Recognizing valor
Happy Friday. It is January 13, 2017. At a ceremony today at Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point in North Carolina, five veterans will be recognized for their heroism. The medals they are receiving are upgrades to prior awards.
Marine Corps Sergeant Michael Mendoza was awarded the Silver Star for his service in Iraq. The medal was presented to him in 2005 for his actions in April of 2004 in Anbar Province. Now that award will be upgraded to the Navy Cross, the nation's second highest award for combat heroism. The other four men will receive Silver Stars that are upgrades of previously awarded Bronze Stars with the V device (V for valor). All four have left military service.
This ceremony is the first of what will undoubtedly be a number of similar events. At the beginning of last year the Pentagon began a review of over 1,000 awards for valor that had been made since the events of 9/11. It is kind of ironic that the first ceremony involving awards that were reviewed involves Navy personnel considering that the Navy was the only branch of service that initially opposed the review of previous awards.
The stated reason for the review was a concern that during 15 years of combat, the standards for valor had changed. Congressman Duncan Hunter of California had called the review "long overdue" when it was announced last January. "It's a systemic problem," Hunter said. "I'm glad they're finally getting around to fixing it. This is military bureaucracy at its worst."
These reviews are a good thing as long as the standard isn't being lowered. Valor must be recognized properly. One of the persistent problems the military has had is with inflation of awards (usually for service and not for valor) and the inflation of performance evaluation. During the ten years I served, enlisted personnel were evaluated on a scale from zero to nine. I saw a study that showed 92% of all enlisted performance reviews had overall ratings of nine, and 99% were eight or better. Is there an inflation of award level going on here? I do not believe so.
As long as we are conducting reviews and trying to have consistent standards for judging and recognizing valor in combat, it is long past time to go back and reevaluate the number of confirmed kills that Marine Corps sniper Carlos Hathcock is credited with. The official record shows 93 confirmed kills for Gunnery Sergeant Hathcock. Chris Kyle, who is considered to be the most lethal sniper in U.S. history is credited with more than 150 confirmed kills, although the exact number has never been officially verified.
But the standard was different for Chief Petty Officer Kyle than it was for Gunnery Sergeant Hathcock. During the Vietnam War, not only the sniper and spotter have to have witnessed the kill for it to count, a third-party also had to verify the kill. That third-party had to be a commissioned officer. The standard for Chief Kyle's kills did not include that requirement. Gunny Hathcock estimated that his kill total was between 300 and 400.
It may be that Chief Kyle's actual kill number is higher than Gunny Hathcock's. We will never know. Nor will there be a review of those kills. But in my mind, the issue of who was the most lethal sniper in U.S. history is not cut and dried.
As to the most lethal sniper in the history of the world, it isn't an American. Finland's Simo Häyhä had 505 confirmed kills of Russian soldiers during the 1939/1940 Winter War between the two nations.
* * *
Rosie O'Donnell has been feuding for a long time with Donald Trump. Now she's put out a tweet that says she would support the imposition of martial law to delay Trump's inauguration until he can be "...cleared of all charges."
While I would be pleased to see anyone other than Donald Trump taking the oath of office next Friday, martial law is not appropriate. Like it or not, no formal charges have been brought against Mr Trump. There are allegations and allegations do not preclude an elected official from taking office. We are a nation of laws and due process and we can't just pick and choose when we want to suspend those laws.
Marine Corps Sergeant Michael Mendoza was awarded the Silver Star for his service in Iraq. The medal was presented to him in 2005 for his actions in April of 2004 in Anbar Province. Now that award will be upgraded to the Navy Cross, the nation's second highest award for combat heroism. The other four men will receive Silver Stars that are upgrades of previously awarded Bronze Stars with the V device (V for valor). All four have left military service.
This ceremony is the first of what will undoubtedly be a number of similar events. At the beginning of last year the Pentagon began a review of over 1,000 awards for valor that had been made since the events of 9/11. It is kind of ironic that the first ceremony involving awards that were reviewed involves Navy personnel considering that the Navy was the only branch of service that initially opposed the review of previous awards.
The stated reason for the review was a concern that during 15 years of combat, the standards for valor had changed. Congressman Duncan Hunter of California had called the review "long overdue" when it was announced last January. "It's a systemic problem," Hunter said. "I'm glad they're finally getting around to fixing it. This is military bureaucracy at its worst."
These reviews are a good thing as long as the standard isn't being lowered. Valor must be recognized properly. One of the persistent problems the military has had is with inflation of awards (usually for service and not for valor) and the inflation of performance evaluation. During the ten years I served, enlisted personnel were evaluated on a scale from zero to nine. I saw a study that showed 92% of all enlisted performance reviews had overall ratings of nine, and 99% were eight or better. Is there an inflation of award level going on here? I do not believe so.
As long as we are conducting reviews and trying to have consistent standards for judging and recognizing valor in combat, it is long past time to go back and reevaluate the number of confirmed kills that Marine Corps sniper Carlos Hathcock is credited with. The official record shows 93 confirmed kills for Gunnery Sergeant Hathcock. Chris Kyle, who is considered to be the most lethal sniper in U.S. history is credited with more than 150 confirmed kills, although the exact number has never been officially verified.
But the standard was different for Chief Petty Officer Kyle than it was for Gunnery Sergeant Hathcock. During the Vietnam War, not only the sniper and spotter have to have witnessed the kill for it to count, a third-party also had to verify the kill. That third-party had to be a commissioned officer. The standard for Chief Kyle's kills did not include that requirement. Gunny Hathcock estimated that his kill total was between 300 and 400.
It may be that Chief Kyle's actual kill number is higher than Gunny Hathcock's. We will never know. Nor will there be a review of those kills. But in my mind, the issue of who was the most lethal sniper in U.S. history is not cut and dried.
As to the most lethal sniper in the history of the world, it isn't an American. Finland's Simo Häyhä had 505 confirmed kills of Russian soldiers during the 1939/1940 Winter War between the two nations.
* * *
Rosie O'Donnell has been feuding for a long time with Donald Trump. Now she's put out a tweet that says she would support the imposition of martial law to delay Trump's inauguration until he can be "...cleared of all charges."
While I would be pleased to see anyone other than Donald Trump taking the oath of office next Friday, martial law is not appropriate. Like it or not, no formal charges have been brought against Mr Trump. There are allegations and allegations do not preclude an elected official from taking office. We are a nation of laws and due process and we can't just pick and choose when we want to suspend those laws.
posted by me at 9:22 PM
<< Home