Should we stop giving bravery medals to soldiers?

[Mario149]

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?

[Mario149]

trashbat said:

Why don't you look at these awards as nothing to do with the military per se, but as public encouragements for the kind of behaviour we want to see? Just like putting people in prison is meant to be a deterrent for doing wrong.

From my experience of military personnel, you'd struggle to find anyone who was doing it to win medals...

[Mario149]

JustAnotherLogin said:

Not

1) They tend to be modest in what they say
2) It doesn't just allow them to be recognised but also all servicemen feel that they are recognised

I'll go out on a limb here and say that I think they don't give a crap abut what we think and our recognition, they just want us to fund them correctly, give them the tools to do their job and not put their lives at risk unnecessarily. Recognition from someone who hasn't the first idea about what it's like is meaningless. I'd wager that recognition from their colleagues and mates means far more.

[Mario149]

bad company said:

Mario149 said:

From my experience of military personnel, you'd struggle to find anyone who was doing it to win medals...

I was in the RAF for nearly 4 years and don't recall winning medals even being discussed although some of the guys were awarded for work in Northern Ireland.

Exactly.

[Mario149]

voyds9 said:

But going above and beyond should most certainly be recognised.

I think it should too, I'm just not sure a bunch of civvies parading them in front of cameras etc is the way to do it

[Mario149]

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.

[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?

[Mario149]

T0nup said:

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.

That^^ is pretty much the crux of my point

[Mario149]

WinstonWolf said:

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...

Easy there tiger, think you need to reread what I wrote!

Anyway, funnily enough I have a friend who was blown up and maimed (although by miracle doctor's work over several years you'd hardly know it now, truly amazing) and others who have lost friends/colleagues, and not one of them has ever made any kind of big deal about medals etc. The closest it's got has been a link to the honours list on FB the other day with a "Well done mate"

[Mario149]

nyxster said:

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.

I take your point, but I am not missing anything. What I am getting at is that I think there is a good argument that the fact that Joe Public has got anything to do with it in terms of media coverage, political speeches, fawning, putting people on a pedestal etc is more to do with Joe Public's selfish need to feel good than about the soldier's needs or wants. If these chaps and chapesses were being honoured by their own in a dignified private ceremony, you'd not hear me complaining, quite the opposite. In fact I think the very fact that we're involved at all in any way is laughable when none of us have the faintest idea of what they've been through and never could unless we did it ourselves. Essentially I'm saying that we're not worthy, and that trying to pretend we are is not needed or wanted by them

[Mario149]

nyxster said:

Mario149 said:

I take your point, but I am not missing anything. What I am getting at is that I think there is a good argument that the fact that Joe Public has got anything to do with it in terms of media coverage, political speeches, fawning, putting people on a pedestal etc is more to do with Joe Public's selfish need to feel good than about the soldier's needs or wants. If these chaps and chapesses were being honoured by their own in a dignified private ceremony, you'd not hear me complaining, quite the opposite. In fact I think the very fact that we're involved at all in any way is laughable when none of us have the faintest idea of what they've been through and never could unless we did it ourselves. Essentially I'm saying that we're not worthy, and that trying to pretend we are is not needed or wanted by them

Then i misunderstood your point and apologise.

And i actually agree with you. Thus is down to the medua obsession with trying to turn everyone into a celebrity ; look at the nonsense over Jihadi John.

I'm pretty sure most people in the military would prefer to avoid the modern media circus following everything they do, look at the fuss the tabloids make over the SAS; they absolutely resent the fact Thatcher made them a public spectacle for her own political ends and the media obsession with them, with good reason, when you've got the Sun & Daily Mail printing handy cut out and keep maps of where they are operating against IS etc then it makes their job more difficult,

So yes, i agree, i think it should be a non-media event for colleagues and family only. Given what happened to poor Lee Rigby, i doubt anyone wants to be a "celebrity squaddie'.

and

[Mario149]

SlipStream77 said:

Why? There are plenty of very brave people who are not in the armed forces.

Clearly what you say is true, mine was more of a sweeping generalisation. While there are people in civvy life who are clearly brave in many senses of the word while doing their jobs, the average person I would hazard is not, myself included. Biggest issue I have to deal with at the moment is whether the tube is operating a "good service" during my commute in

[Mario149]

Reviving my own thread: found this on the BBC and watched it, was very good. Deals with US soldiers/veterans who are uncomfortable with the label hero (amongst other things it looks at), but I'm sure it's equally applicable to UK personnel, if not more so as we're probably more reserved as a culture.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/features...

[Mario149]

DBSV8 said:

definitely not

excellent article on VC winner

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Upham

But do you think he wanted the medals or did it for the medals? Do you think a man of that stature gave a fig what others apart from his forces colleagues thought of him?

I guess for me it boils down to: was he (and others) given a medal to make him feel better (and did it actually do that?) or make us feel better? I suspect nowadays it's strongly the latter.

As I said when I first started the thread, I'm not saying we shouldn't recognize and honour these people, I'm just not sure that we're doing it in a way that they want, but rather in a way which we want.