Obama Awards Medal of Honor to Army Ranger
By Lisa Daniel
American Forces Press Service
President Barack Obama today [Tuesday] awarded the country's highest military honor to Sgt. 1st Class Leroy A. Petry, an Army Ranger who was shot in both legs and had his hand blown off while saving his fellow soldiers during a firefight in Afghanistan.
Petry became only the second living veteran of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to receive the Medal of Honor, which Obama presented during a White House ceremony attended by Petry, his wife and four children, and more than a hundred of his family members, mostly from his native New Mexico.
Deputy Defense Secretary William J. Lynn III, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Marine Corps Gen. James E. Cartwright, Army Secretary John M. McHugh and Army Chief of Staff Gen. Martin E. Dempsey also attended the ceremony, as did the members of the legendary Delta Company, 2nd Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, with which Petry served.
Calling Petry, 31, "a true hero," Obama recounted how the soldier was on his seventh combat deployment in Afghanistan on May 26, 2008, when he took part in a high-risk daytime operation to capture an insurgent leader in a compound in Paktia province, near the Pakistan border...
More:
Rare White House Ceremony for Medal of Honor - NYT
Sgt. 1st Class Leroy Petry Awarded Medal of Honor - WP
Obama Awards Medal of Honor to Army Ranger - AFPS
Remarks by the President in Presenting the Medal of Honor - White House
Exclusive Interview with Army Sgt. 1st Class Leroy Petry - S&S
Afghanistan Veteran Leroy Petry Awarded US Medal of Honor - BBC
Sgt. 1st Class Leroy Petry, Live Action Hero - WP
US Army Medal of Honor - Official Web Page
Comments
And you also have to remember that Vietnam also saw many MoHs downgraded or ignored for men who worked with MACV/SOG. Vietnam also gave birth to the "end of tour awards package" for senior officers based on the assumption that they "must have done something" while they were in-country (something that might have crept back into the system in some form in our current conflicts). Remember that award inflation is quite often a rear-area phenomenon, with those close to the flagpole more likely to be recognized than those who are out in the mud doing their jobs.
The MoH is a complicated thing, buffeted as always by political considerations. There are also service considerations, with the Marines being notorious for putting in fewer award recommendations. I've seen people complain about how "free" the MoH seemed to be during the Indian Wars without understanding that it was the ONLY award available at that time (and that initially it could only be given to enlisted men...officers got theirs retroactively).
During Vietnam the awards system did SEEM to become more liberal (at least up to the DSC level), but I think that is a combination of it being an unpopular war (thus a perceived need for heroes), the awards packages mentioned above, and (last but certainly not least) the changing nature of the conflict itself. Major engagements tended to come in waves, and the intensity of conflict in some areas could be comparable to World War 2. Different times.
While I do find disturbing the trend we had gotten into that appeared to require the MOH to be posthumous, gotta agree that the good major needs a fact check. Combat generateing some 300 dead Americans a week is far different that combat that generates that number in a year. The real travesty is the thousands of unrecognized or downgraded events due simply to the fact that uncommon valor had simply become so common, or because no one of any rank was alive to report fairly what had happened.
The
Publius,
Very well put, and while the MAJ apparently didn't intend to offend anyone, he certainly did, and I and others think he is smoking crack if he thinks the MOH winners in Korea and Vietnam would be downgraded to a BSM with a V device if they were nominated today.
With the exception of the MOH, there isn't much oversight on valor awards, and what some consider exceptionally courageous behavior is a matter of great subjectivity. I recall reading a Silver Star citation for an MP in Afghanistan that was watching over prisoners, and one of the prisoners reached for a weapon and he shot him and his chain of command thought it was worthy of a silver star? On the same page two SF soldiers received Silver Stars in Iraq for killing several insurgents in close combat during a long fire fight, clearing building after building. Then on the other hand we all remember the Jessica Lynch story (and she wasn't to blame for it). I'm not sure what MOH citations the MAJ is reading, but the ones I read from Vietnam and Korea were pretty darn impressive, and included killing 11 enemy soldiers with an e-tool, charging through an ambush, repeatedly exposing themselves to fire after being wounded to save fallen comrades, etc. The MAJ's arguments were poorly presented, and he doesn't appear to grasp that in both those wars there was a considerable level of symmetry between the opponents and the battles were much more intense than the battles fought today on average. Maybe he should read We Were Soldiers Once and Young, and This Kind of War, and then try to find parallels to the level of intensity in today's wars? The point isn't that we don't have men of the made of the same material, but simply that combat in the current wars (with some exceptions) has generally been less intense.
While I agree the integrity of the MOH must be protected, I think the command may have gone overboard since 9/11 and may be overly anal on nominating our fighting men for MOHs now. Like the MAJ, I'm aware of several incidents of incredible bravery demonstrated throughout both of these wars. One example I recall reading about was a Marine LT who during the initial invasion of Iraq who killed several Iraq soldiers in close combat by personally clearing trenches (alone I believe). I think he killed over 20 Iraqi soldiers, and he received the Navy Cross. Neither of us were there, but that seemed worthy of MOH to me. That definitely seems to approach the Audi Murphy level of performance under fire.
I don't expect awards to be fair, nor do I expect everyone who demonstrated great courage to be recognized (that is a given based on witnesses and other factors), but I do think we all owe a great debt of gratitude and respect to all of our MOH winners from all of our wars, to now include SFC Petry.
Well, Major Moya, I'd say you should do the math. The ratio of MOHs in Afghanistan to the number of combat fatalities is roughly equivalent to the ratio in Vietnam. In case you missed it, we lost 58K; you're at a little more than 1600 in almost ten years. With that few casualties and given the fact that you are in what's termed "low intensity conflict," the number of MOHs isn't surprising. We also all know that many deaths in Afghanistan (and Iraq) have been attributable to IEDs. Not much opportunity for heroism there.
I'd suggest that you take your beef up with the Army and leave Vietnam veterans alone. I personally believe the Army has been pretty chintzy when it comes to valor awards. But, you know, Afghanistan isn't even a war. It's something else, but it's not war. Wars involve serious combat. Maybe you didn't get the memo, but Vietnam and Korea involved enough combat to kill close to 100K American troops. Iraq and Afghanistan together are at about 6 or 7K.
And I think it's a real stretch for a junior officer to start downgrading the highest award for valor to a Bronze Star Medal w/"V" device when that officer almost certainly wasn't even born at the time of the action. You don't like the awards system? Complain to the Army, write your Congressman, but please try not to denigrate those who went before you while you're trying to make your case.
I'd be real interested in hearing everything you know about Vietnam, Major.
I'm sure most folks who frequently log on to this website will agree with me in saying that SFC Petry's MoH award is well-deserved, but it still leads me to question - how is it possible that the number of MoH recipients, especially living recipients, has been so low after a decade of fighting across two campaign theaters? Ive read about the studies conducted on this matter. Ive also read countless stories of unbelievable courageous acts in both Iraq and Afghanistan and just cant understand the low turnouts. No disrespect intended to the Vietnam Vets, but Ive personally read many Vietnam-era MoH write-ups that, by todays apparent standards, would have been downgraded to Silver Stars or BSM "V"s. Where does the extra scrutiny come from? Im sure this should generate some discussion.
MAJ Carlos Moya
Student, Command and General Staff School
U.S. Army Combined Arms Center
Fort Belvoir, Virginia
"The views in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government."