it takes all of us doing our jobs to complete the mission. We tell a story on our website about how the First Air Cav recognized the work we did to help them complete their mission. I BELIEVE THAT WITHOUT THE PROPER ATTITUDE AND APPRECIATION FOR ALL, WE ARE HEADED NOWHERE.
Just my opinion, but it takes all of us doing our jobs to complete the mission. We tell a story on our website about how the First Air Cav recognized the work we did to help them complete their mission. I BELIEVE THAT WITHOUT THE PROPER ATTITUDE AND APPRECIATION FOR ALL, WE ARE HEADED NOWHERE.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Col Williams,
You are in the Combat Zone until the end of the war. When Congress authorized the war and end the war between those times consider war you are authorized to wear that combat medal. only people can wear the support medal when they are not actual on the ground in Iraq.
You are in the Combat Zone until the end of the war. When Congress authorized the war and end the war between those times consider war you are authorized to wear that combat medal. only people can wear the support medal when they are not actual on the ground in Iraq.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I struggle with the question myself. I don't think I deserve the same benefits as a combat wounded Veteran.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Number two seems like it would make sense for those pilots to receive combat awards even if their base is elsewhere. They were flying combat missions are they not?
As for your over all piece... I dunno sir, I think it's a bit of a mess the way the VA handles it. Different eras seem to be targeted for different programs and entitlements, so having us categorized helps the VA sort us, but there's something to be said for actually being boots on the ground in country. Toughie. I'll have to roll this around in my brain housing unit.
As for your over all piece... I dunno sir, I think it's a bit of a mess the way the VA handles it. Different eras seem to be targeted for different programs and entitlements, so having us categorized helps the VA sort us, but there's something to be said for actually being boots on the ground in country. Toughie. I'll have to roll this around in my brain housing unit.
(1)
(0)
COL Charles Williams
I concur, the VA is mess. I was more speaking of campaign medals and proximity to the combat area of operations.
(0)
(0)
LCpl (Join to see)
Sorry, locked onto the "era" vs. campaign discussion. Okay having gotten through my cup of coffee and kicked it around mentally. I'd say campaign medals should go to guys on the ground in country. Even fobbits. (Like me for example if I'd managed to deploy), I know there's an OEF/OIF expeditionary medal, I'm not sure of the award criteria for it, but I would think that's more appropriate for guys who are deployed in support of the campaign, but are either not stationed in country/directly in harm's way, or only see said country from 30,000 feet while delivering warheads to foreheads.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Sir,
I think this is absolutely a valid question. As has already been mentioned it is also an emotionally charged discussion. I deployed in 2011 with Operation Enduring Freedom orders to Kuwait and ran convoy escort missions throughout Iraq. In total I ran 18 missions and made it as far north as Joint Base Balad. I've had fellow service members based in Iraq argue that I'm not an "Iraq war veteran" because I was based in Kuwait. In most cases I had spent more time "outside the wire" than they had. While I feel I earned my ICM, I will admit I found staff weenies who never set foot in Iraq being awarded the ICM irritating.
In my opinion our pilots should qualify, especially those in a ground support role. The fact that they're in the air v. on the ground shouldn't matter. They're still operating in a combat zone. The loggies and maintainers either on a ship or airfield miles away I think fall into a separate category. While they're supporting the effort, they are not sharing the same risks nor are they entering any portion of the combat zone. For our naval brethren in the gulf I believe the GWOT-E medal would be more appropriate. They're deployed, but not into a designated combat zone. Likewise I believe the GWOT-E would be a more appropriate award for those stationed in Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, etc. The drone operators ar the most difficult to define. While they're operating their equipment in a combat zone, there is inherently zero risk involved with their job. One could also argue that if they're OIF/OEF veterans that Cyber Warfare troops could also qualify. I'll have to think more on that specific point.
I've never understood the rationale behind Veterans claiming "Cold War Era" or "Viet Nam Era" status. I have a coworker who wears one of the two ball caps to work every day. It's certainly hard to imagine someone claiming "GWOT ERA" Veteran status 20 years from now. I have met a number of Cold War era and post Desert Storm era vets who say they feel overshadowed by the recent influx of Combat Veterans, so perhaps that's part of it. In my opinion they should just be proud to be "Veterans."
I think this is absolutely a valid question. As has already been mentioned it is also an emotionally charged discussion. I deployed in 2011 with Operation Enduring Freedom orders to Kuwait and ran convoy escort missions throughout Iraq. In total I ran 18 missions and made it as far north as Joint Base Balad. I've had fellow service members based in Iraq argue that I'm not an "Iraq war veteran" because I was based in Kuwait. In most cases I had spent more time "outside the wire" than they had. While I feel I earned my ICM, I will admit I found staff weenies who never set foot in Iraq being awarded the ICM irritating.
In my opinion our pilots should qualify, especially those in a ground support role. The fact that they're in the air v. on the ground shouldn't matter. They're still operating in a combat zone. The loggies and maintainers either on a ship or airfield miles away I think fall into a separate category. While they're supporting the effort, they are not sharing the same risks nor are they entering any portion of the combat zone. For our naval brethren in the gulf I believe the GWOT-E medal would be more appropriate. They're deployed, but not into a designated combat zone. Likewise I believe the GWOT-E would be a more appropriate award for those stationed in Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, etc. The drone operators ar the most difficult to define. While they're operating their equipment in a combat zone, there is inherently zero risk involved with their job. One could also argue that if they're OIF/OEF veterans that Cyber Warfare troops could also qualify. I'll have to think more on that specific point.
I've never understood the rationale behind Veterans claiming "Cold War Era" or "Viet Nam Era" status. I have a coworker who wears one of the two ball caps to work every day. It's certainly hard to imagine someone claiming "GWOT ERA" Veteran status 20 years from now. I have met a number of Cold War era and post Desert Storm era vets who say they feel overshadowed by the recent influx of Combat Veterans, so perhaps that's part of it. In my opinion they should just be proud to be "Veterans."
(1)
(0)
COL Charles Williams
Excellent comments and thanks MAJ (Join to see) ! I appreciate your insight and comments. Your examples are great. I was not speaking of folks based adjacent to and operating in the AOO, I was more speaking of those who work in the AOR, but never enter the combat area of operations. Some of your staff weenie experiences sound similar to some things I have seen. Thanks for your service.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
I think you're taking my comment a little too personally SSgt. Taking a light jab at the troops who had cushy deployments doesn't mean I don't respect them or their service. Right or wrong, there's always going to be some friendly rivalry between the line troops and those in the rear. Some people take it too far, but most of the time it's not unlike the inter-service rivalry you'll encounter down at the local VFW.
I realize they didn't write the regs and I don't blame them for receiving the ICM. I disagree with the regulations, which is part of the discussion at hand. How can you be a veteran of a combat zone you never set foot in or flew over? Saying I was a little burnt up about it is just honesty.
I realize they didn't write the regs and I don't blame them for receiving the ICM. I disagree with the regulations, which is part of the discussion at hand. How can you be a veteran of a combat zone you never set foot in or flew over? Saying I was a little burnt up about it is just honesty.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
This is not against you Sir
A lot of it boils down to pride and ego. Some, not all, feel if you didn't have it harder than them or equal to them, you are not worthy. It is hard to decide what exactly "directly supported" could mean.
If that 42A on rear detachment processes your paperwork and awards, etc... Did they not directly support the operation? If you dismiss that idea and say they never entered the actual country, well neither did that bomber at 52K feet who dropped all his payload and flew home.
But he/she crew are now and will always be "combat veterans". Like it or not it isn't your place to say they are not. Some people today seem to have so little pride in what they have accomplished they must belittle and degrade the contributions of others to feel superior.
Certain groups feel they are the only one who deserve recognition, such as when the CAB came out. So it seems being attacked on convoys or other missions is different from being attacked in certain other MOS's, what do I know right?
But yet when that medavac bird flies in and picks up your comrades and my Apaches fly security and kill everything around you. Get shot and come home to me to be repaired. Or those other MOS's keep you supplied etc...This somehow makes them "less" of a vet than you?
Too many people can only look at life through their filter and it leaves them lacking.
A lot of it boils down to pride and ego. Some, not all, feel if you didn't have it harder than them or equal to them, you are not worthy. It is hard to decide what exactly "directly supported" could mean.
If that 42A on rear detachment processes your paperwork and awards, etc... Did they not directly support the operation? If you dismiss that idea and say they never entered the actual country, well neither did that bomber at 52K feet who dropped all his payload and flew home.
But he/she crew are now and will always be "combat veterans". Like it or not it isn't your place to say they are not. Some people today seem to have so little pride in what they have accomplished they must belittle and degrade the contributions of others to feel superior.
Certain groups feel they are the only one who deserve recognition, such as when the CAB came out. So it seems being attacked on convoys or other missions is different from being attacked in certain other MOS's, what do I know right?
But yet when that medavac bird flies in and picks up your comrades and my Apaches fly security and kill everything around you. Get shot and come home to me to be repaired. Or those other MOS's keep you supplied etc...This somehow makes them "less" of a vet than you?
Too many people can only look at life through their filter and it leaves them lacking.
(1)
(0)
COL Charles Williams
SFC Eric Hendrickson Thanks!
But, I think you either missed my point, or my question was not stated properly.
My question had zero to do with MOS, as first I am a support Soldier like you (or at least I was). Second, as a support Soldier, and as a Commander,XO,or DBC at many levels, I clearly understand the Army can't function without us (we are like 75% support Soldiers), you, and all the rest. From the time I was a company commander, I realized the most important troops in my company where the support Soldiers that allowed the MPs to move,. shoot and communicate... not the MPs.
I am also well aware of the dangers to support Soldiers, and their convoys, as that is one our many mission sets. I also know aside from Infantry Troops, then next highest casualty rates come from Engineer, MP, and transportation Units.
The intent of my question was not to degrade, disparage, or act superior. That is not me.
That said, my question was more of proximity to the combat theater, based on the threads I was reading Vietnam-era vs. Vietnam Veterans. Thinking about those questions, GWOT, and OEF and OIF, I was simply what others thought about the inclusion of adjacent counties in the campaign award area, or whether being on the ground in the combat area was necessary.
Again, this was not about MOS, nor was in meant to be disparaging. I was just thinking about experiences, and wondering what others thought.
Thanks for your comments!!! Thanks also for your service and support!
But, I think you either missed my point, or my question was not stated properly.
My question had zero to do with MOS, as first I am a support Soldier like you (or at least I was). Second, as a support Soldier, and as a Commander,XO,or DBC at many levels, I clearly understand the Army can't function without us (we are like 75% support Soldiers), you, and all the rest. From the time I was a company commander, I realized the most important troops in my company where the support Soldiers that allowed the MPs to move,. shoot and communicate... not the MPs.
I am also well aware of the dangers to support Soldiers, and their convoys, as that is one our many mission sets. I also know aside from Infantry Troops, then next highest casualty rates come from Engineer, MP, and transportation Units.
The intent of my question was not to degrade, disparage, or act superior. That is not me.
That said, my question was more of proximity to the combat theater, based on the threads I was reading Vietnam-era vs. Vietnam Veterans. Thinking about those questions, GWOT, and OEF and OIF, I was simply what others thought about the inclusion of adjacent counties in the campaign award area, or whether being on the ground in the combat area was necessary.
Again, this was not about MOS, nor was in meant to be disparaging. I was just thinking about experiences, and wondering what others thought.
Thanks for your comments!!! Thanks also for your service and support!
(0)
(0)
SFC Eric Hendrickson
Sir
I was merely making an analogy, perhaps not well explained however, between in country vets and supporting country vets. Compared to how certain groups view other groups serving in the same country. It was not directed at you Sir, my apologies if you thought that.
If those areas are deemed vital to the effort by the powers that have that right and are awarded a combat patch, combat pays etc... I ask the question, how does that change what you did? How does that make your effort somehow less than because someone else gets recognized?
We all need each other to accomplish our mission
I was merely making an analogy, perhaps not well explained however, between in country vets and supporting country vets. Compared to how certain groups view other groups serving in the same country. It was not directed at you Sir, my apologies if you thought that.
If those areas are deemed vital to the effort by the powers that have that right and are awarded a combat patch, combat pays etc... I ask the question, how does that change what you did? How does that make your effort somehow less than because someone else gets recognized?
We all need each other to accomplish our mission
(0)
(0)
COL Charles Williams
They need us, more than we need them :)... they just don't know that. That is nature of being a support guy. You know they are main effort, but also know they can't succeed with you/us. I truly loved my job and mission as a MP, and as I said knew my most important players to success or failure, were our support Soldiers. The MP part is the easy part.
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
ABSOLUTELY!!!!
Think about the Navy/CG/USMC. Many of our ships are involved in the campaigns. Yet most of the ship's company never leave the ship. Should they be excluded?
What about ships in a support role? I was on USS SHENANDOAH (AD44) for Provide Comfort. We were providing maintenance and logistics to the operational units. We got the SWASM, KLMK and MUC for that tour...
Think about the Navy/CG/USMC. Many of our ships are involved in the campaigns. Yet most of the ship's company never leave the ship. Should they be excluded?
What about ships in a support role? I was on USS SHENANDOAH (AD44) for Provide Comfort. We were providing maintenance and logistics to the operational units. We got the SWASM, KLMK and MUC for that tour...
COL Charles Williams
Thank you LCDR Jaron Matlow ! I appreciate your comments and your perspectives!
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
You are welcome, Col Williams..
1
1
0
Sir, it is a slippery slope to start defining veterans and combat veterans. Next it may be only soldiers awarded a CAB will be considered a campaign veteran.
My O/CT unit was mobilized for a year to support pre-deployment training during the surge. Granted, we were not in the danger zone, but the 24-7 op tempo and 16 hour days were just as demanding as many who were providing support in Iraq or Afghanistan.
The Army recognized, to some degree, the added sacrifice of deployed vets through increased pay, and more awards and recognition.
My O/CT unit was mobilized for a year to support pre-deployment training during the surge. Granted, we were not in the danger zone, but the 24-7 op tempo and 16 hour days were just as demanding as many who were providing support in Iraq or Afghanistan.
The Army recognized, to some degree, the added sacrifice of deployed vets through increased pay, and more awards and recognition.
(1)
(0)
COL Charles Williams
Thanks! I was not in anyway meaning to disparage any veteran, or any service. The key to serving is doing your very best where you are planted. My question was more a second order effect of the Vietnam and Vietnam Era question(s). I appreciate the azimuth check!
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google