The new way is better than what it has been for the last few years. The possibility of only one medal and multiple bars for different tours to different theatres was wrong and I am happy it has been fixed.
Now, it is like the WW2 theatre medals like the France & Germany, Italy, or Africa Star (other than the word not actually being on the medal itself). The "rack" of a current soldier doing multiple tours over his life will resemble the WW2 vet's rack though. Who knows what the next one will be...the GCS with Eastern Europe ribbon or GCS with India/Pakistan ribbon...
Anyway, the part that is still left up for debate is the SWASM part, because before it was OEF = SWASM and ISAF = GCS. Some lucky tours like the four-month one in fall 05 that moved the camp from Kabul to Kandahar got both.
What is now open is that they have stated it is now theatre-based instead of command based, so logically the giant bulk of the bell curve who have been in Afghanistan (not counting the stange positions) would get both. It's an operation in SWA against terrorism in the defined dates, and no longer involves OEF or ISAF command, so the way I read it all (conventional) tours get both, which begs the question why have two?
The way the new criteria is written up, just about everyone would qualify for the GCS or GSM, so why even have the SWASM? If it exists for a very small amount of people who didn't otherwise qualify for the GCS/GSM, then what do you do with the people who have already been awarded the SWASM for doing basically the same thing as people who got the GCS? (Thinking deployed battlegroup-types here).
I can't see how you can look at a guy who did a tour in 2003 and got the SWASM and give him a GCS now without looking at the guys who did the bulk of the fighting in 2006-2010 and having them only get one medal.
It's not a matter of being a medal hunter, but now that it is mixed up the way it is, I just can't see how they can possibly do it fairly without giving both to everyone who had a conventional tour.