• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Afghan Medals Process (merged)

Where's the icon for "I just made a little joke, that apparently no one else got, but what the heck, I'll keep doing it anyways, because I'm more or less incorrigible."


(And where's the icon for "I can't believe someone just compared the GCS to the VC?")
 
Petamocto said:
At the end of the day is someone from that first BG going to know that they did more than someone who never left KAF in 2010 and have six PXs to choose from and not need a medal to tell them that?  Of course.

I think this line of reasoning is everyone's real sticking point.  The fact that you are insinuating that some people did less based on occupation.  Those KAFites ensured you got into and out of the ATO, fed you, got you ammo, ensured your LAV, or whatever, actually got you to the objective, provided your Int, your Comms etc., etc., etc.  Expanding on Vern's "Rant"; how about a "what if"?  What if KAF and the support piece didn't exist?  Than you never would have been in the situation to get yourself all that shiny crap anyway.  I appreciate everything the layman Infanteer does for us, I recognize they do the bulk of the heavy lifting in wartime, but, I chose my job, you chose yours, stop the bitching and get on with it.
 
Those KAFites ensured you got into and out of the ATO, fed you, got you ammo, ensured your LAV, or whatever, actually got you to the objective, provided your Int, your Comms etc., etc., etc.  Expanding on Vern's "Rant"; how about a "what if"?  What if KAF and the support piece didn't exist?

And if the Traffic Techs in Trenton didn't exist the gear wouldn't make it to KAF, and if I wasn't there to fill sandbags out in front of J-Tower, the BG wouldn't wouldn't have qualified LAV Gunners.

From the recruiter at CFRC Toronto who's keeping the ranks filled, to pilot who gets the gear to theatre, to the Lineman laying wire in KAF, to the 031 squeezing the trigger, we're all part of the same team and we all deserve medals and handjobs for our efforts.

My point is this:

We don't award medals based on "who contributes to the mission." EVERYONE wearing the uniform contributes to the mission, from the combat arms dude with sandy boots to the support trade reservist doing dog and pony shows at the fair.

We don't award medals based on hardship.  I'm pretty sure that there are jobs to do in Canada (probably in Gagetown or Wainwright) that make some air conditioned gigs in KAF look pretty good.

The way I see it, we award medals based solely on tradition.  We've awarded medals for being deployed to theatre since Jesus was a CPL.  That's it.  And simply being deployed really isn't that great a feat.

Is something worth keeping around solely for the sake of tradition?  Medals will always divide the haves and the have-nots.  It's just a question of where the line is drawn (the wire? the tarmac?).  Maybe the whole thing needs to be done away with.  To be honest, with the way I feel today, I would not be opposed to the idea.

I'm sure I've ruffled some feathers.  If I havn't, I'll add this:

COMMMMBATTTTT ACTION BADGE!!!!!!! >:D
 
Yeah...lets resurrect THAT one again...it was the only reason some staff types went out for the "battlefield tour".
I'll be answering PMs on that one....:)
 
Swingline1984 said:
...Those KAFites ensured you got into and out of the ATO, fed you, got you ammo, ensured your LAV, or whatever, actually got you to the objective, provided your Int, your Comms...stop the bitching and get on with it.

Did you read the rest of this thread?  Buds, I spent 90% of my tour in KAF.  This isn't about me.

If anything, I am one of the one who doesn't want to be looked at and have people thinking "Hey, he has the "real" Afghan medal when people did more than I did.

I am all for the one-tour = one-medal motto, but that's not what it is now.  The new regs make the SWASM appear as lesser (you get the GCS unless you don't qualify, then you get the SWASM).
 
Petamocto said:
Journeyman,
First off, let us find common ground in that what we both agree on is that generally, one tour should = one medal (exceptions would be valour medals, etc). 
Yes


Petamocto said:
medals...are prioritized... (which ironically to this discussion has the SWASM over the GCS).
Why is this "ironic"? (unless your understanding of irony is as flawed as Alanis Morrisette's)



Petamocto said:
However, if one were to follow your argument to its logical end, it would be to suggest that we should not have any medals at all.  I'm not implying those were your words, just that it is the logic path that your argument leads to.
Thank you for reaffirming that actually reading posts before responding is not your strong suit. I quite clearly stated:
Journeyman said:
I'm all for acknowledging operational deployments with one medal.


Petamocto said:
....it is quite sad that you have decided to use "officer" in a derogatory form on that one.
Wow. Now there's a case study in clutching at straws.  ::)  To pretty much anyone else on the planet, in using the term "Fine bureaucratic staff-officer form," I was obviously slagging "staff" -- ie, "bureaucracy" -- not you, or your commission.
 
Petamocto said:
If anything, I am one of the one who doesn't want to be looked at and have people thinking "Hey, he has the "real" Afghan medal when people did more than I did.

I think that you're worrying too much.

I have the same SSM with NATO Bar for financially supporting numerous bars in NATO (and Gasthaeuse, breweries, wineries, and other fine institutions) during my three years in Germany as people did for Yugoslavia. It's not the same. I didn't get shot at, and they didn't get to see 250000-person exercises and huge armoured columns and helicopters and jets everywhere. So? I don't feel any better or worse than them. It is what it is.

Being in KAF for a whole tour doesn't mean that anybody did less than somebody outside, in terms of contribution to the overall effort. I am not shy about pointing out that the biggest danger to me throughout my tour was slipping in the shower (except perhaps for that rocket attack as I was heading to the BATs for final roll call on my way out), and I have enormous and absolute respect for those who spent their time exposed to real danger, but I do not undervalue what I did. I have quite reasonable confidence that I helped to prevent at least one ramp ceremony on one night alone (and had a pretty good time doing so), and I think that that is of at least average importance and value overall.

These are not bravery medals, they are recognition for being somewhere during some time, perhaps conversation-starters, but anybody using them for dick-measuring purposes one way or another has some issues that they should be working on.
 
Petamocto said:
Did you read the rest of this thread?  Buds, I spent 90% of my tour in KAF.  This isn't about me.

If anything, I am one of the one who doesn't want to be looked at and have people thinking "Hey, he has the "real" Afghan medal when people did more than I did.

I am all for the one-tour = one-medal motto, but that's not what it is now.  The new regs make the SWASM appear as lesser (you get the GCS unless you don't qualify, then you get the SWASM).

Please cease and desist attempting to throw a different spin onto your comments with the "I don't want them thinking of me ..." bit.

The new regs don't make the SWASM seem like less nor have they (or the CF ever done so). As a matter of fact, the only person or message in this entire thread that has made the SWASM out to be less .. is YOU.

I dare say that the "target audience" is indeed people exactly like you.
___________________________

Petamocto said:
Yes Vern, nice rant but it does not solve anything since I am not the target audience of what you are saying.

I don't make the call on what the CF as a whole believes is important or not or what is better than something else.

All my post stated is that I wanted those 1,000+ not to be viewed as lesser if due to the new changes it ends up getting viewed as lesser.

Did I say I would view it as lesser?  Did I say you would?  No, but if the culture as a whole ends up seeing it as less, then we have done those 1,000+ a disservice.

Basically you were ranting at ths CF, not at me.  I accept your apology.

Well, if you're waiting for an apology from me I really do recommend that you not hold your breath. You seemed to have missed the gist of my post; that being:

If
the culture as a whole ends up seeing it as less, then we have done those 1,000+ a disservice
, then that "culture", ie 'those' people, (and yes, I do place you into this category as well for reasons which I will discuss after) needs to sort itself the fuck out. It's their attitudes that are wrong. That's where the fixin' need be doin'.

Now, despite your protestions and post here to the contrary, your own attitude in this area shines brightly through in your previous post. I'll quote the whole thing for you this time just in case you missed anything else that you stated in that post:

Petamocto said:
That's what I'm saying is the problem.  I agree with the above post that it lays out the guidelines in a "from now on..." perspective, but there are still 1,000+ people who are not the same.

If they don't give out both, then you have 1,000 people (I'm not one of them, so I'm defending them, not me) who did some ground pounding in search of the enemy in 2003 wearing a medal that could be interpreted as "not the real one".  That's not fair to them, especially since most of them did more than I did for my GCS.

So to answer your question, I don't know if those pers will have to trade their medals but perhaps it would be the right thing to do.  If they did, then that fall 05 tour would have to give back their SWASM and just have the GCS, but that's kind of a rip off too, which is why I thought the answer may that now that this mess exists, the only "fair" way to fix it would be to give (most) soldiers both, and the ones who did something but not enough for the GCS would be the only ones with just one.


If not, you are orphaning and under-awarding that first BG.


As for the Kabul-Kandahar tour, I know dozens of people who were there for four months and got both.

Now, to me (and to others apparently) your "but" in yellow above clearly indicates that you are speaking quite differently than you are now claiming in this latest post. You are not speaking of
All my post stated is that I wanted those 1,000+ not to be viewed as lesser if due to the new changes it ends up getting viewed as lesser.
but rather you are stating that if those 1000+ still only get to wear their SWASM (vice having 2 medals or the GCS) ... that we are somehow orphaning them. The CF has done NO such thing. And the CF didn't create the attitude of which we speak ... rather a select few who view themselves as superior have created and perpetuate that attitude and myth. Those SWASM pers served under OEF mandate and they earned the medal applicable to the operational mandate under which they served. They worked damned hard to earn it too ... despite those of the "culture of which you speak" who seem to believe (erroneously) that the GCS is "The only medal that counts".

Now, those who earned both ... served under both mandates. Those BG who came later, earned the GCS as it is the applicable mandate under which they served. See the difference?

Yet, there are still pers earning their SWASMs over there right now as they are working under the other mandate even today.

Further, as for your last yellowed (my yellowing) spout of bullshit --- that "the only fair way to fix it would be to give (most) soldiers both and let those who didn`t do enough to earn the GCS wear just the SWASM." Let's not beat around the bush ... your (most) means: is the "outside the wire" folks and the "ones who didn't do enough to earn the GCS" is the "inside the wire folks".

Didn't do enough!!?? Give your head a shake.

By the way, not that your utterly idiotic comparison of the VC to tour medals is any way relevant to shitty attitudes regarding us 'less worthy' people like me (I bow to your greatness and your narcissism) means anything ... but your use of the word "ironicly" in the below once again highlights your own "cultural shitty attitude".

Petamocto said:
...  That we have a list of medals and how they are prioritized speaks to this (which ironically to this discussion has the SWASM over the GCS). ...

Whether or not you (or Vern) cares about a medal's "value", there is a reason the Victoria Cross would be worn in front of all the others.  At the end of the day is someone from that first BG going to know that they did more than someone who never left KAF in 2010 and have six PXs to choose from and not need a medal to tell them that?  Of course.

Full disclosure: I participated in Apollo II & Athena 0. I value all members of the CF and ALL of their contributions to Canadian Forces operations in whatever capacity they might serve. Wherever, whenever, and however.

They are firstly volunteers and all are professionals. Some of them, including yourself, had the good fortune of having their SNs slotted into 'Y posns' or 'Z posns' under a GCS mission, others slotted into 'Z posns' on other ongoing operations. They certainly didn't put themselves into 'whichever' position they 'happened' to deploy in.

You should count yourself lucky that you happened to be posted to a Unit that deployed while you belonged to it; you very well could have been posted into a certain location full of schools where there are still instructors without either the GCS or the SWASM only because they can't get the fuck out of the training system to go on tour despite their best efforts to (due in part to all those refusing posns at those trg establishments where they find themselves stuck). I really hope that you don't honestly believe that their lack of either/or insinuates or somehow means you've got anything on them --- 'cause it don't mean diddly-squat. it means you were in the right place at the right time. No more, no less.
 
Petamocto said:
Did you read the rest of this thread?  Buds, I spent 90% of my tour in KAF.  This isn't about me.

If anything, I am one of the one who doesn't want to be looked at and have people thinking "Hey, he has the "real" Afghan medal when people did more than I did.

I am all for the one-tour = one-medal motto, but that's not what it is now.  The new regs make the SWASM appear as lesser (you get the GCS unless you don't qualify, then you get the SWASM).

To the contrary.  You've done a very good job at making this "about you".  I run into people everyday with the attitude that they do more and someone else does less, it is a disturbing culture which should not be perpetuated (especially by our leaders), we all do our part; as Wonderbread said, "we are all part of the same team".  But to make you feel better I'll try not to feel "lesser" when I wear my SWASM.  I know a great place to rent a backhoe if you need some help digging your hole.

Cheers,
 
Petamocto said:
Journeyman,
However, if one were to follow your argument to its logical end, it would be to suggest that we should not have any medals at all.  Nobody should have any medals for anything, regardless of collective tour or indivividual act or accomplishment.

I'm not implying those were your words, just that it is the logic path that your argument leads to. 

I have read Journeyman's post and believe I fully understand what he is talking about.  However, I am confused as to how you followed his comments to the " Logical end"  of nobody should have any medals for anything.  WOW, saying that is the "logic path" of his post reminds me of a scene in the "Princess Bride".  The one guy who keeps using the word "inconceivable" To the point that the guy who is helping him comments.  " You know I don't think that word means what you think it does."  Or to use a Trekkie'ism,  "Your Logic escapes me"

Peta,  I do see some of what your trying to say and think there is some points that I would agree on.  However as most are pointing out,  correctly, I might add.  Your arguments are leaning towards the us and them, outside/inside wire arguments. 



Despite my own thoughts and beliefs that there is a difference and it would be nice to acknowledge in some way shape or form. I fully acknowledge any implementation would be difficult and divisive.  I also agree that with out the people supporting us outside of the wire we would not be able to perform.  So I counter my own thoughts with the understanding that a Sword needs a sharp end, that sharp end needs the metal behind it to stay sharp.  The metal needs a handle to support it and the entire wpn needs a strong arm to control it. 
 
helpup said:
...a Sword needs a sharp end, that sharp end needs the metal behind it to stay sharp.  The metal needs a handle to support it and the entire wpn needs a strong arm to control it.


One of the better analogies I've read here.
 
ModlrMike said:
One of the better analogies I've read here.

"Victory is the beautiful, bright-colored flower. Transport is the stem without which it could never have blossomed." Winston Churchill    ;D
 
Supply is the ground that said flower grows from and of course there is a fertilizer comment in there but..... ;D
 
helpup said:
Supply is the ground that said flower grows from and of course there is a fertilizer comment in there but..... ;D

uhh.......so you're saying Supply is full of shit fertilizer ?  Good luck there..... ;D
 
I think people sometimes read too much into the order of precedence of medals.  The simple fact is that two medals cannot occupy the same space, so somebody has to decide which ones come first.  For some of them, it is the obvious importance of the medal that determines its place.  For others, it's often a matter of when the medal was established.  Why does the Star of Military Valour follow all the provincial orders (i.e.  someone who risks his/her life for the greater good follows someone who ran a great charity campaign).  The answer is that it just does.  Stop worrying about it and you'll have a happier life.  As for the SWASM being a "lesser" medal than the GCS (which is nonsense), yet being placed before the GCS the answer is simple.  The SWASM was established first.  Has anybody noticed that the Gulf/Kuwait medal precedes all of them and that conflict had no casualties!  Why do all the UN medals precede the NATO medals?  Because the person empowered to make the decision decided that. 
 
I am confused...

The criteria for the SWASM reads 90 days in theater under non ISAF mandate (IE: OEF) and as of July 2009 no one is eligible for the SWASM how then does the SWASM become a lesser medal it in fact becomes a "Dead" medal as you can no longer earn it.
 
Each of us who earned one or both know exactly what we have done. Civilians will never know what they mean. All they know is they are shiny. So if someone has a SWASM for sitting in Flordia, they know that plus they won't have an Afghanistan bar. We each know what we have done. No one can take away our stories...
 
2tall said:
Each of us who earned one or both know exactly what we have done. Civilians will never know what they mean. All they know is they are shiny.

I always ask - if it is the right time and place - about ribbons and medals and unit insignia. I got to know the World War medals pretty well. And of course immediately recognise the C.D. and some others. I look them up on the Honours and Awards website. There is also that excellent book mentioned by Mr. O'Leary.
 
2tall said:
Each of us who earned one or both know exactly what we have done. Civilians will never know what they mean ...


There are many civilians, not in Tim Hortons or the PRT, who probably have more time outside the wire than most CF members and who, day-in/day-out, back here in Canada, are at least as operational as anyone in the CF, including JTF2.

Broad generalizations are always wrong, including this one.
 
CANFORGEN 068/10 CMP 031/10 231425Z MAR 10
SWASM - QUALIFYING SERVICE AMENDMENTS
UNCLASSIFIED


REFS. A. CANFORGEN 085/02 ADMHRMIL 049 072044Z AUG 02
B. CANFORGEN 066/10 CMP 030/10 171715Z MAR 10
C. PC 2010-080 OF 14 JAN 2010



FURTHER TO THE CANFORGEN AT REF B WHICH ANNOUNCED THE NEW OVERSEAS RECOGNITION FRAMEWORK, THIS CANFORGEN DESCRIBES CHANGES TO THE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR THE SOUTH-WEST ASIA SERVICE MEDAL (SWASM) AWARD:


RECOGNITION IS NOW THEATRE BASED VICE MISSION BASED. THIS MEANS THAT ALL SERVICE IN THE THEATRE DESCRIBED AT REF A FROM 11 SEP 01 FORWARD WHICH IS NOT RECOGNIZED BY ANOTHER MEDAL (SUCH AS GCS, GSM, UNSSM OR CPSM) IS NOW ELIGIBLE FOR SWASM WITH AFGHANISTAN BAR. FOR EXAMPLE, THIS INCLUDES SERVICE AS MILITARY SECURITY GUARD AT THE KABUL EMBASSY DURING THIS PERIOD


ELIGIBLE SERVICE FOR SWASM ENDS 31 JUL 09. ALL PREVIOUSLY ELIGIBLE SWASM SERVICE WILL BE MADE ELIGIBLE FOR EITHER GCS OR GSM FROM 1 AUG 09 ONWARDS. A SEPARATE CANFORGEN WILL BE ISSUED WITH DETAILS


RECIPIENTS OF THE SWASM WITH AFGHANISTAN BAR MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR NEW MULTIPLE ROTATION RECOGNITION IN THE FORM OF ROTATION BARS. ROTATION BARS ARE AWARDED FOR EACH FURTHER PERIOD OF 180 DAYS OF ELIGIBLE SERVICE FOLLOWING QUALIFICATION FOR SWASM WITH AFGHANISTAN BAR OR THE LAST ROTATION BAR THE PERSON HAS EARNED. FOR EXAMPLE, THE SWASM WITH AFGHANISTAN BAR IS AWARDED AFTER 30 DAYS IN THEATRE, THE FIRST ROTATION BAR IS AWARDED AFTER 210 DAYS IN THEATRE, THE SECOND BAR AFTER 390 DAYS, ETC. ALL SWASM ELIGIBLE TIME IS CUMULATIVE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ROTATION BAR ELIGIBILITY


EACH ROTATION BAR IS SILVER IN COLOUR AND BEARS A CENTRAL MAPLE LEAF. A BAR BEARING FIVE MAPLE LEAVES SHALL BE WORN IN LIEU OF FIVE BARS WITH A SINGLE MAPLE LEAF. ON THE UNDRESS RIBBON, THE AWARD OF ROTATION BARS IS INDICATED BY THE WEAR OF A MAPLE LEAF DEVICE AS FOLLOWS: A SILVER LEAF FOR ONE BAR, A GOLD LEAF FOR 2 BARS, A RED LEAF FOR 3 BARS AND A COMBINATION OF THESE DEVICES FOR ADDITIONAL BARS


AS THE MAPLE LEAF DEVICE ON THE UNDRESS RIBBON IS NOW RELATED TO ROTATION BARS, THE SILVER LEAF CURRENTLY WORN TO DENOTE THE AWARD OF THE AFGHANISTAN BAR SHALL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH A NEW DEVICE IN THE FORM OF A SILVER SHIELD BEARING THREE MAPLE LEAVES JOINED ON ONE STEM. THE DEVICE WILL BE AVAILABLE THROUGH THE SUPPLY SYSTEM (NSN: 8455-20-004-4716)


THE NEW ROTATION BARS ARE NOW READY FOR ISSUE AND UNITS MAY APPLY FOR THEIR ELIGIBLE MEMBERS USING THE ON LINE APPLICATION SYSTEM. THE BARS HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THE DROP DOWN MENU OF THE MEDALS APPLICATION PROCESSING SYSTEM (MAPS) AS WELL AS THE MPRR. IT IS A UNIT RESPONSIBILITY TO UPDATE THE HONOURS AND AWARDS BLOCK OF THE MPRR EACH TIME A MEMBER IS AWARDED A NEW HONOUR INCLUDING BARS


THE DEFINITIVE ELIGIBILITY LIST FOR THE SWASM AND DETAILS ON THE ROTATION BARS AND THEIR WEARING MAY BE FOUND ON THE DH R WEB SITE AT HTTP://HR.OTTAWA-HULL.MIL.CA/DHR-DDHR/ENG/HOME(UNDERSCORE)E.ASP


SIGNED BY MGEN W. SEMIANIW, CMP
 
Back
Top