Sacrifice Medal Mega Thread

[Scoobs]

I recently returned from Afghanistan in May 08 where my primary job was Honours and Awards, amongst others, such as sharing in the task of casualty/death management.  

Prior to the Sacrifice Medal's implementation, I had heard of a medal coming out that was intended to replace the Wound Stripe.  You have to really see it to believe it, but there is an unbelievable amount of emotion surrounding Honours and Awards, let alone service medals.  Having experienced most of the H&A system in an operational context, I was never a proponent of creating an award that would be so divisive.  As I feared, the Sacrifice Medal has done so.  I agree that the name is not the best name for the medal as it has caused confusion/anger/etc. over what constitutes a "sacrifice".  Who can ultimately decide what was a sacrifice?  My family sacrificed for 9 and a half months without me, but this pales in comparison to other families that now have no father, brother, sister, wife, husband.  Some people left Afghanistan and other operational places with different injuries, both mental and physical.  Who can tell me what constitutes a sacrifice?  My point is that there will be many different opinions about what a "sacrifice" is and we will all never agree on them.

As it is unlikely that the medal will be removed from our H&A system, I believe that a name change is in order.

Minor pts about the Wound Stripe are that it was approved at the CO level and it was never given to a deceased mbr, whereas, (I'm not an expert on the Sacrifice Medal), it appears that the Sacrifice Medal's approval has been taken out of the CO's hands (as was for the Wound Stripe) and the SM can be awarded posthumously.

I must still wonder out loud, why did we need a new medal/recognition when we already had the Wound Stripe?  There is a tendency to "Americanize" our H&A system, e.g. needing something like the Purple Heart or the Combat Action Insignia.  The Wound Stripe did its job and did not create the divisiveness that I now see that the Sacrifice Medal has.

Edit: note that my reference to "Americanize" our H&A system was by no means a slight towards the Americans or their H&A system.  I just feel that we should look at our own Canadian situation and implement or change our H&A based on our needs, rather than looking to see what other nations have and implementing something very similar just because they have it.

 

[derael]

Oddly enough army news reports that friendly fire cases will be eligible...

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/6_1_1_1.asp?id=2950

 

[helpup]

I heard what he said and have already stated my best wishes in getting it for Jeff, however in what I have read on the HA and knowing the particulars for his death. I really hope the quibbling at the higher levels sorts out the picking fly#@*T out of pepper doesn't continue.  Agreed the medal is poorly named,  The criteria I can understand and even agree with in the most part.  But why pray tell cant we as a nation take something as well meaning as this recognition is and make it clear cut, no shades of gray and encompass the gamut of not only likely scenarios but something we have intimant  knowledge of in over X many cases?

 

[tank recce]

Oddly enough army news reports that friendly fire cases will be eligible...

Waayy up at reply #15, Dataperson quoted the Canforgen discussing this award:

DEATH OR WOUNDS AS A DIRECT RESULT OF FRIENDLY FIRE AIMED AT A HOSTILE FORCE OR WHAT IS OR WAS THOUGHT TO BE A HOSTILE FORCE

I read this as Deliberate-yet-mistaken Blue-on-Blue - whether an overeager troop bounds in front of his own fireteam partner and gets hit, or - as in RHFC_Piper's case - friendlies get hit by other friendlies who thought the first group were hostiles.

My (very limited) understanding of MCpl Walsh's tragedy was that it was a flat-out AD/ND, with no bad guys to be seen. Not the same thing at all...

 

[helpup]

That is my take on it too, my post still stands though.  The Army News really should of worded it better then the Blurb they put out. 

 

[Sito Origami]

Interesting statement that it was not intended to be a permanent issue.

I had intended my comments to refer to the pre-Unification era in reply to Old Sweat, who was discussing 1950's issue soldiers not wearing it even though they were wounded in Korea. I was never very good at not mixing my tenses. At any rate, the Wound Stripe, like all military insignia, has evolved over the decades. I did want to note that Old Sweat's point was a valid one - the Wound Stripe was abolished several times - so the fact that it is being abolished now is nothing new under the sun. My comments about the impermanent nature of the cloth badge were meant to highlight not my understanding of the CF dress regulations - quite faulty as it turns out - but the notion that the badge itself has now been replaced by something more tangible and permanent, not to mention appropriate for wear with civilian attire and formal wear such as mess dress, for those to whom such things are important. The debate about who will and who should choose to wear such a mark is of course open to further debate. Some will see it as a distinction, others will not. It is nice to have choice.

 

[forgotten]

Well they are going to have a meeting in reference to me at least..getting my wound stripe..at least that's a start. I should know by mid week weather i get it or not..In reference to the previous writers comment, yes it is kind of awkward to wear the wound stripe in.relaxed dress, civilian or on a mess kit.It would be nice to at least have a little discrete pin or acknowledgment to wear...I am still going to inquire into how if possible to get the sacrifice medal..I am trying to find out how and why the bureaucrats made this decision but I don't seem to be getting anywhere..I will NOT give up..until given an answer as to why it shouldn't be given to any LIVING post war veteran. The answer at present by "bureaucrats" is to why..is not good enough.

 

[Sito Origami]

Well they are going to have a meeting in reference to me at least..getting my wound stripe..at least that's a start. I should know by mid week weather i get it or not..In reference to the previous writers comment, yes it is kind of awkward to wear the wound stripe in.relaxed dress, civilian or on a mess kit.It would be nice to at least have a little discrete pin or acknowledgment to wear...I am still going to inquire into how if possible to get the sacrifice medal..I am trying to find out how and why the bureaucrats made this decision but I don't seem to be getting anywhere..I will NOT give up..until given an answer as to why it shouldn't be given to any LIVING post war veteran. The answer at present by "bureaucrats" is to why..is not good enough.

There used to be lapel pins for "service at the front" many years ago for wear in mufti. I can't remember if there was a wounded lapel pin or not - American Purple Heart recipients get a lapel pin with their medal if memory serves. I have seen enamelled lapel pins  in the shape of the CD ribbon. I see no reason an entrepreneur could not make a small, tasteful wound stripe pin and market them, if there was a - well, market for them, for use in civilian dress.

 

[derael]

Ah, didn't see that post... but yes I have to agree the wording on army news leaves a lot to be desired in terms of accuracy.

 

[armyvern]

Oddly enough army news reports that friendly fire cases will be eligible...

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/6_1_1_1.asp?id=2950

That's precisely because deaths or wounds suffered as a result of Friendly Fire ARE ELIGIBLE.

ELIGIBLE CASES INCLUDE:

DEATH OR WOUNDS DUE TO A TERRORIST ATTACK, MINE OR BOMB DISPOSAL DUTY, DIRECT OR INDIRECT FIRE, RESCUE DUTY, COLLISION OF AN AIRCRAFT, VEHICLE OR VESSEL, ON THE CONDITION THAT THE OCCURRENCE IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO A HOSTILE ACTION

DEATH OR WOUNDS AS A DIRECT RESULT OF FRIENDLY FIRE AIMED AT A HOSTILE FORCE OR WHAT IS OR WAS THOUGHT TO BE A HOSTILE FORCE

WOUNDS THAT REQUIRE NOT LESS THAN SEVEN DAYS OF TREATMENT IN HOSPITAL, OR AN EQUIVALENT COURSE OF TREATMENT, AND THAT WERE CAUSED BY

(1) EXPOSURE TO THE ELEMENTS AS A CONSEQUENCE OF AN AIRCRAFT, VEHICLE OR VESSEL BEING DESTROYED OR DISABLED BY A HOSTILE ACTION,

(2) HARSH TREATMENT OR NEGLECT WHILE A CAPTIVE OF A HOSTILE FORCE, OR

(3) USE OF NUCLEAR, BIOLOGICAL OR CHEMICAL AGENTS BY A HOSTILE FORCE

DEATH CAUSED BY

(1) EXPOSURE TO THE ELEMENTS AS A CONSEQUENCE OF AN AIRCRAFT, VEHICLE OR VESSEL BEING DESTROYED OR DISABLED BY A HOSTILE ACTION

(2) HARSH TREATMENT OR NEGLECT WHILE A CAPTIVE OF A HOSTILE FORCE, OR

(3) USE OF NUCLEAR, BIOLOGICAL OR CHEMICAL AGENTS BY A HOSTILE FORCE, OR

MENTAL DISORDERS THAT ARE DIAGNOSED ACCORDING TO THE CRITERIA SET OUT IN THE QUOTE DIAGNOSTIC AND STATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL DISORDERS UNQUOTE, PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION, AND BASED ON A REVIEW BY A QUALIFIED MENTAL HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER, ARE DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO A HOSTILE OR PERCEIVED HOSTILE ACTION

INELIGIBLE CASES INCLUDE:

DEATH OR WOUNDS DUE TO EXPOSURE TO THE ELEMENTS, OR CAUSED BY ACTS OF GOD

DEATH OR WOUNDS CAUSED BY AN ACCIDENT ARISING FROM THEIR EMPLOYMENT IN A THEATRE OF OPERATIONS BUT WERE NOT DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO A HOSTILE ACTION

DEATH OR WOUNDS CAUSED BY DISEASE,OR

DEATH OR WOUNDS THAT WERE SELF-INFLICTED OR CAUSED BY THE VICTIM S NEGLIGENCE

What is being questioned here is the ineligibility pertaining to the death of one of our soldiers in-theatre caused by a Negligent Discharge - which falls into the highlighted category under the "Ineligible Cases".

Some of you really need to learn to read BEFORE you start posting and FURTHER causes stress and concern wrt to this issue. Fuck.

NOTE" "Hostile Intent" IS the line that has been drawn --- the EXACT same line that was drawn with the Wound Stripe (except, that for the Sacrifice Medal, posthumous awarding is also authorized -- unlike the Wound Stripe).

*Milnet.ca staff edit for site policy*

 

[George Wallace]

Is the Sacrifice Medal inappropriately named?  Should we change its' name?

We have seen quite a controversy brew up over this medal and the criteria set for it.  Most of the problems stem from the use of the word "Sacrifice".  Many have made sacrifices, but due to the nature of those sacrifices, they do not meet the criteria set out to be awarded this medal.  In essence, the word "Sacrifice" is misleading and totally inappropriate in the naming of this medal. 

Is there a requirement to rename this medal to more appropriately distinguish its true meaning?  Is there a more appropriate name for it?  What would that be, and how would we go about changing it?

Should it not been simple called the "Wound Medal" to cover the criteria of being wounded (superficially or mortally) in combat with a hostile force?  Are there more appropriate names to relate the significance of the medal to the criteria set for its award to a person?

 

[armyvern]

It all just reminds me of the other big thread on this issue which started out as

"Wound Stripe being replaced?"

That debate raged, and people on this site saw problems and had concerns with it's "rumoured" replacement long before the medal came to be.

My question is:

Did we really need to replace the Wound Stripe which was already an honourable and historical tradition for the military which recognized the exact same personnel? Did we really need to re-invent the damn wheel only to cause further hurt, pain, division amongst the troops, the general consensus of "my service & wounds are being treated as lesser"?

The only difference between this HIGHLY contorversial medal and the Wound Stripe is that it can be awarded posthumously ... and THAT 'posthumous' criteria change could have (and should have IMHO) been applied to the already existing historical, traditional, and already worthy Wound Stripe.

And no, the name of the medal IS NOT appropriate in my humble opinion; THAT only furthers to sever the troops and the families of our fallen when one's sacrifice as a "volunteer" who dies or is injured while serving his country in ANY way, shape, or form while performing their duties to Queen and Country is deemed to be less "worthy" that that of another fallen soldier.

 

[Snafu-Bar]

They could ammend the name to state that it's a "Blood Sacrifice". Thus aleviating the distinction of it's reason for being awarded.

Cheers.

 

[the 48th regulator]

I have been a major player in the raging debate, however, I feel Vern and George have summed up exactly what I feel.

dileas

tess

 

[Teflon]

It all just reminds me of the other big thread on this issue which started out as

"Wound Stripe being replaced?"

That debate raged, and people on this site saw problems and had concerns with it's "rumoured" replacement long before the medal came to be.

My question is:

Did we really need to replace the Wound Stripe which was already an honourable and historical tradition for the military which recognized the exact same personnel? Did we really need to re-invent the damn wheel only to cause further hurt, pain, division amongst the troops, the general consensus of "my service & wounds are being treated as lesser"?

The only difference between this HIGHLY contorversial medal and the Wound Stripe is that it can be awarded posthumously ... and THAT criteria change could (and should have IMHO) been applied to the already existing historical, traditional, and already worthy Wound Stripe.

And no, the name of the medal IS NOT appropriate in my humble opinion; THAT only furthers to sever the troops and the families of our fallen when one's sacrifice as a "volunteer" who dies while serving his country in ANY way, shape, or form while performing their duties to Queen and Country is deemed to be less "worthy" that that of another fallen soldier.

Since the Question you ask has already been the main topic of a very long often heated thread is it really required that it be brought up yet again?  The medal is here and we should  deal with it and I hope that this thread could remain about the medal and ideas to make it better / more suitable etc and not rehashing the medal v.s.wound stripe debate,

just my two cents anyways

 

[armyvern]

Since the Question you ask has already been the main topic of a very long often heated thread is it really required that it be brought up yet again?  The medal is here and we should  deal with it and I hope that this thread could remain about the medal and ideas to make it better / more suitable etc and not rehashing the medal v.s.wound stripe debate,

just my two cents anyways

Sure it has been ---

And NOT ONE single person stated what I just did:


"The only difference between this HIGHLY contorversial medal and the Wound Stripe is that it can be awarded posthumously ... and THAT criteria change could (and should have IMHO) been applied to the already existing historical, traditional, and already worthy Wound Stripe."

Now, as for your suggestion that it be ammended etc ...

What do you actually think the fallout of THAT would be? That soldiers who die as a result of NDs after 07 Oct 2001 become eligible for example? Imagine what that would do to the families of soldiers who died as the result of NDs PRIOR to that date (either within Canada, or in the case of one of my very best friends Corporal Michael David Abel who was killed by another soldier in a ND incident while serving in Somalia) They'd not be getting one, -- it would ONLY denigrate the service and sacrifice of those indivuals.

And that is exactly why it is related to this thread here ... "Sacrifice" is NOT the appropriate word. It denigrates the service of all other soldiers who die by whatever means while serving their country and performing their duty. 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I am not now and likely will never be a recipient of either of these, in my current MOC or the one I am remustering to, so I remind people of that at this point before I chuck in my thoughts.

My own thoughts are I think the medal is a step-down from the wound stripe.  The wound stripe was unique in its placement, and look.  We no longer wear the 'years of service bars'.  The only things I have ever seen on a DEU jacket in that location are the mini jump wings the Navy used to wear there, Marksmanship badges and wound stripes.

Reading comments from some of our members that have wound stripes, it seems that the history of the wound stripe is something they relate to more than another medal.  I remember seeing a WO at CFLRS who had a fair size amount of handware, I'd say 7-8 medals, and a wound stripe.  The wound stripe stuck out from the medals, to me atleast.  I saw it right away and thought "what is...." and then I knew what it was....sitting atop his rank insignia.  I am not sure another medal would have been so obvious.

I agree with both posts, in what AV says

Did we really need to replace the Wound Stripe which was already an honourable and historical tradition for the military which recognized the exact same personnel? Did we really need to re-invent the damn wheel only to cause further hurt, pain, division amongst the troops, the general consensus of "my service & wounds are being treated as lesser"?

The only difference between this HIGHLY contorversial medal and the Wound Stripe is that it can be awarded posthumously ... and THAT 'posthumous' criteria change could have (and should have IMHO) been applied to the already existing historical, traditional, and already worthy Wound Stripe.
And no, the name of the medal IS NOT appropriate in my humble opinion; THAT only furthers to sever the troops and the families of our fallen when one's sacrifice as a "volunteer" who dies or is injured while serving his country in ANY way, shape, or form while performing their duties to Queen and Country is deemed to be less "worthy" that that of another fallen soldier.

and what GW says

Most of the problems stem from the use of the word "Sacrifice".  Many have made sacrifices, but due to the nature of those sacrifices, they do not meet the criteria set out to be awarded this medal.  In essence, the word "Sacrifice" is misleading and totally inappropriate in the naming of this medal. 

Is there a requirement to rename this medal to more appropriately distinguish its true meaning?  Is there a more appropriate name for it?  What would that be, and how would we go about changing it?

Should it not been simple called the "Wound Medal" to cover the criteria of being wounded (superficially or mortally) in combat with a hostile force? 

I think the first mistake was the move away from the wound stripe (I have my own opinion on why I think this was done, and not a good one) and the second mistake was to use the word "Sacrifice".

I think the I said "this whole thing was wrong" was watching 2 wound stripe recipients debating each other in the thread about MCpl Jeff Walsh and why he is not eligible for the Sacrifice Medal, when no one can argue if he sacrificed or not.  He certainly did.  Despite the wording of the criteria is clear, however the meaning of the WORD is also.

"If its not broke, don't fix it" does not apply with this subject, IMO.  Its broke.  It needs to be fixed, if our vets are debating it. 

Opinions like mine, well you can take them or leave them, the most danger I've seen in my career probably amounts to nervous recruits with their first live grenade or something.


Again, this coming from someone who is not wearing a wound stripe and is not eligible for the new medal, but  to all those who where, who are, and who will be...

 

[George Wallace]

This discusion is not about anything else other than the APPROPRIATE NAME for this Medal.  It is NOT about the changing of criteria for some other awards.  There are already discusions on those topics.

Stay on topic.

 

[lawandorder]

I don't think the name of the medal is intended to slight those who are never awarded it.  While many or should I say all CF members make multiple sacrifices during their career, it is not quite the same IMHP.  The medals name lets those not in the military know that they have sacrificed themselves through injury, and to those in as well.  In no way am I insulted by its name because the "ordinary" sacrifices I make in my duties are ones that pale in compairson.

 

[armyvern]

I don't think the name of the medal is intended to slight those who are never awarded it.  While many or should I say all CF members make multiple sacrifices during their career, it is not quite the same IMHP.  The medals name lets those not in the military know that they have sacrificed themselves through injury, and to those in as well.  In no way am I insulted by its name because the "ordinary" sacrifices I make in my duties are ones that pale in compairson.

We're not talking about "ordinary" sacrifices though.

We're talking about the fact that there are soldiers who have died via "trauma" (either via ND, vehicle accident or other) while overseas performing duties on behalf of Queen and Country who are not eligible. Many feel (obviously by the threads) that their non-eligibility is a slight to them.

I don't class those as "ordinary" --- then again --- I don't class the guy/gal who dies in a vehicle rollover on an ex in Canada as "ordinary sacrifice" either.