A
aesop081
Guest
Dirty Patricia said:
Sacrifice Medal Mega Thread
- Thread starter military granny
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 51
- Points
- 530
Dirty Patricia said:
MODERATOR WARNING
Ladies and Gentlemen,
We are not about to start going down this road again with the "we vs them" ...
EVERY member of the CF is a volunteer, and personnel serve in the positions they are tasked to while overseas. I've said it before ...
Therefore by the grace of someone higher than you in the CoC go you into the CFTPO ... they may put you in a posn inside the wire --- or one outside, irregardless of trade. Regardless of where you happened to be placed ... you all volunteered, and we respect that on this site.
ArmyVern
The Milnet.ca Staff
PhilB
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 36
- Points
- 330
ArmyVern (Female type) said:
I agree 100% Vern. That is why I wanted to be really careful in my post to make sure I wasnt singling any group out. I think some of the hardest working guys on 1-06 were the truckers braving the roads daily to bring supplies out to the FOB's. For this very reason I think the CAB is a good idea. Although everyone volunteer, and everyone does their job in theater, some jobs entail much more risk and hardship. The CAB, particularily in the tiered style that is planned, is a great way to recognize those that serve in combat.
- Reaction score
- 9,193
- Points
- 1,260
PB said:
I'm more than happy to discuss this one. To clarify, I am not afraid of change, I don't qualify for one, and have a fair chance of qualifying for one down the road - however, I find myself disagreeing with the concept and, more specifically, the execution.
Question is - do you need a badge to show that you were in combat? Really, what is it for? To show off - to feel good? I find myself asking this when I consider the concept - especially coming from an infantry background where our very raison d'etre is to get into combat - ie, we do it for a living. However, I suppose one could extend this question to the system of honours and awards as a whole (why give a campaign ribbon like a "Former Yugo"?) As well, in the age of Cabinet Wars (as opposed to National Wars - a combat badge would have seemed foolish to anyone in a Division in WWII) combat is a distinction for the modern professional. I still feel uneasy about needing to differentiate to this level - Campaign Medals like SWASM or GCS serve well in recognizing that a service member dedicated a significant portion of their life to a collective cause, irregardless of trade.
Even if we were to go for a general badge, I find the real distaste in my mouth is the execution; I've seen the draft presentation on the medal; it's an ugly triangle with arrows and it comes in three fruity-flavours. We've created an artificial system of precedence with the "Gold, Silver, Bronze" idea. Hey, you only get bronze - weenie! Make sure you crack a few rounds off on the next Combat Logistics Patrol to qualify for your gold! As if trading fire with the bad guys is more deserving (for the gold) than sitting through a rocket barrage as you try to organize the next shipment of beans and bullets. This seems implicit in the, IMHO, poor design of the proposed award. If this does come out, I hope for the sake of being taken seriously that we move to a principle similar to that of the Aussies....
PhilB
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 36
- Points
- 330
I think that the reason that a badge is needed results from two factors;
1. That the combat we are seeing now in Afghanistan is substantially different from anything we have seen before. I dont want to say more worthy or try and quantify the validity and danger of different tours, but it is different. The CPSM was brought into effect to recognize that peacekeeping operations are different. I think a CAB appropriately recognizes combat. In fact, this sentiment is held by several other western armies, notably the US, Australia, and New Zealand.
2. The fact that there are so many campaign medals out there and IMHO they do not do an adequate job of recognizing service. They simply indicate that you were there. A CAB will differentiate being there from having fought there.
As far as the three different levels of the badge go, this is where it gets confusing. I have no knowledge on what one would have to do to qualify for any of the different levels so I cant comment on it. It seems like the three levels are an attempt to water down the award and prevent "elitism" or whatever you want to call it. If all you have to do to qualify for the bronze is "be in a combat theater" then basically everyone is entitled to one, I think that the Afghan bar on the SWASM/GCS does the job of the bronze one. I think there should be one level. It is awarded if you were in combat, i.e. being effectively engaged by the enemy and returning fire. Just being in the general vicinity of KAF when a rocket lands or taking a pot shot at a car passing a convoy would no qualify. Being involved in an IED attack, small arms fire, etc would.
1. That the combat we are seeing now in Afghanistan is substantially different from anything we have seen before. I dont want to say more worthy or try and quantify the validity and danger of different tours, but it is different. The CPSM was brought into effect to recognize that peacekeeping operations are different. I think a CAB appropriately recognizes combat. In fact, this sentiment is held by several other western armies, notably the US, Australia, and New Zealand.
2. The fact that there are so many campaign medals out there and IMHO they do not do an adequate job of recognizing service. They simply indicate that you were there. A CAB will differentiate being there from having fought there.
As far as the three different levels of the badge go, this is where it gets confusing. I have no knowledge on what one would have to do to qualify for any of the different levels so I cant comment on it. It seems like the three levels are an attempt to water down the award and prevent "elitism" or whatever you want to call it. If all you have to do to qualify for the bronze is "be in a combat theater" then basically everyone is entitled to one, I think that the Afghan bar on the SWASM/GCS does the job of the bronze one. I think there should be one level. It is awarded if you were in combat, i.e. being effectively engaged by the enemy and returning fire. Just being in the general vicinity of KAF when a rocket lands or taking a pot shot at a car passing a convoy would no qualify. Being involved in an IED attack, small arms fire, etc would.
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
PhilB said:
I wonder how many young soldiers over the ages/centuries/decades have made the same comments?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Infanteer said:
Good points, kinda answered your own question. I'm sure you have experience on other tours, but once you ride a wave in this sandbox, even more so for your trade, I think you'll be off this fence. And as a sideline, I don't care how ugly the CAB may be, the troops deserve it. Truckers for sure, as well as all support trades outside the wire. If they want to give a lower level to guys inside KAF, well that may be pushing it. I think the three levels will work fine, a little bit of admin for the proper recongition. Nothing wrong with a healthy debate, gets people thinking. Cheers, PB.
- Reaction score
- 9,193
- Points
- 1,260
PhilB said:
Really? I'm sure WWII or Korean War vets would disagree. Flanking fire, ambush, support by fire, booby trap (or IED, in today's buzzword) - nothing really new here.
...and this is where the trouble of definition comes about (and my original question arises). Is the qualifying factor firing at a hostile force? Does the artillery count? There guns happen to be bigger than the infantry's, but they are doing essentially the same thing; it's a matter of distance with them. Okay, the qualifying factor is being fired at? So we go to our support guys in camp that get rocketed or mortared in base - does that count? Ahhh....maybe not; okay, you have to do both! What does this mean for a convoy that is struck by an IED and simply blasts some spec fire back at potential triggerguy locations? Does this count?
It gets to the point where the nuts and bolts lead to the original intent is lost, and in attempting to please everybody, they please nobody. If this is the case, is it really worth it?
- Reaction score
- 51
- Points
- 530
George Wallace said:
Sure, I seem to recall mustard gas setting a precedent etc etc
Don't think I'd be anteing up to volunteer to reinact those incidents.
VOLUNTEERS people -- each and every one of us. Remembering that is also very healthy.
There's also nothing wrong with a CAB ... as long as those who earn it still respect the contributions of a fellow 031 (for example) who happened to be slotted into a KAF posn on that CFTPO vice an outside the wire one. The problem begins when those who wear these things believe that those who don't wear them, don't wear them because they are:
Because those simply aren't the facts. YOU could have just as easily found yourself tasked into one of those 031 inside the wire posns. Best to always remember that.
- Reaction score
- 9,193
- Points
- 1,260
Infanteer said:
PB said:
Yes, and the answer seems to come in the form of the (rhetorical) question above.
I doubt it, but I guess we can wait for that time. However, I've spoken with many who do qualify and feel the same way I do, so I don't think my opinions can be written off as those of one who hasn't seen the elephant....
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Since you say there's nothing wrong with a CAB, then those three points ( 1. Do not qualify...etc) would not apply to you. There are however, some narrow minded viewpoints noticeable in other threads, that these points would apply to. I have all full respect for anyone wearing the uniform, even more for those heading overseas. Inside the wire support is very important, we could not do outside jobs without it, but there is difference in living conditions and threat level.ArmyVern (Female type) said:
I don't see a big problem with this at all. I see fighting men getting a little bit of tin to recognize the conflict they were in. I also seen a few convoys heading out, shorthanded, being filled by whoever wanted to help. RCMP Dudes in the PRT even jumped on as security for some QRF jobs. So if you are over there, no matter what CFTPO you are filling, you could end up in a fight. And before you ask, yes, I think RCMP who get in a TIC should get a CAB as well....Good Debate. Cheers, PB
A
aesop081
Guest
ahhhhh
maybe one day, russian subs will return and i can sink one and get me a CAB
;D
maybe one day, russian subs will return and i can sink one and get me a CAB
;D
- Reaction score
- 51
- Points
- 530
PB said:
Since we're debating ...
I said there's nothing wrong with the CAB, provided that those who receive them ... understand that those who don't necessarily receive them --- are NOT lesser soldiers because of that ... and that seeing someone without a CAB (even a support trade, even a 031 for example) does not = "they don't have what it takes/they don't have enough guts/etc" because that simply is NOT the case. IF those pers who may receive them believe that these badges distinguish them somehow from pers who are "unworthy" (and that WAS the gist many pers got out of the earlier "3" points regarding who "disagrees" with the CAB ... with the "they never will qualify" ) --- then we have a problem. Because that would signify those pers DO NOT understand how CFTPO posns and deployment tasks work.
It's not that pers are unworthy at all --- it's just that they happened to be slotted into an inside the wire posn ... just as easily as one deemed "worthy" could have been slotted inside the wire and perhaps never have earned one either -- if only the posn numbers had been reversed between the two soldiers. It's an "odds" thing.
PhilB
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 36
- Points
- 330
Vern, I agree that attitude is key. I dont think it is on to have an attitude of "worthiness" or "unworthiness" . Attitude is something that cant really be controlled and I dont think having or not having a certain badge will drive attitude. If someone has a bad attitude it will be bad, or vice versa.
As far as qualifying, again, the crux of the problem. I think the main criteria should be effective enemy fire. IMHO and that has been subjected to enemy rocket fire at KAF will agree that it is far from being effective fire (Before anyone brings up the handful of Canadians that have been injured in rocket attacks at KAF there is a large difference between rockets being indiscriminately lobbed into a massive camp with the odd lucky hit, and directed, targeted fire). This definition of "effective fire" would mean that basically anyone outside the wire involved in an incident would qualify. Guys on convoys getting IED'd or ambushed, artillery guys that face the same threat, or infantry guys actively engaging the enemy with small arms fire. I dont know, that seems to make sense to me, anyone else have ideas?
As far as qualifying, again, the crux of the problem. I think the main criteria should be effective enemy fire. IMHO and that has been subjected to enemy rocket fire at KAF will agree that it is far from being effective fire (Before anyone brings up the handful of Canadians that have been injured in rocket attacks at KAF there is a large difference between rockets being indiscriminately lobbed into a massive camp with the odd lucky hit, and directed, targeted fire). This definition of "effective fire" would mean that basically anyone outside the wire involved in an incident would qualify. Guys on convoys getting IED'd or ambushed, artillery guys that face the same threat, or infantry guys actively engaging the enemy with small arms fire. I dont know, that seems to make sense to me, anyone else have ideas?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
PhilB said:
There will be some arrogance from some people who have a badge and use it to quantify arguments. We ALL know of someone who would.
From another thread on the matter, I'll quote myself:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/54242/post-491870.html#msg491870
If we do go down this route, I really do hope the criteria is strict.
Yeah, so I was rocketed numerous times at KAF. If I get a box with a shiny badge in it because of that...Well, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to wear it.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
ArmyVernArmyVern (Female type) said:
I would love to debate this with you further, but unfortunately, it looks like we agree. It's a good idea, hope it works out, hope it is not abused, and hope there are not guys or gals acting childish and rubbing it in others' faces. Just to add, I don't think there will be many childish troops rubbing it in other faces, most kids going on this tour come back a little older and wiser. Cheers, PB.
