Air University Review, May-June 1985
| His Marines in Vietnam had loved him. He was an irascible, aggressive leader, filled
with wisecracks and the sort of black-humored courage that inspires the best out of men in
combat. And his midshipmen loved him, too. Ted Lenahan carried combat in his scars and in
the ribbons on his chest. He was what it was all about. James Webb |
THEIR bright colors and where they are worn make the decorations on our chests the most visible symbols of military service. In a few seconds, the initiate can read the story of an airman's service in these beautiful swatches of colored ribbon, but one who does not know may draw the wrong conclusions from the ribbons we wear. The proliferation and placement of noncombat medals can easily lead the uninformed to attribute heroic deeds and experience in war to those who have served long and well in peacetime but who have no firsthand knowledge of war.
In one respect, our current awards and decorations system seems to say that today's military establishment prizes meritorious service more than combat service. Get a current chart showing the order of precedence of awards and decorations. Start with the Air Force Achievement Medal and examine the decorations that are higher in precedence than it is. Stick to the ones that airmen can expect to earn––don't count the Navy Cross, the Army Commendation Medal, etc. You will see that there are only seven decorations for combat service while there are ten awards for noncombat, meritorious service. (I do not count the Airman's Medal and count the Bronze Star in both groups.)
The ribbons we wear also tell us that our awards and decorations system recognizes many things that are routine. Do we really need to recognize the completion of an overseas tour? a remote tour? an individual's years of service? the completion of accession training? Aren't these things expected of us all? How does one get into the Air Force if he or she does not complete accession training? Such accomplishments are already recognized by the fact that we wear a uniform.
There has, of course, been nothing pernicious in the way our awards and decorations system has evolved. There has been only an attempt to motivate people by providing them with opportunities to earn medals and ribbons where they would not normally have such opportunities. Unfortunately, these new decorations have had the unforeseen and undesirable effect of decreasing the visibility and distinction of our combat leaders. Since combat was previously the major way in which one earned medals, the warrior leader stood out in peacetime, for he was virtually the only one with decorations. Thus, he served as a beacon, reminding us of the primary function of our calling at times when this reminder was most needed. If present trends continue, at sometime in the future we may find that our most decorated military men will never have seen combat. Already, one routinely sees officers wearing combat decorations as high as the Distinguished Flying Cross with two or three noncombat decorations for meritorious service and achievement placed above them on the wearer's chest. Medals for valor are becoming lost among longevity ribbons and meritorious service decorations. Does this shift of emphasis in our awards and decorations system signal a deeper, more profound shift of emphasis in our profession?
If we do not intend these changes in our awards and decorations system to signify that peacetime, administrative accomplishment is as important as heroism and leadership in combat, then we should begin immediately to restore precedence to awards recognizing wartime achievements. Ideally, we might begin our reform with a reevaluation of our awards and decorations system with an eye to withdrawing the more recently established defense awards for meritorious service and achievement and replacing them with older decorations like the Distinguished Service Medal, the Legion of Merit, and the Meritorious Service Medal. The Air Force might also reexamine its recent additions to the awards and decorations system with the idea of eliminating many of these awards. Do we really need an NCO PME ribbon? A USAF BMT Honor Graduate Ribbon? an Air Force Training Ribbon? an AF Overseas Ribbon? an Air Force Recognition Ribbon? an AF Outstanding Unit Award and an AF Organizational Excellence Award?
But these ideal solutions would be extremely difficult to implement. For one thing, they would cause hard feelings by reducing the number of ribbons most of us are authorized to wear. Secondly, they might undermine the important sense of pride and accomplishment associated with the wearing of ribbons already earned under the current system.
If we cannot significantly reduce the number of awards presented for noncombat service, can we perhaps increase the precedence of awards for combat service in some other way? This could be done by reserving the left side of the uniform for combat-related medals, campaign ribbons, and badges by moving noncombat medals, ribbons, and badges to the right side of the uniform. (The nametag could be worn on the flap of the right breast pocket.)
Two thousand years ago the Romans began the practice of recognizing bravery in combat by awarding torques and decorative discs that could be worn on the chest of a soldier. We continue this tradition in our own awards and decorations system, but the proliferation of awards for noncombat service that has occurred during the last twenty to twenty-five years has shifted the emphasis in the system so that extraordinary bravery under conditions of extreme danger now seems equated to managerial, administrative accomplishments involving no risk of life. This trend is in keeping with a perception widely held in our nation that technology, production, and logistics are the key to victory in modern war.
S. L. A. Marshall warned against this mentality in his book Men against Fire. We would do well to remember his words in reconsidering the way we decorate our people.
Being from Detroit, I am accustomed to hearing it said publicly that Detroit industry won the war. This may be an excusable conceit, though I have yet to see a Sherman tank or Browning gun that added anything to the national defense until it came into the hands of men who willingly risked their own lives. Further than that, I have too often seen the tide of battle turn around the high action of a few unhelped men to believe that the final problem of the battlefield can ever be solved by the machine. (p. 209)
We still haven't found away to fight wars without killing people. As long as war turns on the acts of a few courageous men who willingly risk their lives in battle, we must have a unique and very visible way of encouraging and acknowledging their bravery. Restoring combat decorations to their position of preeminence will properly acknowledge today's heroes and encourage those of tomorrow.
D. R. B.
Disclaimer
The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression, academic environment of Air University. They do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air Force or the Air University.
Air & Space Power Home Page | Feedback? Email the Editor