Should we stop giving bravery medals to soldiers?

[Pothole]

voyds9 said:

They shouldn't get them for 'normal duties'

But going above and beyond should most certainly be recognised.

So my Dad's Arctic Star should go back? I know where I'd like to stick it right now...

[Hooli]

Cheese Mechanic said:

Awarding a medal is merely a physical manifestation of service/gallantrey etc, above standard.

There is no reason to not give them, unless of course people beleive that exceptional achievement should be ignored.

So if we stop giving them we'll be running the forces like we run schools? Everyone's a winner & even the most useless aren't losers. Daft idea.

[bad company]

voyds9 said:

They shouldn't get them for 'normal duties'

But going above and beyond should most certainly be recognised.

So no medals for serving in Afghanistan or Iraq then? The guys put their lives on the line in those places.

[pointedstarman]

No.

Maybe though you should give some thought to the abolishment of the honours list. You may get a more favourable response.

[Pothole]

bad company said:

voyds9 said:

They shouldn't get them for 'normal duties'

But going above and beyond should most certainly be recognised.

So no medals for serving in Afghanistan or Iraq then? The guys put their lives on the line in those places.

Were it my decision I'd have to think very hard. Medals for unjustifiable wars? Hmmm.

[AndrewEH1]

Pothole said:

voyds9 said:

They shouldn't get them for 'normal duties'

But going above and beyond should most certainly be recognised.

So my Dad's Arctic Star should go back? I know where I'd like to stick it right now...

Nice and pointy that medal too!

Service medals are a good idea I think (never been in the Armed Forces), if anything for their sons/daughters to have so show that they dad/mum was there and putting everything on the line for their country.

[Chlamydia]

The majority of winners of gallantry awards tend to say something along the lines of, "This isn't for me it's for the whole regiment", and by and large that's what it's all about - doing well for your regiment/squadron. You can guarantee that the individuals are immensely proud of that, more so than being picked out individually. You're correct that when the action that results in the award is ongoing the last thing that pops into their heads is that their actions will win them a medal, but to me that's precisely why they should get the award.
If we do need to cut back on awards, (and we don't want to end up like the Americans who can end up with chestsfull of them without ever seeing any action), then we need to be looking at those given to high-ranking general staff for doing nothing other than their job, (badly in some cases).

[Fittster]

From a taxpayers perspective they make a great deal of sense.

"A soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon.

Napoleon Bonaparte

[bad company]

Pothole said:

bad company said:

voyds9 said:

They shouldn't get them for 'normal duties'

But going above and beyond should most certainly be recognised.

So no medals for serving in Afghanistan or Iraq then? The guys put their lives on the line in those places.

Were it my decision I'd have to think very hard. Medals for unjustifiable wars? Hmmm.

IMO the justification for the war is not the issue. A soldier fights for his/her country when and where they are told. It cannot be right to withhold medal awards because some at home don't agree with the war.

If killed the soldier is just as dead whatever the cause.

[Mario149]

Lots of good points here but does no-one think that, putting whether the recipient actually wants the recognition or not to one side for a moment, a large part of awarding a medal is self serving and makes the awarders feel good about themselves and create publicity which it's entirely possible the recipient may not want?

[handpaper]

Mario149 said:

Lots of good points here but does no-one think that, putting whether the recipient actually wants the recognition or not to one side for a moment, a large part of awarding a medal is self serving and makes the awarders feel good about themselves and create publicity which it's entirely possible the recipient may not want?

To an extent that is true, it does salve civvy consciences and cheer us up a bit. But, however much a soldier may deprecate his actions, very few will refuse the medal - it really is for his mates as well.

On the subject of Yanks and medals, I remember being told of an American soldier asking what the British equivalent of a Purple Heart was.
"A bking for being stupid enough to get wounded" was the response...

[Pothole]

bad company said:

Pothole said:

bad company said:

voyds9 said:

They shouldn't get them for 'normal duties'

But going above and beyond should most certainly be recognised.

So no medals for serving in Afghanistan or Iraq then? The guys put their lives on the line in those places.

Were it my decision I'd have to think very hard. Medals for unjustifiable wars? Hmmm.

IMO the justification for the war is not the issue. A soldier fights for his/her country when and where they are told. It cannot be right to withhold medal awards because some at home don't agree with the war.

If killed the soldier is just as dead whatever the cause.

Agreed, except 'some at home' make all the decisions, within the guidelines, about medals anyway. Not sure why you mentioned being dead.

[bad company]

Pothole said:

Agreed, except 'some at home' make all the decisions, within the guidelines, about medals anyway. Not sure why you mentioned being dead.

I mentioned being dead because being killed is the risk soldiers takes every time they serve in an active service zone. Part of the award of a medal is down to the risk.

[AnotherClarkey]

Hooli said:

Cheese Mechanic said:

Awarding a medal is merely a physical manifestation of service/gallantrey etc, above standard.

There is no reason to not give them, unless of course people beleive that exceptional achievement should be ignored.

So if we stop giving them we'll be running the forces like we run schools? Everyone's a winner & even the most useless aren't losers. Daft idea.

We are halfway there already if we refer to all serving personnel as 'Heroes'. The term has become devalued.

[bad company]

AnotherClarkey said:

We are halfway there already if we refer to all serving personnel as 'Heroes'. The term has become devalued.

Perhaps the time has come to stop issuing long service and\or good conduct medals?

[Pothole]

AnotherClarkey said:

Hooli said:

Cheese Mechanic said:

Awarding a medal is merely a physical manifestation of service/gallantrey etc, above standard.

There is no reason to not give them, unless of course people beleive that exceptional achievement should be ignored.

So if we stop giving them we'll be running the forces like we run schools? Everyone's a winner & even the most useless aren't losers. Daft idea.

We are halfway there already if we refer to all serving personnel as 'Heroes'. The term has become devalued.

I totally agree.

[crankedup]

Foliage said:

They should get the medals, but the media shouldn't be told about it, VC is a special occasion but it should be a private thing in the military.

I think the media over play these kind of things, stories like this do sell papers.

I don't get this reasoning at all! why should the media not be made aware?

[T0nup]

Interesting view point from the OP, and not entirely without merit.

And while we should all recognise the efforts and deeds of those that serve in HM armed forces, lets not forget that in going places to do stuff, getting shot at by the bad guys with the possibilities of being killed or injoured is something they should (And the majority do) consider a occupational hazard. No one forced them to join, they signed up for it and accept the good along with the bad just like everyone else who does a job. I'm sure serving members would love better pay for doing that job, (I'd pay them better in a heart beat if it were my call) but that isn't the issue.

The question is really IF the award of a medal really means that much? In honesty, I bet it doesn't. Do ya think the L/Cpl Kealey in the news just today for recieving the VC, was giving a toss about what you or I might think back home? He did what he did for the guys he was on the ground with, and their thanks and recognition I wager is worth bucket louds more than any medal.

[WinstonWolf]

Mario149 said:

In light of the recent VC and other awards, I've been thinking. The premise might be controversial, but bear with me on this one. Maybe a better title should be "Do we only give medals to soldiers because of our own self interest?", but the arguments for them are the same. The "we" in that is us civilians and government for the record

Now before I start, this is absolutely not a dig at servicemen at all, it's actually a dig at all of us who are not in uniform as you'll see.

Here's the thing for me, every soldier from any conflict who has won an MC, VC or similar that I've seen interviewed or read interviews of them always exhibits the same characteristics.

1) They were never brave in the stereotypical sense that we see it and never claim to have been. To a (wo)man they say that their training kicked in, they didn't really think or process being scared, they just saw what they had to do, and went and did it.
2) They are always at pains to point out that they just happened to be in the right place at the right time, and any of their mates would have done the same and could be standing there instead of them at this moment.
3) They always seem at best desperately uncomfortable with the attention they're getting and the special treatment, and at worst actually start despising those (us) who are putting them on this pedestal.

It seems to me that these (wo)men would rather just receive the acknowledgement, gratitude and respect of the people that were with them, who do their job and know what it's like i.e. the people that they care about and the people that matter, and that the rest of us should just get lost and leave them alone.

Sometimes I feel like we're giving them these honours solely to salve our consciences, to somehow justify us putting them in those situations, to justify putting further people in those situations in the future, to somehow make something good about people killing and maiming and being killed and maimed.

Receiving a bit of metal and a "well done" from some dignitary who means nothing to you and the fawning "thanks" of a whole load of people you've never met who haven't got the first clue about what you went went through seems vacuous at best and insulting at worst.

In short, I am fairly sure our input is neither needed nor wanted, unless it's directed to help those who maybe weren't so fortunate.

I say all this as someone who might have a little more insight than the average person as
- I was "in" (if you can call it that!) the army for 10 years or so via cadets and OTC etc sop have at least a small idea about army life
- I have many friends who are in the forces proper
- I have friends who were severely injured who I now see bantering on FB with their mates who picked up what was left of them in the dust and saved their lives
- I have friends who have lost colleagues

Anyway, just a few thoughts Anyone else feel the same? Or not?

Tell you what, why don't you go out to somewhere where you'll get shot at, probably lose a limb or two to an IED and see a few of your closest mates killed or maimed for life.

Once you've done it for a few months come back and tell us if you still feel the same...

[nyxster]

You miss the point,

Decorations aren't awarded by joe public, they are recommended by and awarded by the services to their own people in recognition of them going above and beyond the call of duty.

Don't mistake modesty for lack of pride. I doubt there is a single Para past or present who isn't beaming with pride at one of their own having upheld the highest standards of their Regiment.

Seriously, why shouldn't they have awards? God knows we have enough fawning over celebrities with the brits, oscars, golden globes etc, so why shouldn't the military be allowed the same courtesy?

OP should probably wind his neck in, its not for the great unwashed to decide how the military honour their own; be it by medals or promotions.

Lets face it, bankers get themselves a nice fat oat on the back for simply turning up to work every year and lising vast sums of cash. Being given a decoration for risking your life to save another's is worth far more, yet rewarded much less.