Drone Driver Award
02-14-2013, 08:49 AM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,837
I'm sure that the CIA Analyst was awarded an appropriate level of award for the hard, and incredibly important, work accomplished. Let's discuss the award that might have been given to an analyst that never left the halls of Langley with an award that might have been given to say - Tony Mendez. Does anyone believe that those two awards should be the same?
02-14-2013, 09:23 AM
#42
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,289
Originally Posted by LivingInMEM
The Air Medal is nothing more than number of sorties across the line, no specific actions or accomplishments are required. Again, if that in itself is dangerous enough to warrant a medal, why not award the same medal to the passengers as well?
02-14-2013, 09:43 AM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: 767A (Ret)
Posts: 6,248
I suspect that the CIA has its own secret awards system. Could be awkward to publicly decorate someone for an operation that "never happened". Something similar occurred in the Navy: a submarine crew received a Presidential Citation, but until years later, only a few of those on board knew what they had done to deserve it. (They had installed a tap on a Soviet undersea cable, right in their own waters.) 
02-14-2013, 10:34 AM
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 829
The movie example was just that, an example. Build your own cyber example if you'd like.
The Legion of Merit is less appropriate than the Bronze Star as there is no relation to combat and the LoM is usually reserved for flag officers. Hence, the requirement for a new medal, unless you want a cyber guy to wear a Bronze Star? Your call.
Back to the devaluation argument:
In one example, we have a medal that is being newly created, with no inference of flight ops, with no inference of direct combat action, and without even an inference of a deployment built into the criteria.
In a second example, we have Air Medals (a medal that infers extraordinary achievement or efforts to most) given out for sortie counts alone, nothing distinguishing required.
In a third example, we have Bronze Stars (a medal that infers some distinguishing combat service to most) being given for processing awards packages
Your theory is the first example is the most damaging to the value of your Air Medal or Bronze Star?
I hate to break it to you, but the value of an award is influenced by the lowest threshold for which it is awarded, hence the requirement for criteria or standards. I don't care what that citation that Gunship referred to said or why the individual received the award, the guy standing next to him got his for his sortie count. That's now what that medal is worth.
You see, the way it works is that when people see your medal, they attribute what you had to do to get that medal with what the lowest action someone else took to get the same medal. Unless you carry your citation around with you, no one knows the difference. Your MSM does not deflate the value of my small arms ribbon. However; if they give you a small arms ribbon for nothing more than holding the gun, then your small arms ribbon WOULD devalue mine.
Feel free to actually articulate with real logic how their completely separate and distinct medal devalues yours.
Participation medals are worthless, and based on the lowest common denominator, the Air Medal and Bronze Star are now participation medals. Regardless of what you say the medal "could" be awarded for, I'll focus on what they "are" awarded for. Don't try to blame that devaluation of your new medal on this new medal, I already scoffed your Air Medal years before they announced this new medal.
The Legion of Merit is less appropriate than the Bronze Star as there is no relation to combat and the LoM is usually reserved for flag officers. Hence, the requirement for a new medal, unless you want a cyber guy to wear a Bronze Star? Your call.
Back to the devaluation argument:
In one example, we have a medal that is being newly created, with no inference of flight ops, with no inference of direct combat action, and without even an inference of a deployment built into the criteria.
In a second example, we have Air Medals (a medal that infers extraordinary achievement or efforts to most) given out for sortie counts alone, nothing distinguishing required.
In a third example, we have Bronze Stars (a medal that infers some distinguishing combat service to most) being given for processing awards packages
Your theory is the first example is the most damaging to the value of your Air Medal or Bronze Star?
I hate to break it to you, but the value of an award is influenced by the lowest threshold for which it is awarded, hence the requirement for criteria or standards. I don't care what that citation that Gunship referred to said or why the individual received the award, the guy standing next to him got his for his sortie count. That's now what that medal is worth.
You see, the way it works is that when people see your medal, they attribute what you had to do to get that medal with what the lowest action someone else took to get the same medal. Unless you carry your citation around with you, no one knows the difference. Your MSM does not deflate the value of my small arms ribbon. However; if they give you a small arms ribbon for nothing more than holding the gun, then your small arms ribbon WOULD devalue mine.
Feel free to actually articulate with real logic how their completely separate and distinct medal devalues yours.
Participation medals are worthless, and based on the lowest common denominator, the Air Medal and Bronze Star are now participation medals. Regardless of what you say the medal "could" be awarded for, I'll focus on what they "are" awarded for. Don't try to blame that devaluation of your new medal on this new medal, I already scoffed your Air Medal years before they announced this new medal.
02-14-2013, 11:53 AM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 829
Bad wording above, should be:
Don't try to blame that devaluation of your medal on this new medal, I already scoffed the current practices in the awarding of the Air Medal, Bronze Star, etc and the devaluation it caused years before they announced this new medal.
Don't try to blame that devaluation of your medal on this new medal, I already scoffed the current practices in the awarding of the Air Medal, Bronze Star, etc and the devaluation it caused years before they announced this new medal.
02-14-2013, 11:55 AM
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Permanently scarred
Posts: 1,707
Originally Posted by LivingInMEM
The movie example was just that, an example. Build your own cyber example if you'd like.
The Legion of Merit is less appropriate than the Bronze Star as there is no relation to combat and the LoM is usually reserved for flag officers. Hence, the requirement for a new medal, unless you want a cyber guy to wear a Bronze Star? Your call.
Back to the devaluation argument:
In one example, we have a medal that is being newly created, with no inference of flight ops, with no inference of direct combat action, and without even an inference of a deployment built into the criteria.
In a second example, we have Air Medals (a medal that infers extraordinary achievement or efforts to most) given out for sortie counts alone, nothing distinguishing required.
In a third example, we have Bronze Stars (a medal that infers some distinguishing combat service to most) being given for processing awards packages
Your theory is the first example is the most damaging to the value of your Air Medal or Bronze Star?
I hate to break it to you, but the value of an award is influenced by the lowest threshold for which it is awarded, hence the requirement for criteria or standards. I don't care what that citation that Gunship referred to said or why the individual received the award, the guy standing next to him got his for his sortie count. That's now what that medal is worth.
You see, the way it works is that when people see your medal, they attribute what you had to do to get that medal with what the lowest action someone else took to get the same medal. Unless you carry your citation around with you, no one knows the difference. Your MSM does not deflate the value of my small arms ribbon. However; if they give you a small arms ribbon for nothing more than holding the gun, then your small arms ribbon WOULD devalue mine.
Feel free to actually articulate with real logic how their completely separate and distinct medal devalues yours.
Participation medals are worthless, and based on the lowest common denominator, the Air Medal and Bronze Star are now participation medals. Regardless of what you say the medal "could" be awarded for, I'll focus on what they "are" awarded for. Don't try to blame that devaluation of your new medal on this new medal, I already scoffed your Air Medal years before they announced this new medal.
The Legion of Merit is less appropriate than the Bronze Star as there is no relation to combat and the LoM is usually reserved for flag officers. Hence, the requirement for a new medal, unless you want a cyber guy to wear a Bronze Star? Your call.
Back to the devaluation argument:
In one example, we have a medal that is being newly created, with no inference of flight ops, with no inference of direct combat action, and without even an inference of a deployment built into the criteria.
In a second example, we have Air Medals (a medal that infers extraordinary achievement or efforts to most) given out for sortie counts alone, nothing distinguishing required.
In a third example, we have Bronze Stars (a medal that infers some distinguishing combat service to most) being given for processing awards packages
Your theory is the first example is the most damaging to the value of your Air Medal or Bronze Star?
I hate to break it to you, but the value of an award is influenced by the lowest threshold for which it is awarded, hence the requirement for criteria or standards. I don't care what that citation that Gunship referred to said or why the individual received the award, the guy standing next to him got his for his sortie count. That's now what that medal is worth.
You see, the way it works is that when people see your medal, they attribute what you had to do to get that medal with what the lowest action someone else took to get the same medal. Unless you carry your citation around with you, no one knows the difference. Your MSM does not deflate the value of my small arms ribbon. However; if they give you a small arms ribbon for nothing more than holding the gun, then your small arms ribbon WOULD devalue mine.
Feel free to actually articulate with real logic how their completely separate and distinct medal devalues yours.
Participation medals are worthless, and based on the lowest common denominator, the Air Medal and Bronze Star are now participation medals. Regardless of what you say the medal "could" be awarded for, I'll focus on what they "are" awarded for. Don't try to blame that devaluation of your new medal on this new medal, I already scoffed your Air Medal years before they announced this new medal.
I already articulated how your conclusions and statements of supposed fact are incorrect. Just because you think of it the way you wish doesn't change the facts. For example, you stated "The Air Medal is nothing more than a sortie count medal." So now you're saying that because you're ignorant of why a member may have received the AM for something other than sortie count you look at the recipients all the same way so that makes it so. Well, no, it doesn't really. Again, we're trying to deal in facts as much as possible, but with you that seems to not work for this conversation.
This medal is supposed to go to UAV (and cyber) personnel for "extraordinary achievement." Which very likely means it too will be given out all too frequently--your most probably candidate? A sqn CC who overseas a unit for a year or more for doing its job. Tell me what you think a UAV operator or commander could do from the U.S. to be awarded the Distinguished Warfare Medal that doesn't place them or their personnel in harm's way?
In your own words you scoff at the recognition given to those who deploy overseas into combat to fight for the freedoms our country enjoys. That says a lot about you, and I guess I should be shocked, but sadly I'm not.
Also, I'll try saying it a different way so you can hopefully get the point. It's not a matter of devaluing my medals. I'm appreciative of the time and effort it took my commanders and staff to recognize my actions with certificates and medals, but what actually mattered to me was my crew, my squadron, and our missions. The remembrance of the finest gunship, talon, and helicopter aircrews I ever worked alongside who never made it back, and the support of those who did. It's about the camaraderie...that's it. Heroes like Clint Romesha shun the spotlight...as many others I know do...since nothing, NOTHING can compensate them for what is done...it's done.
02-14-2013, 12:13 PM
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 829
Originally Posted by USMCFLYR
I'm sure that the CIA Analyst was awarded an appropriate level of award for the hard, and incredibly important, work accomplished. Let's discuss the award that might have been given to an analyst that never left the halls of Langley with an award that might have been given to say - Tony Mendez. Does anyone believe that those two awards should be the same?
So, are you for or opposed to distinctly different awards recognizing distinctly different circumstances, but with equivalent impact to the mission?
Sidenote: I absolutely believe that value to a mission is tied to impact to a mission, and it is possible that what Mendez did doesn't even approach the implications on national security compared to what some analyst may have done. While Mendez's work was courageous, heroic, dangerous, etc; the implications of failure would be limited to just those involved (though it would be devastating to those individuals). When contributions are recognized, I go for effects instead of just appearance.
02-14-2013, 12:25 PM
#48
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,837
Originally Posted by LivingInMEM
So, you're saying they should create a separate award, if one doesn't exist, to distinguish between the two examples? Funny, that's exactly what they did with this award and everyone's up in arms. As a matter of fact, several have stated "why don't they just give them an MSM or LoM?", which would be a lot like Mendez and a Langley analyst getting the same award.
So, are you for or opposed to distinctly different awards recognizing distinctly different circumstances, but with equivalent impact to the mission?
Sidenote: I absolutely believe that value to a mission is tied to impact to a mission, and it is possible that what Mendez did doesn't even approach the implications on national security compared to what some analyst may have done. While Mendez's work was courageous, heroic, dangerous, etc; the implications of failure would be limited to just those involved (though it would be devastating to those individuals). When contributions are recognized, I go for effects instead of just appearance.
So, are you for or opposed to distinctly different awards recognizing distinctly different circumstances, but with equivalent impact to the mission?
Sidenote: I absolutely believe that value to a mission is tied to impact to a mission, and it is possible that what Mendez did doesn't even approach the implications on national security compared to what some analyst may have done. While Mendez's work was courageous, heroic, dangerous, etc; the implications of failure would be limited to just those involved (though it would be devastating to those individuals). When contributions are recognized, I go for effects instead of just appearance.
My feelings on this issue are very clear from the beginning of this thread. I do not believe that this medal should be placed in a higher priority than a BSM (although my feelings on the BSM w/o/ combat 'V' are equally well documented in this thread). Please quote exactly where I said in this thread they shouldn't be given a medal?
If you are still confused by my stance on this issue then we have nothing more to discuss and we'll agree to disagree.
02-14-2013, 12:33 PM
#49
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 829
Gunship,
Want an example as I envision it? How about the crew that, through ultimate SA, knows that what the JTAC/Grd CC is telling him is wrong and he holds fires though cleared hot until it's confirmed that those guys actually are friendlies. Given your screen name, I thought maybe you could relate to that; if required, perhaps I could point you in the direction of instances that started out like that but didn't turn out so well.
As far as what I scoff, I scoff the watering down of medals that people used to have to either die for or at least be better than their peers for. I also scoff you and others saying that this new medal will be an insult to those who deploy when there are now more AMC crewmembers wearing Air Medals than there are AMC crewmembers wearing small arms expert ribbons. There is nothing distinguishing about an award that everyone gets for just doing their job.
Nice speech at the end, save it for someone who hasn't participated, and gotten the awards that come along with participation (devaluation and all). You see, I recognize the also played end game result of having one award for all contributions and I recognize the attempt at least to create an award appropriate for the level of contribution.
Want an example as I envision it? How about the crew that, through ultimate SA, knows that what the JTAC/Grd CC is telling him is wrong and he holds fires though cleared hot until it's confirmed that those guys actually are friendlies. Given your screen name, I thought maybe you could relate to that; if required, perhaps I could point you in the direction of instances that started out like that but didn't turn out so well.
As far as what I scoff, I scoff the watering down of medals that people used to have to either die for or at least be better than their peers for. I also scoff you and others saying that this new medal will be an insult to those who deploy when there are now more AMC crewmembers wearing Air Medals than there are AMC crewmembers wearing small arms expert ribbons. There is nothing distinguishing about an award that everyone gets for just doing their job.
Nice speech at the end, save it for someone who hasn't participated, and gotten the awards that come along with participation (devaluation and all). You see, I recognize the also played end game result of having one award for all contributions and I recognize the attempt at least to create an award appropriate for the level of contribution.
02-14-2013, 12:43 PM
#50
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 829
USMC,
I was pointing out that your post asking whether the analyst and Mendez should get the same award also pointed to the fact that perhaps a separate award for separate contributions was appropriate.
My take is the new medal is appropriate and needed and the relative value is worthy of discussion (though, let's be realistic about what the BS really means as you infer in your post). I think the RPA driver in my scenario above deserves higher recognition than the guy who got the BS for processing 600 awards packages or the deputy public affairs NCO. The commonly held view by others is that the new medal is wholly inappropriate due to the lack of personal danger faced by the crews.
I was pointing out that your post asking whether the analyst and Mendez should get the same award also pointed to the fact that perhaps a separate award for separate contributions was appropriate.
My take is the new medal is appropriate and needed and the relative value is worthy of discussion (though, let's be realistic about what the BS really means as you infer in your post). I think the RPA driver in my scenario above deserves higher recognition than the guy who got the BS for processing 600 awards packages or the deputy public affairs NCO. The commonly held view by others is that the new medal is wholly inappropriate due to the lack of personal danger faced by the crews.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
