Afghan Medals Process (merged)

[392]

Minor correction.  It was only a four month tour for some people.  Those people did not go to Kandahar and did not receive the SWASM.

That's not entirely correct either. Roto 4/0 transitioned from ISAF to OEF somewhere around 26 Oct 05 (the exact date escapes me at the moment), and Julien didn't close until mid / end Nov 05, so there were people who went home after 4 months who did in fact receive the SWASM, but never went to KAF. The criteria at the time was 30 days for both GCS and SWASM, so as long as one was in theatre from mid-Sept to mid-Nov (i.e. 60 days total), they would have received both.

 

[SeanNewman]

Potentially just take back the SWASMs for 'boots in the sand', to be replaced with a GCS?

That's what I'm saying is the problem.  I agree with the above post that it lays out the guidelines in a "from now on..." perspective, but there are still 1,000+ people who are not the same.

If they don't give out both, then you have 1,000 people (I'm not one of them, so I'm defending them, not me) who did some ground pounding in search of the enemy in 2003 wearing a medal that could be interpreted as "not the real one".  That's not fair to them, especially since most of them did more than I did for my GCS.

So to answer your question, I don't know if those pers will have to trade their medals but perhaps it would be the right thing to do.  If they did, then that fall 05 tour would have to give back their SWASM and just have the GCS, but that's kind of a rip off too, which is why I thought the answer may that now that this mess exists, the only "fair" way to fix it would be to give (most) soldiers both, and the ones who did something but not enough for the GCS would be the only ones with just one.

If not, you are orphaning and under-awarding that first BG.

As for the Kabul-Kandahar tour, I know dozens of people who were there for four months and got both.

 

[392]

The medal with bar is awarded for 30 days cumulative service after 11 September 2001 in the theatre of operations, which is a subset of the United States Central Command Area of Operation Responsibility (USCENTCOM AOR). The theatre of operations is defined as the land, sea, or air spaces of Afghanistan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, the Persian Gulf, Gulf of Oman, Arabian Sea, Gulf of Aden, Red Sea, Suez Canal and those parts of the Indian Ocean north of 5° South Latitude and west of 68° East Longitude.

CF exchange personnel posted to foreign units or organizations in direct support of operations as described above are eligible for this medal.

All service under the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) is not eligible for the SWASM but qualifies for the ISAF+FIAS bar to either the General Campaign Star or General Service Medal. See the pages for these medals for details.

I only quoted the bit that concerns the boots on the ground - not the bit about 90 days for the outside theatre support guys. To me, the last sentence seems to sum it up pretty air-tight. ISAF = GCS (I realize they didn't update the ISAF bar part), OEF / Non-ISAF = SWASM.

As far as I understand it, there has been no change in prerequisites for either medal, just a change in date eligibility and the whole rotation bar thing  :2c:

 

[armyvern]

wearing a medal that could be interpreted as "not the real one".  That's not fair to them, especially since most of them did more than I did for my GCS.

And the above comment highlights a very shitty attitude that is rampant in the CF these days that needs to be kicked to the curb.

"Not the real one".

Everyone in this outfit is a volunteer who does their fucking jobs. Period. End of story.

Let's pull out all the kaffites now (seems that would make a whole bunch of "the real ones" happy); let me know how you all make out.

This gawdawful desire to "judge others based upon diddly squat except their (often misleading) chest bling" is utter bullshit.

 

[ModlrMike]

Thank you, Vern for saying what I've been thinking for most of my career.

 

[Edward Campbell]

We are not allowed to just say +1 any more, Vern, but for saying what a lot of us were thinking ...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
+1

                                                            +1

                                                                                                                      +1

 

[PMedMoe]

And the above comment highlights a very shitty attitude that is rampant in the CF these days that needs to be kicked to the curb.

"Not the real one".

Everyone in this outfit is a volunteer who does their fucking jobs. Period. End of story.

Let's pull out all the kaffites now (seems that would make a whole bunch of "the real ones" happy); let me know how you all make out.

This gawdawful desire to "judge others based upon diddly squat except their (often misleading) chest bling" is utter bullshit.

Good job, Vern. 

With regards to Roto 4/0, my apologies.  I did get both medals, but I was there way longer than 4 months.  And I did both Kabul & KAF.  Of course, if you had relied on the media at the time, we weren't in KAF, only the PRT was.  :

 

[PhilB]

Hey guys,

So quick question re: the rotation bars for the SWASM. So I spent about 270 days consecutively under OEF, thus I currently have a SWASM with Afghanistan bar. Under the new system I understand that I am entitled to a "1 maple leaf" rotation bar. My question is do I wear just the tour bar on the SWASM, or do I wear the  Afghanistan bar and the rotation bar?

 

[vonGarvin]

Hey guys,

So quick question re: the rotation bars for the SWASM. So I spent about 270 days consecutively under OEF, thus I currently have a SWASM with Afghanistan bar. Under the new system I understand that I am entitled to a "1 maple leaf" rotation bar. My question is do I wear just the tour bar on the SWASM, or do I wear the  Afghanistan bar and the rotation bar?

Hi Phil
Here is the relevant paragraph:

D. MULTIPLE TOURS TO THE SAME THEATRE WILL BE RECOGNIZED. RECIPIENTS OF THE SWASM WITH AFGHANISTAN BAR, THE GCS AND THE GSM MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR NEW MULTIPLE ROTATION RECOGNITION IN THE FORM OF
ROTATION BARS. ROTATION BARS WILL BE AWARDED FOR EACH ADDITIONAL PERIOD OF 180 DAYS OF ELIGIBLE SERVICE FOLLOWING MEDAL QUALIFICATION. THIS MEANS THAT AFTER 30 DAYS SERVICE, AN INDIVIDUAL
WILL HAVED EARNED A MEDAL (SWASM WITH AFGHANISTAN BAR, GCS OR GSM) WITH THE FIRST ROTATION BAR AWARDED AFTER 210 DAYS IN THEATRE, THE SECOND BAR AFTER 390 DAYS, AND SO ON. ALL THEATRE TIME IS CUMULATIVE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ROTATION BAR ELIGIBILITY

As I read it, you will have both AFGHANISTAN and the rotation bar device.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

With regards to Roto 4/0, my apologies.  I did get both medals, but I was there way longer than 4 months.  And I did both Kabul & KAF.  Of course, if you had relied on the media at the time, we weren't in KAF, only the PRT was.  :

Meh - media.  We know what we accomplished.

 

[PMedMoe]

Meh - media.  We know what we accomplished.

True.  That move was a nightmare!    :nod:

 

[jollyjacktar]

Nice blast of shit Vern.  Well said, and well done.

 

[SeanNewman]

Yes Vern, nice rant but it does not solve anything since I am not the target audience of what you are saying.

I don't make the call on what the CF as a whole believes is important or not or what is better than something else.

All my post stated is that I wanted those 1,000+ not to be viewed as lesser if due to the new changes it ends up getting viewed as lesser.

Did I say I would view it as lesser?  Did I say you would?  No, but if the culture as a whole ends up seeing it as less, then we have done those 1,000+ a disservice.

Basically you were ranting at ths CF, not at me.  I accept your apology.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Yes Vern, nice rant but it does not solve anything since I am not the target audience of what you are saying.

I don't make the call on what the CF as a whole believes is important or not or what is better than something else.

All my post stated is that I wanted those 1,000+ not to be viewed as lesser if due to the new changes it ends up getting viewed as lesser.

Did I say I would view it as lesser?  Did I say you would?  No, but if the culture as a whole ends up seeing it as less, then we have done those 1,000+ a disservice.

Basically you were ranting at ths CF, not at me.  I accept your apology.

I bet you're the type that screws everyone out of happy hour because you have to make just one more insignifigant statement, of interest to only one person, then balloon it into a full scale briefing instead of a Friday afternoon, 15 minute O Gp.

 

[helpup]

I just knew there would be at least one interesting reply.  Thought it would be Vern's though

 

[Journeyman]

Yes Vern, nice rant but it does not solve anything...
---------

...then we have done those 1,000+ a disservice

Fine bureaucratic staff-officer form -- propounding solutions to problems that do not exist.  :

I am one of those 1,000+ with a SWASM.
Let me start by accepting your apology for presumptuously assuming that I needed you to speak on my behalf.

I realize that there's a growing number of threads with the same theme -- "we need more bling."*
Perhaps I've been too subtle -- it's one of my flaws apparently -- but I disagree with creating/awarding more unnecessary medals.

I'm all for acknowledging operational deployments with one medal. Much like the logic of having a Canadian Peacekeeping Medal awarded on the basis of already having a tour medal awarded is retarded, giving out two medals for the same tour reeks of Walt'ism -- plain and simple.

I know what I, and the rest of the team, did; I feel absolutely no "disservice" in wearing the SWASM. As such, I believe the SWASM being potentially viewed "as lesser" speaks more about the intellect and mind-set of the one viewing.

Would you wipe your boots on someone merely having a medal from one of several Middle East deployments? Cyprus? Germany? While the Afghanistan campaign is one of several seminal moments for the CF, it is not the end of history; get over yourself.

And if one feels superior, based solely upon my not having a GCS, I'm perfectly OK with that.



* Not to be confused with the growing number of recruiting threads from civies saying, "I don't meet the minimal medical/education/etc standards....but the CF should be obligated to take me anyway."  :

 

[dapaterson]

I'm all for acknowledging operational deployments with one medal. Much like the logic of having a Canadian Peacekeeping Medal awarded on the basis of already having a tour medal awarded is retarded, giving out two medals for the same tour reeks of Walt'ism -- plain and simple.

I'd call it Rick'ism, not Walt'ism, since Rick was among the main proponents of bling; Walt has been relatively silent on that front...

 

[the 48th regulator]

I'd call it Rick'ism, not Walt'ism, since Rick was among the main proponents of bling; Walt has been relatively silent on that front...

Walt as in Walter Mitty.....

dileas

tess

 

[vonGarvin]

Walt as in Walter Mitty.....

dileas

tess

This guy

 

[SeanNewman]

Journeyman,

First off, let us find common ground in that what we both agree on is that generally, one tour should = one medal (exceptions would be valour medals, etc).  I also agree that I don't need anyone else to look at what I wear on my chest and go "oooh" to be impressed for me to feel good about what I've done.

So we are saying a lot of things the same.

However, what the gentleman above me had asked was that now that we seem to be going Afghan tour = GCS (or GSM in a few cases), would those who got the SWASM have to trade it in for a GCS?

That's really the only thing being talked about here, and since I don't think that specific question has been answered yet the rest is just discussion.

What I said after that was just based on fairness.  It's not just about the SWASM wearer knowing what he's done, or the GCS wearer who may or may not have done anything significant, but I do disagree to some extent because medals are pro-rated on importance and significance.  That we have a list of medals and how they are prioritized speaks to this (which ironically to this discussion has the SWASM over the GCS).

Whether or not you (or Vern) cares about a medal's "value", there is a reason the Victoria Cross would be worn in front of all the others.  At the end of the day is someone from that first BG going to know that they did more than someone who never left KAF in 2010 and have six PXs to choose from and not need a medal to tell them that?  Of course.

However, if one were to follow your argument to its logical end, it would be to suggest that we should not have any medals at all.  Nobody should have any medals for anything, regardless of collective tour or indivividual act or accomplishment.

I'm not implying those were your words, just that it is the logic path that your argument leads to. 

I'm not saying one medal is better than the other or one tour is better than the other.  What I am saying is that the way the system is set up, it does put medals above the other.

Finally, if you think me trying to make things fair for everyone, it is quite sad that you have decided to use "officer" in a derogatory form on that one.  Would you rather me be a fine officer by being unfair or putting myself ahead of other people?  I think not.