- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 79,903
- Reaction score
- 20,981
- Location
- I love your hate.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
his may puzzle and shock old soldiers of past wars, and even some of our soldiers today, but NATO and the U.S. are considering establishing a “courageous restraint” medal for soldiers who risk their lives by not shooting civilians in Afghanistan.
The idea was probably born from bad publicity that is inevitable when mistakes are made, and civilians are killed in error by NATO troops.
But awarding a valour medal for not shooting in a dangerous situation is risk-taking of another sort and would likely result in more casualties among our soldiers.
In April, British Maj. Gen. Nick Carter, who commands NATO forces in southern Afghanistan, proposed creating an award for "courageous restraint." As avoiding the loss of civilian life is a cornerstone of the coalition's counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan, does rewarding restraint makes sense? Is restraint a courageous act of discipline under fire or does it put our troops in danger?
The aim of a “courageous restraint” medal is obviously to save civilian lives and deter criticism when such casualties occur.
You know, they are going to have to award these posthumously since most of those showing this supposed "restraint" will be dead.
This medal is a bad idea and political correctness idiocy run amok.
what say you?
This proposed medal should be killed | Peter Worthington | Columnists | Comment | Toronto Sun
and:
The Takeaway: In Counterinsurgency, Does Restraint Deserve Its Own Reward? - The Takeaway
You know, they are going to have to award these posthumously since most of those showing this supposed "restraint" will be dead.
This medal is a bad idea and political correctness idiocy run amok.
what say you?
to be honest, i do not have much of an opinion. any soldier that risked his life JUST to get this medal... well... i just don't think it likely.“The idea is consistent with our approach,” explained Air Force Lt. Col. Tadd Sholtis.
Consideration of such an award, first reported by an Associated Press reporter in Afghanistan, doesn’t mean that, if approved, troops would be pressured to prevent such casualties at risk to themselves, Sholtis said.
Hold fire, earn a medal - MarineCorpsTimes.com
i didn't make it about Obama. I just reported that others did. Considering how much YOU are prepared to condemn him for, I thought you would appreciate it.
geo.
i hear Ebay has a new section where you can trade for a sense of humor....
geo,
This is a problem when you have soldiers placed in peacekeeping roles or have unclear mission directives.This proposed medal should be killed | Peter Worthington | Columnists | Comment | Toronto Sun
The Takeaway: In Counterinsurgency, Does Restraint Deserve Its Own Reward? - The Takeaway
You know, they are going to have to award these posthumously since most of those showing this supposed "restraint" will be dead.
This medal is a bad idea and political correctness idiocy run amok.
what say you?
I seem to be in the minority here but it seems like a great idea to me. Every war has its rules of engagement and there seems to be more and more focus on reducing civilian casualties. This is a reality that we must accept. The Vietnam War taught us that winning militarily is nothing unless you win politically. That is even more true now in Iraq and Afghanistan than it was back then. Keeping civilian casualties down is necessary for us to win. I think it's safe to assume that many soldiers have already risked their lives, maybe even given their lives because they practiced restraint while fighting in a city or town. That kind of sacrifice and bravery needs to be rewarded.
This proposed medal should be killed | Peter Worthington | Columnists | Comment | Toronto Sun
and:
The Takeaway: In Counterinsurgency, Does Restraint Deserve Its Own Reward? - The Takeaway
You know, they are going to have to award these posthumously since most of those showing this supposed "restraint" will be dead.
This medal is a bad idea and political correctness idiocy run amok.
what say you?
They do it because MOST of our soldiers are men and women of good character. But the stories of heroism seldom get told. I know of a firefight where a soldier held fire even though he was getting shot at by a terrorist scumbag holding an old woman by the throat and using her for a shield. I know of a marine that took rounds in his back while he used his body as a sheild to protect a pregnant Iraqi woman caught in a crossfire. There was a brief news story of a soldier that died attempting to rescue a wounded Iraqi man who fell off a bridge...both men died. But the stories of heroism...well...its just so much more fun if they media and certain politicians can paint our soldiers as nazis and storm troopers. They already are recognized with medals for heroismon duty. This is some namby pamby political medal. I have a much better idea. The backers of this kind of bull**** mentality ought to join themselves.
I personally do not WANT my brothers and sisters dying in combat because they practiced restraint.
Is it just me, or is about 75% of everything VanceMack posts an unverifiable personal anecdote?
I personally agree with the sentiment behind this, but don't think there should be a medal for it. Killing civilians only gives propaganda to the insurgents to use. If we kill a civilian in the crossfire of killing an insurgent, then we may have killed one enemy but in the process radicalized the entire family of the civilian into becoming supporters of the other side. Hearts and Minds is trite and overused, but it is an important tool for winning in these situations.
Someone should tell CNN and MSNBC that.
Is it just me, or is about 75% of everything VanceMack posts an unverifiable personal anecdote?
I personally agree with the sentiment behind this, but don't think there should be a medal for it. Killing civilians only gives propaganda to the insurgents to use. If we kill a civilian in the crossfire of killing an insurgent, then we may have killed one enemy but in the process radicalized the entire family of the civilian into becoming supporters of the other side. Hearts and Minds is trite and overused, but it is an important tool for winning in these situations.
Is it just me, or is about 75% of everything VanceMack posts an unverifiable personal anecdote?
I personally agree with the sentiment behind this, but don't think there should be a medal for it. Killing civilians only gives propaganda to the insurgents to use. If we kill a civilian in the crossfire of killing an insurgent, then we may have killed one enemy but in the process radicalized the entire family of the civilian into becoming supporters of the other side. Hearts and Minds is trite and overused, but it is an important tool for winning in these situations.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?