Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Confessions of a drone warrior

<< < (3/5) > >>

40hz:
^It's not a denigration. It's a legitimate question of what we want to accept as a standard of valor or heroism.

So while it's true some "also serve who stand and wait" I think it's very important (out of respect for those who do serve in active capacities) not to make the fatal mistake of "leveling" - that tendency so popular in American culture to equate everything with everything else - such that "capable," and "acceptable" are becoming synonymous with "exceptional" when speaking of performance.

And once you start making these sorts of distinctions... where do you draw the line?
-wraith808 (October 28, 2013, 07:23 PM)
--- End quote ---

In my small corner of the universe, you draw it at the place where "at risk" becomes real. Military personnel at sea stations or over hostile airspace are definitely at risk. As are the missile silo commanders and crew who know (with certainty) that either a first-strike or retaliatory missile has already targeted them and will be heading their way - and is guaranteed to impact long before they could get beyond the radius of total destruction.

Sitting in an air conditioned and totally secure command area someplace in Virginia and remotely piloting an unmanned aircraft? Hmm...that seems a somewhat different a type of 'valor' to me. Sure, it serves a necessary function in a military operation. But it seems more to me like somebody acting responsibly and doing the job they're being paid to do rather than serving bravely or with valor. Right up there with the guys packing medical supplies and MREs back in the US for the folks over there.

It's a difference not only of degree, but scope as well.

At least to my pointy little head. :)

wraith808:
In my small corner of the universe, you draw it at the place where "at risk" becomes real. Military personnel at sea stations or over hostile airspace are definitely at risk. As are the missile silo commanders and crew who know (with certainty) that either a first-strike or retaliatory missile has already targeted them and will be heading their way - and is guaranteed to impact long before they could get beyond the radius of total destruction.

Sitting in an air conditioned and totally secure command area someplace in Virginia and remotely piloting an unmanned aircraft? Hmm...that seems a somewhat different a type of 'valor' to me. Sure, it serves a necessary function in a military operation. But it seems more to me like somebody acting responsibly and doing the job they're being paid to do rather than serving bravely or with valor. Right up there with the guys packing medical supplies and MREs back in the US for the folks over there.
-40hz (October 28, 2013, 08:07 PM)
--- End quote ---

The closest Bryant ever got to “real” combat—the roadside bombs and mortar fire experienced by combat troops—was after volunteering to deploy to Iraq. He spent the scorching summer and fall of 2007 stationed at the airfield in Balad, flying Predators on base-defense missions—scanning the area for insurgents.

--- End quote ---

Does that change it at all?  Or not because he's not out in the field?  Especially since bases have been attacked and military personnel killed... or is that still not close enough?

(And I'm really wondering... not just throwing things out there.  Seeing things from a different perspective of a dissenter is a good part of debate that people sometimes miss :))

And what if it was a different sort of service badge... would that be acceptable?  Or is it just off the table in general as some seem to think?

40hz:
And what if it was a different sort of service badge... would that be acceptable?  Or is it just off the table in general as some seem to think?
-wraith808 (October 28, 2013, 08:17 PM)
--- End quote ---

It's already been taken care of in a manner that seems to have satisfied most parties. Per US News and World Report:

Current Secretary Chuck Hagel ordered the Joint Chiefs to conduct a review of the medal shortly after he took office at the end of February, and announced Monday it would be scrapped in favor for a new device to be added to existing medals.

"The medal was originally conceived to be awarded only to those men and women who, while serving off the battlefield, have an extraordinary impact on combat operations," he said in a written statement. "While the review confirmed the need to ensure such recognition, it found that misconceptions regarding the precedence of the award were distracting from its original purpose."

The award was designed to recognize those who have an "extraordinary impact on combat operations" while serving off the battlefield. After conducting the review, the Joint Chief of Staff recommended to Hagel the creation of a distinguishing device to be added to existing medals to recognize these efforts, instead of a new medal.

Current medals, such as the Bronze Star or commendation medals for all service branches, have devices such as a "V" that can be affixed to them to denote valorous acts.

--- End quote ---

This is as opposed to the original intention of the 'drone' medal that was reported earlier:

According to the Department of Defense, the medal "may not be awarded for valor in combat under any circumstances" and will be given to service members "directly impacting 'hands-on' employment of a weapons system, including remote employment … that had direct, immediate, and on-site effects on the outcome of an engagement."

Most Air Force drone pilots, for example, fly their planes over Afghanistan and Pakistan from air conditioned trailers at a base in Nevada. So far, the medal has not yet been awarded to any troops. 

<more here>
--- End quote ---


Does that change it at all?  Or not because he's not out in the field?
-wraith808 (October 28, 2013, 08:17 PM)
--- End quote ---

It makes all the difference in the world IMHO. :)

Especially since bases have been attacked and military personnel killed... or is that still not close enough?
-wraith808 (October 28, 2013, 08:17 PM)
--- End quote ---

An air-conditioned trailer in Nevada is not "at risk in combat' in any real sense of the word. And certainly not the same thing as being stationed on a US military base in an area of conflict on foreign soil.

I strongly suspect that medal was intended to bring some measure of nobility to a questionable form of warfare being pursued exclusively (to date) by the United States - and to provide an enticement to future drone commanders in what is reportedly being seen as a "dead-end job" by many in the military. More on that here.

wraith808:
An air-conditioned trailer in Nevada is not "at risk in combat' in any real sense of the word. And certainly not the same thing as being stationed on a US military base in an area of conflict on foreign soil.
-40hz (October 28, 2013, 09:28 PM)
--- End quote ---

Did you not see what I quoted?  He wasn't in Nevada.  He was in Iraq.  That is an area of conflict on foreign soil, right?

tomos:
So, the big question here is about medals.... :down:


[edit] about my fifth edit here :-[
Maybe I shouldnt even mention morality here, but, just to be clear: I'm not at all saying that we should be discussing the morality of different aspects of the topic here. Just that the medals discussion is so the other end of the scale... I apologise in advance cause I reckon I will have already offended some people with my response. But I just dont know how else to say it at this moment and time - and I dont want to leave it unsaid. Apart from the above, the debate (medals) doesnt seem to me to fit into the (international) dc community/forum. [/edit]

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page