Chris Kyle for the MoH?

[NurseTim]

so, I read a blerb that some folks on FB and a Texas politician want to put chief Kyle up for the MoH. I have my own opinion on this. What I am interested in is men of the same ilk's opinion of this.

I am not interested in wether or not he should have the MoH, I could never make such a judgement. Even though y'all are of the same caliber, that is not this topic.

Should civilians/politicians be able to award the nations highest military honor?

[Razor]

You do realize the MOH is awarded by the President, on behalf of Congress, right?

[(1VB)compforce]

No to the original question. (edit - for clarity)

The MoH has a defined process behind the review. Civilians would turn it into a popularity contest. This is a perfect example. Without the movie, would they have tried? ANY soldier can recommend the MoH for another soldier. The process weeds out the claims that don't meet the standard.

If civilians or politicians that are not part of the process want to honor a soldier, they can create a memorial or, even better, fund a foundation for his family.

[JJ_BPK]

If civilians or politicians that are not part of the process want to honor a soldier, they can create a memorial or, even better, fund a foundation for his family.

Politicians do get into the ACT.

I happen to think this effort was LONG over due..

but the fact stands, if Congress didn't do something, it would not have happened.


24 soldiers to receive Medal of Honor today, Prejudices of earlier decades meant heroism was not fully recognized

So in the 2002 National Defense Authorization Act, Congress ordered the Army review the cases of all Jewish and Hispanic soldiers who had received the Distinguished Service Cross from World War 2 onward to see if their heroism actually merited the nation’s highest award.

Army researchers combed through some 6,500 Distinguished Services Cross awards and zeroed in on 600 that went to soldiers who might be of either background. In the end, the Army singled out 19 Jewish and Hispanic soldiers who deserved Medal of Honor, along with five soldiers of other backgrounds.

http://www.stripes.com/news/special-reports/medal-of-honor/24-soldiers-to-receive-medal-of-honor-today-1.273024


We need more heroes, if this effort helps, so be it..

In light of Chris' accomplishments, I do not think there will be many naysayers.

It is the action of a hero that counts, not the bling they receive.

:munchin

[(1VB)compforce]

JJ, I agree with you. The difference is that the ones you are referencing are all either upgrades of existing DSC's or medals that were put in by soldiers and downgraded originally. The Chris Kyle MoH is not starting from inside the military, but rather as a direct result of a Hollywood movie, which may or may not be accurate.

When talking about politicians, I was specifically referring to an award/medal ORIGINATING outside the military. Local (or state) politicians have always been able to ask for a review of an award that went through normal channels, but have never been able to submit a new award themselves. Congress is part of the review process, but do not start it either. Sure, a Congressman could probably go to a friendly General or even Joe Snuffy and ask them to submit the award, but it still has to travel up the chain of command to get to a political review.


As far as Chris' accomplishments, I'm not sure if the MoH is the appropriate award. He most likely deserves it, but historically the MoH was awarded for acts of extreme valor during a single action rather than an accumulation of acts over protracted periods. There may be a place for a new award, equivalent to the MoH but for multiple acts that, if combined into a single action, would rate the MoH.

[blue02hd]

As far as Chris' accomplishments, I'm not sure if the MoH is the appropriate award. He most likely deserves it, but historically the MoH was awarded for acts of extreme valor during a single action rather than an accumulation of acts over protracted periods. There may be a place for a new award, equivalent to the MoH but for multiple acts that, if combined into a single action, would rate the MoH.

For my simple .02 I agree. Chris did a great job, and has been attributed to saving many lives. Will this standard now apply to pilots, submarine drivers and nurses? Is it a popularity contest? I watched a former SEAL on Fox News state: "If Chris doesn't deserve the MoH based on how many lives he saved then show me someone who does!", which I found condescending to the MOH recipients past present.

A good Loggie getting bullets to the fight also saves lives does he not?

[PSM]

Someone on this site, years ago (Col. M., perhaps), said that the decision to recommend a soldier for the MoH came when the alternative was to recommend him for a court-martial.

Pat

[The Reaper]

The Medal of Honor is not awarded for lives saved.

It is awarded for recipients who "distinguished himself conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty."

I am not sure what specific, previously unnoticed incident this is to be awarded for.

Personally, I think the Congressional nomination should be eliminated, as it has frequently been abused.

TR

[NurseTim]

You do realize the MOH is awarded by the President, on behalf of Congress, right?

Yes, I do, but it seems that that line is in the process of being blurred.

And again, this is not about if he deserves it or not. It's about the process, and the process being subverted into a popularity contest sponsored by FB and twitter, with a politician being a stakeholder trying to make political hay.