Posted on Apr 5, 2015
What are your thoughts on the Combat Action Badge, and it becoming retroactive to 1941?
131K
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/
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/
Awards
Badges
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 75
5
5
0
I've seen the CIB and CAB blanketed to entire brigades in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would be more for the award to be retroactive than just being handed out. Just make sure the vetting process is thorough.
(5)
(0)
COL Charles Williams
Roger... I have seen the battle roster method for the CIB, but never for the CAB, at least not in units I have been in. SSG (Join to see). Thanks for your comments!
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
Hello Colonel Williams.
This is a fantastic idea as long as all service members who would normally qualify, are awarded the badge. This includes African American Soldiers and Women who served under the same conditions of combat as men.
This is a fantastic idea as long as all service members who would normally qualify, are awarded the badge. This includes African American Soldiers and Women who served under the same conditions of combat as men.
(5)
(0)
COL Charles Williams
SFC John Gemmell There are no stipulations for race or gender for this award now, so why would there be in the past... Interesting thoughts.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
COL Charles Williams Colonel; I suspect that he is referring to the vetting process which (although not required to do so by the regulations) appears to be (historically) slightly tilted against the non-male, non-white, non-JudeoChristian service member.
As an example, of the 457 Medals of Honor presented during WWII exactly NONE were presented to "Blacks". True, there were 464 Medals of Honor presented for actions during WWII, but the 7 (that's 1.51% of the total [by 1943 approximately 10.3% of the US Army was composed of "Blacks"]) that were presented to "Blacks" were only presented in 1997 and after Congress had voted special exemptions to the law in order to allow them to be awarded.
As an example, of the 457 Medals of Honor presented during WWII exactly NONE were presented to "Blacks". True, there were 464 Medals of Honor presented for actions during WWII, but the 7 (that's 1.51% of the total [by 1943 approximately 10.3% of the US Army was composed of "Blacks"]) that were presented to "Blacks" were only presented in 1997 and after Congress had voted special exemptions to the law in order to allow them to be awarded.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
COL Charles Williams, and COL Ted Mc, Sirs, that is horrible. That really makes me sad and mad. I'm glad that was changed. The blacks were excellent soldiers in Nam, and were as brave or more brave than many other nationalities.
(0)
(0)
6
5
1
I think the Armor branch would want this. Between WWII's massive Armor battles, Armored Cavalry in Vietnam, and the combined arms fights of the 1980s and 90s
A similar argument could be made for Artillery, Engineers. There were proposals for similar combat badges in the post WWII years and they were struck down.
Agree with CSM Uhlig
A similar argument could be made for Artillery, Engineers. There were proposals for similar combat badges in the post WWII years and they were struck down.
Agree with CSM Uhlig
(6)
(1)
COL Ted Mc
LTC Jason Mackay Colonel; What a lot of people won't tell you is actually true.
If it wasn't for the beans, bullets, and bumwipe the combat arms would be about as useful as a pack of Brownies.
As far as I am concerned, "In Range = In Combat". and I don't care what the other staff wienies say.
If it wasn't for the beans, bullets, and bumwipe the combat arms would be about as useful as a pack of Brownies.
As far as I am concerned, "In Range = In Combat". and I don't care what the other staff wienies say.
(2)
(0)
LTC Jason Mackay
Yes Sir. Our Brigade Support Battalion had as much "action" as some of our Rifle Battalions when it came to mounted operations. Granted, we were not dismounted, pushing into the hinterland...that was a distinction all theirs, but we went out to recover their vehicles. Our AO was the BDE AO.
(0)
(0)
SSG(P) (Join to see)
im an engineer , i can say i have been shot at with just about every kind of small arms there is and more while setting t barrers up on road sides and doing rapid road repairs and culvert denial missions to route clearance missions to setting a bridge across a river while in contact. we referred to ourselves as "bait for the day" but ill say this, we gave way more hurt then we took, i have many awards that say under fire or direct fire on them i have never gotten a cab and dont really care im just glad to keep coming home and teaching my soldiers how to do the same.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
Absolutely! I think this should've been made available a lot sooner. Hell move it all the way back and award them posthumously.
(5)
(0)
5
5
0
I value my CAB award from Kandahar and believe it should be granted retroactively. I like the recommendation of CSM Michael J. Uhlig of granting it to awardees that combat action is defined in the award. You will have to allow a process for prior service to apply as well. I realize that ultimately this is another 'love me' award, but so are all other and since the award is out there and available, the front end of the time should be expanded.
(5)
(0)
Thank you Sir for tagging me but that was after my time and I do not know of it well enough to speak on it. However, I look forward to learning from others on here about it.
(5)
(0)
COL Charles Williams
Plus, you were a medical field Soldier (?), so you might have been eligible for the CMB. The discussion here, is should this be retroactive to 1941, and the harder part would be how on earth would we handle that? PV2 (Join to see)
(1)
(0)
PV2 (Join to see)
I doubt I would eligible Sir. Yes I was a medic but the closest I ever came to combat was NTC at Ft Irwin
(2)
(0)
SGT Chris Quesenberry
I would support the concept as I was awarded the badge back in 2006 for my deployment in 2004. I would only think it would affect korean/vietnam veterans as the majority of ww2 veterans have passed.
(2)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
why not? I know it would be difficult to notify these folks, but it is the right thing to do.
(2)
(0)
4
4
0
I severed in landclearing Bn in Vietnam.with 62n20 mos,which was heavy equipment operator in a Rome Plow D7E catapilla dozer which thousand acres of jungle, was cleared but because we had heavy equipment operators we weren't eligible for the CIB,these men saw as much combat as the infantry and armor that supported them. I think the CAB would be a right move
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
I am in favor of it for my son..who was a 19kilo in Iraq in 2003, TF 2-69...but he often was assigned to drive the First Sargent's humvee..on several occasions he dismounted and was engaged in firefights with the infantry assigned to the Task Force...but he doesn't qualify for a CIB..the CAB would recognize those, particularly enlisted personnel, who fought outside if their primary MOS
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
I stated this in a previous post, the USMC & Navy got it right with the combat service ribbon (or whatever there official name is).
(3)
(0)
CPO (Join to see)
CAR, Combat Action Ribbon, Yes we did, the one problem is that to what on ground is different from a ship On ground must receive fire and return fire, but they have added Direct Contact with IED and or disarming them. The one thing that it does state Zero nothing for IDF of any kind period.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
They do it for medals, why is a badge any different when it comes to the awards process? LOL @ red tape issues!
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
Hmm. Let's recap: You serve(d) in the Armed Forces of the United States. You presumably received incoming fire and maybe even returned said fire. I think that's called doing your J-O-B. Of course if we stopped giving awards for simply doing what is (or should) be expected how could we ever recruit new trainees or retain senior officers/NCOs? Or just maybe we would recruit/retain those with a true desire to selflessly serve a cause higher than themselves.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
3
3
0
As an employee of the Department of Veteran Affairs, I have another perspective that many may not have thought of.
Combat badges are used as a determinant as to whether or not an injury - particularly, PTSD - is service-related. If we retroactively hand out CABs without some sort of criteria to validate actual combat, we will either remove that as a suitable criteria or open up VA Comp to hordes of Veterans who never saw direct action.
This needs to be thought through if implemented, and I think CSM Michael J. Uhlig has as good a place to start as any.
Having said that, isn't this a solution in search of a problem? Excuse me if I have not heard the hew and cry from WWII, Korea, and Vietnam vets looking for a badge decades after the fact.
Combat badges are used as a determinant as to whether or not an injury - particularly, PTSD - is service-related. If we retroactively hand out CABs without some sort of criteria to validate actual combat, we will either remove that as a suitable criteria or open up VA Comp to hordes of Veterans who never saw direct action.
This needs to be thought through if implemented, and I think CSM Michael J. Uhlig has as good a place to start as any.
Having said that, isn't this a solution in search of a problem? Excuse me if I have not heard the hew and cry from WWII, Korea, and Vietnam vets looking for a badge decades after the fact.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
my rage goes through the roof when i read this kind of remf gobbledygook. SPEND THE MONEY ON LIFESAVING, BATTLE WINNING TRAINING AND EQUIPMENT!! not on merit badges and px warrior crap. look at the marines. you get a ribbon. thats it. you dont walk around wearing all that crap. get rid of it. get rid of the rainbow ribbon. all that. look in their file. all that money could be saved and spent on buying ar10's so our troops are killed by stupid roes that enable the tali to sit back with pkms and drop hails of bullets on us. spend that money on brm and battlefield drones that provide overwatch so the enemy cant ambush our patrols. pull your head out of your vain ass and quit playing in the mirror with your dress up swamp thing dandy crap. no one really cares about your patches. can you do pt? can you actually fight? are you doing something better today than yesterday to get your troops home and not maimed by animals in some caveman run s hole? no, youre yapping about uniforms and haircuts and forms. kick you all out and start over.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
There are plenty of support personnel who have been put in harm’s way. Back in the 80’s with the terrorist activity in Europe Regan authorized purple hearts for those injured in the bombings.
Would everyone who served in the EU during these times then get the CAB? Lot’s of questions…
Would everyone who served in the EU during these times then get the CAB? Lot’s of questions…
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
I always thought the Combat Patch, was enough. The Army certainly seems to be the "everyone gets a trophy" service. As an example, look at the Marine Corps' different dress uniforms. So clean, with the Eagle Globe and Anchor emblem on the collar, ribbons, skill and qualification badges, & ribbons, that's it. Not the Army, we are festooned with unit crests, green tabs, DUI's, US and Branch insignia, and a combat patch emblem on the pocket. Now getting back to the CAB, which is a modern rip-off of the German (Nazi) Army's close combat badge from World War II, which is a K98 bayonet and a potato masher hand-grenade, with a wreath, which was awarded for, yes, you guessed it, close combat, eye-ball to eyeball fighting. As you know, the CAB is the modern M9 bayonet, along with a M67 Hand grenade, with a wreath. The CIB is a musket. Why we didn't go with a musket bayonet and a flaming bomb to match the CIB I'll never know. The funny thing is, 90% of troops that get the CAB, never touch a hand grenade in combat, and are rarely issued a bayonet (too dangerous / expensive, Joe or Josephine might cut themselves or their buddy, or they might lose it and have to do a statement of charges or a FLIPL, best to keep them in the arms room). No, the CAB should be either a musket bayonet and flaming bomb, or maybe what most soldiers have in their hands when they earned the badge...a steering wheel. As far as retroactively awarding it, I'd say go back as far a the start of OEF.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
Some would think that I am off my rocker, but yes it should be retroactive to WWII. I would also compare this award to the Navy/MC Combat Action Ribbon and the AF Combat Action Medal.
For those of you that are crying foul, you should study the history behind the Army Awards system. When you do this take a look at the awards and awards process prior to 1900, the period between 1900 and 1916 (MOH Review Board), the WWI awards period, and the WWII awards period. Then take a look at the more current changes and reviews of the awards system that have and have tried to correct inequalities in that system. One historical item that you should consider in the debate, is that at one point when there were only two awards available that the one award was limited to PVTs, no NCOs or Officers allowed, the other award was all ranks. You should also take a look at your own complaints about the award system and your reasoning behind your complaints. One example that you should think about and look at are the current complaints about 'undeserved' awards based on rank and or position. Though I believe that there is some validity about the complaint about the politically correct type statements about everybody gets a trophy / award syndrome.
For those of you that are crying foul, you should study the history behind the Army Awards system. When you do this take a look at the awards and awards process prior to 1900, the period between 1900 and 1916 (MOH Review Board), the WWI awards period, and the WWII awards period. Then take a look at the more current changes and reviews of the awards system that have and have tried to correct inequalities in that system. One historical item that you should consider in the debate, is that at one point when there were only two awards available that the one award was limited to PVTs, no NCOs or Officers allowed, the other award was all ranks. You should also take a look at your own complaints about the award system and your reasoning behind your complaints. One example that you should think about and look at are the current complaints about 'undeserved' awards based on rank and or position. Though I believe that there is some validity about the complaint about the politically correct type statements about everybody gets a trophy / award syndrome.
(3)
(0)
COL Charles Williams
Hooah. SSG Robert Webster Most Infantry guys think it is BS. Tankers, not so much - think they more than any pushed for it. I have mentioned many times about things I seen and heard about awards, and in every war/conflict you can find examples of commanders who failed to maintain the fidelity of the system, and cheapened many awards, where as others were too strict and awarded few. Not just the CAB, the CIB, and many other awards, medals etc. Awards do vary by rank in both wartime and peacetime based on rank, which really means level and scope of responsibility; awards for valor would be the exception. Units and commanders vary in their application of the rules, policies and regulations. I learned a lot about this from first PSG... who did several tours in Vietnam, and had several purple hearts... As long as we have had awards, there have been equity issues.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
I have always thought the Combat Action Badge was something that is just another decoration and something to pacify those crying about Infantry soldier getting an CIB and Medical getting an CMB. Now I want an EAB because I was in and trained to be in action. I think Clothing Sales is really happy.
(3)
(0)
COL Charles Williams
EAB? MSG Brad Sand Thanks. I believe the CAB was/is great, and was needed, as many others provide direct support to Infantry and Fight. Desert Storm is a great example... the Tankers and Scouts destroyed most everything before the Infantry (in trail) arrived... But, they all got CABs, but the Tankers and Scouts got a warm handshake. I know as a career MP (except for 3 years in Armor), MPs fight, not that they are just around fighting, or get ambushed - they fight.
The problem with the CAB, like all awards, is they fidelity, or lack there of, of the system. Commander's have to ensure this, or it cheapens the award, all awards. Commander's are also the ones that create the problems.
I have a CAB, and I wear it proudly. I know the circumstances, I received it, and I know in places before Iraq, we were directly engaged by the enemy, and returned fire and destroyed the enemy.
I sent this to SGT (Join to see) in reference to the CAB being retroactive (on fidelity, or lack there of).
1. May first PSG, G Troop 2/6 Cav, Vietnam Vet. Two tours in the Vietnam as a Cavalry Scout with 113s and he even new the 114 (that would be fun to have around the house). He story was this, as he was explaining the concept of awards, and how they handled. He first served in 11th ACR, and had a several vehicles shot out from under them (his words). He got a Purple Heart on that tour. That was all. He his next tour was as a Scout with 1st ID. He said the entire time he was there, he never saw the enemy, and when left (out-processed) he received a BSM and a CIB, which he said appeared to be the 1ID parting gift.
2. Fast forward to Desert Storm. The lead elements were ACRs and 24th ID, and largley Tanks, with Bradley's etc in trail for safety... It was a Tank Battle after all. The Tankers and Scouts who killed most of the enemy (direct fire kills), got nothing. I had friends in the Infantry, and by the time they arrived the lead elements had defeated most resistance. Several Divisions awarded the CIB by battle roster, not based on individual action. I heard of Commanders who said, they were giving out as many combat awards as they could, as this may be the only opportunity. The 3rd AD was the worst - everyone gets a trophy.
3. Commanders and CSMs are the ones who need to keep fidelity in the system, but not all do. My last Brigade Commander and CSM in Iraq (I was the DBC) were crazy strict with the CAB.... We even had Infantryman in our Brigade, but since they were doing an MP mission, the only combat award (badge) they could get was the CAB... which they hated... and while it made sense, it also didn't make sense on some levels.
Edit
The problem with the CAB, like all awards, is they fidelity, or lack there of, of the system. Commander's have to ensure this, or it cheapens the award, all awards. Commander's are also the ones that create the problems.
I have a CAB, and I wear it proudly. I know the circumstances, I received it, and I know in places before Iraq, we were directly engaged by the enemy, and returned fire and destroyed the enemy.
I sent this to SGT (Join to see) in reference to the CAB being retroactive (on fidelity, or lack there of).
1. May first PSG, G Troop 2/6 Cav, Vietnam Vet. Two tours in the Vietnam as a Cavalry Scout with 113s and he even new the 114 (that would be fun to have around the house). He story was this, as he was explaining the concept of awards, and how they handled. He first served in 11th ACR, and had a several vehicles shot out from under them (his words). He got a Purple Heart on that tour. That was all. He his next tour was as a Scout with 1st ID. He said the entire time he was there, he never saw the enemy, and when left (out-processed) he received a BSM and a CIB, which he said appeared to be the 1ID parting gift.
2. Fast forward to Desert Storm. The lead elements were ACRs and 24th ID, and largley Tanks, with Bradley's etc in trail for safety... It was a Tank Battle after all. The Tankers and Scouts who killed most of the enemy (direct fire kills), got nothing. I had friends in the Infantry, and by the time they arrived the lead elements had defeated most resistance. Several Divisions awarded the CIB by battle roster, not based on individual action. I heard of Commanders who said, they were giving out as many combat awards as they could, as this may be the only opportunity. The 3rd AD was the worst - everyone gets a trophy.
3. Commanders and CSMs are the ones who need to keep fidelity in the system, but not all do. My last Brigade Commander and CSM in Iraq (I was the DBC) were crazy strict with the CAB.... We even had Infantryman in our Brigade, but since they were doing an MP mission, the only combat award (badge) they could get was the CAB... which they hated... and while it made sense, it also didn't make sense on some levels.
Edit
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
To all! Ask those veterans who served on the Korean DMZ from 55 to 91 what it is like to be forgotten! And I am talking ALL MOS's!!!!! Very few ever got any type of combat awards for actions that happen there!!!!
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
Why not a ribbon like the Navy and Marine Corps? This way anyone who meets the criteria can get it awarded.
(3)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Yeah, I've seen my brothers uniform. He is airborne, does something in supply and he has a lot of flair on his uniform too.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
TSgt David L.
Gotcha SSgt Jonathan Bowler I know it was talked about but I didn't know it was now authorized. My troops and I were deployed just as the CAM was in the works and the packages for both the CAB and CAM got lost in the shuffle so we never got either one. Kind of pissed me off that I couldn't take care of my troops but shit happens.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
The ones that do really need to get it, seem to be forgotten the most! 19 Series; Tankers and Scouts!!!! As the motto is for Scouts: "Out Front" alone should explain itself!!!!!!
"Garry Owen"
"Garry Owen"
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
I am one that would be eligible if it were made retroactive. I suppose if I were still serving it would be nice to get, but I got out in 1998. I have all my ribbons and badges somewhere in the basement. Don't get me wrong, I am proud of my service and the things I did during those 12 years, but at this point another badge to sit in the box down stairs really means nothing to me. I don't have an objection to it, but don't find it necessary either. I bet it would mean even less to older vets.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
2
2
0
I don't have a problem with the CAB personally, so long as it is awarded (not given) to the right people and that the criteria is met as stated in the regulation. I see there are a lot of people arguing over the validity of this badge, which in my opinion should be another topic altogether. The question at hand is whether or not the CAB should be retroactively awarded for previous conflicts.
I believe that the award should not be awarded retroactively for the simple fact that the logistics needed and manpower to ensure that it is done properly would be monumentally wasteful, especially in a modern Army that is focusing on reducing the force and appropriating resources elsewhere.
The Army has always been good at throwing money at projects that serve little or no use for the organization as a whole, and I believe this to be one of them. We need to focus more on the Army we have now and how we're going to move forward as a force rather than petty things such as this in my opinion.
I believe that the award should not be awarded retroactively for the simple fact that the logistics needed and manpower to ensure that it is done properly would be monumentally wasteful, especially in a modern Army that is focusing on reducing the force and appropriating resources elsewhere.
The Army has always been good at throwing money at projects that serve little or no use for the organization as a whole, and I believe this to be one of them. We need to focus more on the Army we have now and how we're going to move forward as a force rather than petty things such as this in my opinion.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I agree it should be dated farther back then just OIF/OEF. Those men and women deserve to be recognized just an much as we do(OIF/OEF veterans)
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
SSG(P) (Join to see) SFC (Join to see) yous guy voted this idea down, but provide no comments?
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
The CAB is a ludicrous gimme award. It's a participation trophy. Why would anyone want that thing?
(2)
(0)
COL Charles Williams
I disagree SGT Bill Goodwin, but you are entitled to your opinion. The issue with the CAB (and the frenzy surrounding its roll-out) was that every Commander interpreted the guidance differently. My brigades were very tight without... other units not so much. This has also happened with the CIB. No awards are gimmes, in my view.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
We were told at the end of Desert Storm, by MG Griffin, that they were looking to award Scouts with the EIB and create a Combat Armor Crewman badge for tankers. Never heard about it again.
(2)
(0)
COL Charles Williams
That is what the CAB was for.... Non-Infantry or 18 version of the CIB... which includes Armor.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Good idea. We need to make sure our support elements get the recognition that they deserve. This coming from myself who is an engineer and a recipient of the combat action badge.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
We def need the CAB, but it shouldn't be handed out like candy. The requirements should be equal to that(or pretty dang close) of the CIB. I can understand being hit by an IED and not having a target to engage afterwards, or a handful of similar situations also.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
3
2
1
Holy Crap! I can't believe this is being discussed, the award shouldn't even exist in the first place. Statistics show that the vast majority of casualties are borne by Infantrymen and that the percentage has doubled since WW2. The award criteria are more stringent for the CIB for good reason, the fights we get in are vastly different than a simple IED, IDF, or smattering of small arms fire. Stop pandering to the soft skill Soldiers and axe the stupid award.
(3)
(1)
SFC (Join to see)
Ha! I will be the first to tell you that my beloved Army's award system is far from perfect (hell, nothing in the army is even close to perfect). I'm sure there are many thousands of undeserved awards of all types handed out over the years. However, the CIB and CMB were created to recognize the special sacrifice that the infantryman and his medics make on the battlefield. Again, what infantrymen do to make contact, once in contact, and to finish contact is very much different than what anyone else in the Army does. I would argue that the CAB was created out of jealousy, and detracts from the prestige of the CIB and CMB. To clarify, I don't hate the rest of the Army or detract from what they do, I just think they often forget that point of everything the Army does is getting the grunts to kill the bad guys. Oh, and don't tempt me about an all Infantry Army, that sounds absolutely brilliant (only partially joking).
(2)
(0)
2LT Scott Armstrong
I don't like to diminish anyone's service but it seems ridiculous to reach back and award things that were not in existence at the time of service. That is checking a political box, not recognizing military service.
(2)
(0)
COL Charles Williams
Thanks SFC (Join to see) for responding. I loved my job in the Army, and believed being an MP was the most important job in the Army. I also learned as a young Armor Officer, Maneuver forces were the certain of the Army Universe, and really in the Army Infantry is the center of that universe. I also knew as a MP, that no cared if we were around until we are not there. That is the life of all support Soldiers, and aside from you (Infantry), we are all support Soldiers. We know, we are not the main effort, but we know you can't do it alone or without us. I have seen silliness with all awards, but I think the CAB was necessary for many of us, who while not Infantry, are out patrolling, searching for and finding the enemy, and fighting with you and in support of you. Thank you again, and thank you for your service.
(2)
(0)
SFC Bill Hayes
yes I believe Inf do see a lot of action but Rome plow opeartors were one of the most award Purple Hearts of all Engineers Unit in Vietman,couldn"t be awarded a CIB
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
3
2
1
I wish they would allow something for the CAV other than CAB. Were combat arms but dont get the recognition for it like infantry and medics. Wed do 2-3 combat patrols daily but share an award with cooks
(3)
(1)
COL Charles Williams
... And MPs (who do wide area security just like our Cav brothers 24/7), and Engineers, Truck Drivers... and a bunch of other Pogues... At one time each branch has a design, but one design made better sense; I think. SPC Jesse Cannon.
(1)
(0)
SPC Jesse Cannon
I see what your saying and it is a valid point and i guess my pride in the cavalry wants more since pretty much anyone can wear a stetson were loosing our uniqueness
(0)
(0)
COL Charles Williams
I have a stetson, and spurs, and am in the order of the spur from two CAV units. SPC Jesse Cannon. At one time, they were consider awards by branch. I understand as a Armor Soldier, being grouped with the rest of us is not your choice.
(2)
(0)
SPC Jesse Cannon
Honestly at the end of the day we all have our job. Ive got close friends who were tankers , mechanics, even infanty and mps and would take a bullet for every one of them. And im sure the Cav is on its way out as it doesnt really have a place im the modern era of wars we fight. It doesnt bother me so much now that I am retired. I do feel if the right criteria is met then it should be given to those who earned it. I think its a great idea but im just a specialist
(1)
(0)
3
2
1
1
1
0
I know this answer will get some negative reviews but here goes. No. It originated during a time when everyone needed a touchy feely. Everyone is jealous of the CIB. Only every one can't be Infantry. I am not saying that I haven't recognized the contribution that is required to support the Infantry. I just know that the Infantry's combat situation needs more Recognition. You want a combat specific award? Join the Infantry.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
While the retroactive plan is a valid and noble cause, the fact of it would be to just give them to everyone and make them even more tarnished than then are already...
The ability to exactly identify and prove those that were not only in DA combat would be difficult, AND that is specifically not the complete criteria for the CAB. The requirement for a CAB is that you are :
1. Personally engaged in Active, Ground Combat; AND
2. You complete an Offensive / Defensive Act while participating in combat operations, engaging, or being engaged by the enemy; AND
3. performing their assigned duties Associated with the unit’s combat mission; AND
4. Battle participation and Purple Heart are not sufficient;
I'd argue that dropping to the dirt doesn't count, IDF hits 20-50-100 meters away doesn't count, but that if you pull your weapon and returned fire in accordance with the prescribed rules of engagement , that counts.
CABs (and CIBs) were given away as participation awards by several units over the last 20 years - highly tarnishing them. Specifically, I know a SGM who spent 2 hours in a bunker with no IDF within a click = got a CAB. The whole 2020 Jalalabad Admin unit was in a hard building when the FOB was attacked with no IDF within a half click and never left their desks = all got CABs. Complete failure of the Colonel to read and understand the regulation and criteria - Active, Ground Combat AND Offensive/Defensive Action AND Personally Engaged by or Engaging the Enemy.
PH / IDF / Battle Participation = Not Sufficient.
If DoD wants me to head up the effort with a team of 20 x 42s - I'd be happy to do it, but that also means I am going through all the CABs from 2001 to 2022 and there are going to be a lot of revocations... F
YI, I don't have a CAB and don't want one. I never ended up pulling my weapon in my 38 months down range and therefore can be a completely objective party. ;-)
The ability to exactly identify and prove those that were not only in DA combat would be difficult, AND that is specifically not the complete criteria for the CAB. The requirement for a CAB is that you are :
1. Personally engaged in Active, Ground Combat; AND
2. You complete an Offensive / Defensive Act while participating in combat operations, engaging, or being engaged by the enemy; AND
3. performing their assigned duties Associated with the unit’s combat mission; AND
4. Battle participation and Purple Heart are not sufficient;
I'd argue that dropping to the dirt doesn't count, IDF hits 20-50-100 meters away doesn't count, but that if you pull your weapon and returned fire in accordance with the prescribed rules of engagement , that counts.
CABs (and CIBs) were given away as participation awards by several units over the last 20 years - highly tarnishing them. Specifically, I know a SGM who spent 2 hours in a bunker with no IDF within a click = got a CAB. The whole 2020 Jalalabad Admin unit was in a hard building when the FOB was attacked with no IDF within a half click and never left their desks = all got CABs. Complete failure of the Colonel to read and understand the regulation and criteria - Active, Ground Combat AND Offensive/Defensive Action AND Personally Engaged by or Engaging the Enemy.
PH / IDF / Battle Participation = Not Sufficient.
If DoD wants me to head up the effort with a team of 20 x 42s - I'd be happy to do it, but that also means I am going through all the CABs from 2001 to 2022 and there are going to be a lot of revocations... F
YI, I don't have a CAB and don't want one. I never ended up pulling my weapon in my 38 months down range and therefore can be a completely objective party. ;-)
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
I feel only nauseous. Soldiers and their shiny things... This is all because they were told they were all winners and who was first wasn’t important.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
-
Ask questionGet expert advice and
tips for your questions. -
Post updatePost pictures, personal updates, plans, or anything you like!
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google 
