Posted on Apr 5, 2015
COL Charles Williams
130K
623
240
52
50
2
The Combat Action Badge was created in 2005 to honor those who'd engaged or been engaged by enemy forces during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but weren't eligible for similar awards available to medics or infantrymen.

It was made retroactive to Sept. 18, 2001, but since shortly after its founding, lawmakers and veterans groups have pushed to send it back much farther — to the outbreak of World War II.

As Maneuver Support Soldier, I know support personal (like Aviation, Engineers, MPs, Truck Drivers, etc. (in addition to our Medics who accompany maneuver forces) are often also directly engaged in close combat along side of our infantry and armor brothers. So, the CAB made sense to me, to accompany the CIB and CMB.

Despite the frenzy that ensued, and discussions of "CAB hunters," I still believe this is an important award, especially for MOSs like MP and Engineers.... who, as an example, during the surge in Iraq were rivaling our combat arms brothers in daily combat casualties.

I was personally shot at more and returned fire more in Somalia, than Iraq. So, this being retroactive also makes sense.

I think this is a good idea, and deserved, however, the logistics of doing this will be overwhelming.

Before you CAB naysayers chime in... Consider COP Keating... Those guys were not 11Bs. They were scouts and armor crewmen. 2 MOHs and many other medals were awarded there. 8 Soldiers were killed and many were wounded. Does not that merit such an award? There are many others like it.

What are your thoughts?


http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/careers/army/2015/04/04/combat-action-badge-retroactive/25235333/
Posted in these groups: Us medals AwardsHqdefault Badges
Edited >1 y ago
Avatar feed
Responses: 75
Votes
  • Newest
  • Oldest
  • Votes
Sgt Frank Rinchich
7
7
0
I read most all your comments, and compared to my post about the national defense medal , the CIB and CAB fall in about the same category. The national defense was a time period medal, the CAB is a happen to be at the right spot at the right time. But I would say if you are under fire , truck driver, cook, or use a typewriter your in a combat situation you deserve the badge. Yeah I know Marines should keep their noses out of Army business. But not to often we can comment on you guys.
(7)
Comment
(0)
COL Charles Williams
COL Charles Williams
10 y
Sgt Frank Rinchich Hooah. Thanks for your comments.
(3)
Reply
(0)
SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL
SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL
10 y
Sgt Frank Rinchich, well said and eloquently expressed
(2)
Reply
(0)
SGT Infantryman (Airborne)
SGT (Join to see)
10 y
Sgt Frank Rinchich, SGT, you Marines can stick your noses in our business anytime. I worked with Marines in DaNang. We were all the same. Scared as hell about the unknown.
(2)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
PVT Mark Zehner
6
6
0
I left the Army 30 years ago but to those that still care I say get one!
(6)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SFC Network Engineer
6
6
0
The point of the CAB, is to recognize those who are NOT infantry, who came under either direct or indirect fire. The SAME reason the CIB exists. If you're infantry, you also can earn an EIB, and if you're a medic, EFMB. There is NO EQUIVALENT, nor should there be, for the EIB, and the EFMB. The COMBAT recognition of anyone who was engaged by the enemy is NOT a bad thing. The problem infantry guys have, is they think that earning a badge for a combat action, is exclusive to them! THEY ARE NOT THE ONLY SOLDIERS who FIGHT and MAKE a LIVING, being a direct action type Soldier. I can name at least a dozen MOS's outside of infantry that do DA missions on a very regular, if not MORE frequent basis, than infantry, and who are NOT entitled to earn a CIB, and MANY of those MOS's regularly, and frequently, put their asses on the line BEHIND enemy lines, something the infantry rarely does unless they get overrun or surrounded. The CAB is the perfect way to recognize ALL Soldiers who actually have had to risk their lives, including supporting infantry.
(6)
Comment
(0)
COL All Source Intelligence
COL (Join to see)
>1 y
Not Indirect - Only Direct and must complete an Offensive / Defensive Act while engaging with the enemy...
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
1SG Kenneth Hills
6
6
0
This problem should have been fixed back in WWII why would only the infantry get this what’s with Armor, Artillery, Combat engineers now we have Iraq and Afghanistan, now we have MP,s, truck drivers, hell everyone was involved.

Check out this web site

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unofficial_badges_of_the_United_States_military

Understand it sucks to be Infantry but it also sucks to be a tanker, a truck driver a Cook when you are deployed and they are shooting at you that SUCKS
By the way yes I am Infantry and Armor.
I’m For it
(6)
Comment
(0)
CSM James Winslow
CSM James Winslow
10 y
I am just going to stay out of this one. Everyone gets a paycheck, that is reward enough for me.
(1)
Reply
(0)
1SG Kenneth Hills
1SG Kenneth Hills
10 y
After 50 years of service Jim, waking up would be good!!
(0)
Reply
(0)
1SG Kenneth Hills
1SG Kenneth Hills
10 y
How have you been CSM Winslow, when in Germany give me a call
(0)
Reply
(0)
CSM James Winslow
CSM James Winslow
10 y
I am in Graf right now. What's your number? .. and it's 38.5 years, all together....
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
TSgt Joshua Copeland
6
6
0
I have no skin in the game, so to speak, but I can go with retroactive award much like it's big sister award the CIB was retroactively awarded.
(6)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
6
6
0
Gut reaction is that documentation would be insane.

Did we even keep records of non-Infantry/Medic/Special Forces who may have been involved in combat?

On the USMC/USN/USCG side, we have one ribbon which covers all personnel, so it's simple. But the Army... Would it have documented incidents that had no administrative purpose? (awards).

When it really boils down to it, the concept of recognition is great. However the initial execution of the CIB/CMB created a hole, and what can only be described as an administrative nightmare.

At this point, there is no real way to prove someone rates it from time periods prior to 2000.
(6)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S.
6
6
0
COL Charles Williams
Thank you for tagging me into this discussion.

I think this is a good idea in general, but wonder how it would be accomplished in practice.
I tried to find combat after action reports for Vietnam with little luck.
I can only guess what the records for WW2 must like.
(6)
Comment
(0)
COL Charles Williams
COL Charles Williams
>1 y
Hooah! Thanks for your comments!
(1)
Reply
(0)
SGT Thomas Lucken
SGT Thomas Lucken
10 y
Jan, you mean the records that survived the fire in ST Louis Records Center 42 years ago!!!!!! :-)
(0)
Reply
(0)
SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S.
SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S.
10 y
SGT Thomas Lucken Here is one take on the "Great Records Fire"
"Army Records: Personnel discharged November 1, 1912 to January 1, 1960 – 80% loss"
And that would cover WW2 and Korea pretty well.

http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=39667
(1)
Reply
(0)
LTC Jason Mackay
LTC Jason Mackay
10 y
I think more survived the fire than they let on, but to manage expectations, they claim 80% of Army records were destroyed. I am researching my Grandfathers service in WWII (Americal Division in the Pacific). http://www.archives.gov/st-louis/military-personnel/fire-1973.html
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
1LT Executive Officer
5
5
0
Although making the CAB retroactive would be a logistical nightmare - but I do believe that it is something that should be done.

In regards to the award itself -

There are other Soldier outside of the 11B MOS that have been in combat, and that will always be the case. There is no questioning that. While they may not be "Infantrymen" in the traditional sense - they are still Soldiers. It's been quite some time since I went to basic training - but I do distinctly remember them teaching us that you are a Soldier first - your MOS is secondary.

Personally, I feel that the fact that you would deny a Soldier recognition for combat experience based on their MOS is a little asinine. Historically the CIB was created to boost moral within the Infantry Corps and create a prestige in service during WWII. Isn't that exactly what the CAB is intended for in the non-Infantry MOS's? It is a small population of the POG's in the Army that have been awarded a CAB - it distinguishes them from their counterparts who were never exposed to combat. I don't see the issue with that.

You certainly can argue that they were handing out CABs "like candy." But can you be absolutely certain that every 11B wearing a CIB earned it according to the standard? Unfortunately, not everyone in the Army has the integrity to follow the awards process properly - and this goes for any award/badge.

You can make the argument that without the Infantry their would be no Army. But you can make the same argument that without all of the support operations - the Infantry could not function.

I have nothing but respect for the Combat Arms MOS's - I serve in a support function, and have never stated otherwise. I would never want to discredit their service in any way. However, I do find it troubling how quickly some Infantry individuals are willing to discredit mine.

I didn't join to lean a skill that would be useful in the civilian world, or to go to college - I could have done both of those things just fine without the Army. I joined the Army to serve my Country.

In the end - it is important to remember that the Army is structured the way that it is for a reason. We all have out parts to play. We are all Soldiers.

Would you deny a posthumous CAB to a non-Infantryman who was killed in combat fighting next to that 11B? I would hope not. Otherwise we have bigger issues at hand than the logistics of issuing out badges.
(5)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SGM Mikel Dawson
5
5
0
Edited 10 y ago
I think it's a joke. Just let it be as it is. The paper work clog it would create would be extreme, and how would it be proven? Or do we just say everyone in theater gets it?
(5)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SSG John Jensen
5
5
0
Task Force Smith - Korea - that debacle is why we have a thing called 'Basic Combat Trng'
Every one on that mission deserves one

I have a very good friend who was a fwd observer for the field arty in Vietnam who definitely deserves one
(5)
Comment
(0)
SSG John Jensen
SSG John Jensen
10 y
and my great-uncle Ernie was a crewman on an Army Tugboat in the Aleutians - he was at Dutch Harbor where a Japanese Zero was shot down by rifle fire from the ground - he derserves one
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.