Honours & Awards (merged)

[armyvern]

There seems to be a quota for each award each year, and quite a few nominations have gone in. These awards (no less important), perhaps didn't make the first cut in the year of the deployment.

I'm still surprised we haven't seen a VC awarded yet for Afghanistan. With all the MMVs, MBs, SMVs awarded, we have had soldiers doing heroic things under heavy enemy fire and some sacrificed their lives for their comrades. Perhaps the bar was raised way too high.

Yes, but we also need to keep Afghanistan in context. It's like comparing apples and oranges ...

I recall my son (9 or 10 at the time) saying to me, "Mommy why are the news complaining about us having "X" number of soldiers killed in the war? More than that died on one day in WWII." Ahhhh, but from the mouths of babes.

So, yes, we spent 10 years there. We spent fewer in Europe, BUT in Europe war was very different than it is now. We had 10 of thousands of soldiers involved in hundreds of actions each day in WWII Europe. We, quite simply, did not see that "frequency in numbers" in Afghanistan. If we want to "ratio" it out and attempt to figure out the 'odds', then we need to also consider the very low participation rate and contact rate from WWII vs Afghanistan when doing so as well. When you think about that vast difference now what are the odds??

When I think about that vast difference, I'm not - actually - surprised at all.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Well, how about South Africa?  Our commitment was small, the combat over a third of our time in Afghanistan.  And yet, there was no less than 4 VC awards.  As I said in a different thread, from reading some of the citations for the SMV awards in the sandbox, the deeds described were no less brave and risky in my opinion to some of the VC citations I have read.  Lastly, our British, Australian and NZ allies are no different in commitment both today and 70 years ago but they have managed to award VC.

 

[aesop081]

While i do find it interesting that we have not awarded any VCs, saying "they did therefore we should have also" is hardly a convincing argument.

 

[jollyjacktar]

While i do find it interesting that we have not awarded any VCs, saying "they did therefore we should have also" is hardly a convincing argument.

Not saying that, what I am responding to is Vern's pondering that our commitment in troops, TIC's and theaters is greatly out of proportion to Afghanistan.  That the numbers don't add up by weight.  I am merely countering that by that math they did the same then and today.  And that we did with a similar small war of South Africa.  What I am saying is by the numbers, we could have possibly had an act of valour that was worthy.  That command chose not to go to that level is their choice, however disappointing that might be is in the end their choice.

 

[Hurricane]

What is interesting is that since the Canadian VC was created in 1993, not a single Canadian has been awarded it. Could it be that the Govt of Canada would not be willing to fork out the $3,000 per year that each recipient is entitled to after being awarded the VC? Where as the Cross of Valour, Star of Courage and Medal of Bravery do not entitle the recipient to any monetary annuity. With only a handful of Cross of Valour being awarded since the creation of the VC (Canada), it's actually not that suprising that there are not any recipients of the VC as it is the only award higher than the Cross of Valour. Not to take away from any of the actions of any soldier on the battlefield, but clearly for it to be awarded it would need to be an action that is "Unthinkable" or "Unimaginable" beyond any action that someone received the Cross of Valour for.

 

[Hurricane]

BZ to a fellow trucker.

 

[Edward Campbell]

What is interesting is that since the Canadian VC was created in 1993, not a single Canadian has been awarded it. Could it be that the Govt of Canada would not be willing to fork out the $3,000 per year that each recipient is entitled to after being awarded the VC? Where as the Cross of Valour, Star of Courage and Medal of Bravery do not entitle the recipient to any monetary annuity. With only a handful of Cross of Valour being awarded since the creation of the VC (Canada), it's actually not that suprising that there are not any recipients of the VC as it is the only award higher than the Cross of Valour. Not to take away from any of the actions of any soldier on the battlefield, but clearly for it to be awarded it would need to be an action that is "Unthinkable" or "Unimaginable" beyond any action that someone received the Cross of Valour for.

Nor were any awarded during the Korean conflict - despite some pretty remarkable acts of valour.

I have hunch that deciding on who gets the first VC is a frightening prospect for some senior officers and bureaucrats - unless it can be awarded to a Francophone, female, visible minority member of the CF who performs a lifesaving rescue while under fire but doesn't, ever, shoot back or destroy property in the process or annoy the media in the process.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

What is interesting is that since the Canadian VC was created in 1993, not a single Canadian has been awarded it. Could it be that the Govt of Canada would not be willing to fork out the $3,000 per year that each recipient is entitled to after being awarded the VC? Where as the Cross of Valour, Star of Courage and Medal of Bravery do not entitle the recipient to any monetary annuity. With only a handful of Cross of Valour being awarded since the creation of the VC (Canada), it's actually not that suprising that there are not any recipients of the VC as it is the only award higher than the Cross of Valour. Not to take away from any of the actions of any soldier on the battlefield, but clearly for it to be awarded it would need to be an action that is "Unthinkable" or "Unimaginable" beyond any action that someone received the Cross of Valour for.

You meant that as a joke, right?

That the Government of Canada, would not accept the recommendation of an award, from the CF, because they didn't want to spend 3 grand a year in award?

IIRC, that stipend from the government, is not tied to the vetting process by the CF.

From my understanding that vetting process is, wholly, in house and has nothing to do with the political stripe of the government.

I can't believe anyone would attempt to cheapen that process over money and if they did, they should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[aesop081]

While i have read about the annuity that goes with the British VC, i have yet to find evidence that the Canadian VC includes such provision.

Found it.

Still......not much of an expense for the Feds. I don't believe this to have any weight on VC award decisions.

 

[mariomike]

Something about "GRATUITIES AND ANNUITIES" here:
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SI-90-95/page-1.html

 

[aesop081]

Something about "GRATUITIES AND ANNUITIES" here:
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SI-90-95/page-1.html

Yeah, found it somewhere else.

 

[Hurricane]

It was yet was not a joke. It was merely to throw into perspective, that there are 3 other awards for bravery that can be awarded. Which are awarded, with every recipient deserving of that award. That being said, every decoration goes through the Awards and Decorations Board if i understand correctly, with the VC then being forwarded to the Governor General for approval. (forgive me if I have their official name incorrect) So, I'm sure that the board just doesn't approve every recommendation. Not that I would do this, but is it unrealistic that if a recommendation for a VC came across the desk for a "similar" scenario that someone was awarded the Star of Courage or Cross of Valour for. Would the Governor General not award the precedent that has been set with the SC or CV, rather than move the precedent to be the VC? If they were to start awarding the VC more often, do you not think that opposition parties would try and use that $3000 a year paid to recipients as an example of "wasteful" spending. (No I do not think it is wasteful spending, I'm just thinking on a political standpoint here)

To be perfectly honest, if there wasn't an annuity, in my opinion we would probably have seen a VC or 2 awarded during the combat role in Afghanistan.

 

[aesop081]

do you not think that opposition parties would try and use that $3000 a year paid to recipients as an example of "wasteful" spending.

No.

if there wasn't an annuity, in my opinion we would probably have seen a VC or 2 awarded during the combat role in Afghanistan.

:

 

[Gunner98]

Could it be that the awards' critieria include these words:

VC - while facing a hostile force (does any conflict or insurgent group that CF members have faced on or after 1 January 1993 - meet the description?)

SMV and MMV - in the presence of the enemy (Afghanistan meets this criteria)

Let the debate continue!

 

[Swingline1984]

VC - while facing a hostile force (does any conflict or insurgent group that CF members have faced on or after 1 January 1993 - meet the description?)

A plague of pine beetles meets that criteria.  I'm fairly certain that the Taliban and AQ are organized in some fashion.

 

[Gunner98]

A plague of pine beetles meets that criteria.  I'm fairly certain that the Taliban and AQ are organized in some fashion.

You may be 'fairly certain' but are you on the Honours and Awards Committee at the appropriate level?

It did take our government 40+ years to acknowledge that the CF members had been involved in a 'war' and not a UN struggle or a police action.

 

[Old Sweat]

According to what I have read, the Taliban have an organizational structure based on small groups capable of being concentrated into larger bodies. They use radios for field communications and are capable of planning ambushes and attacks at roughly the company level. Do they have formal parades, badges of rank, published regulations? Probably not, but they probably are on an organizational level with the Metis and the Boers or the Canadian sedentary militia of the 19th century for that matter.

 

[Gunner98]

I will rescind my early comments with apologies directed toward Swingline1984 (but I will not delete them for the integrity of the thread), after further research, it is evident from the DHH booklet on the VC that:

The definition of the “enemy” was expanded to reflect the new reality of warfare in the 1990s, the Department of National Defence noting it entailed “a hostile armed force, including armed mutineers, armed rebels, armed rioters and armed pirates.  Canada does not have to be at war to acknowledge the existence of an enemy which fits this description.  It is broad enough to encompass Canadian involvement in UN peacekeeping operations.”  Any member of the Canadian Forces or member of an allied armed force serving with the Canadian Forces on or after 1 January 1993 is eligible for the award and, like its British counterpart, the Victoria Cross can be awarded posthumously.

http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhh-dhp/pub/boo-bro/vc-cv/index-eng.asp

 

[Swingline1984]

...with apologies directed toward Swingline1984.

No apologies necessary, I'm always wrong anyway, just ask my wife.  ;D

:subbies:

 

[armyvern]

It was yet was not a joke. It was merely to throw into perspective, that there are 3 other awards for bravery that can be awarded. Which are awarded, with every recipient deserving of that award. That being said, every decoration goes through the Awards and Decorations Board if i understand correctly, with the VC then being forwarded to the Governor General for approval. (forgive me if I have their official name incorrect) So, I'm sure that the board just doesn't approve every recommendation. Not that I would do this, but is it unrealistic that if a recommendation for a VC came across the desk for a "similar" scenario that someone was awarded the Star of Courage or Cross of Valour for. Would the Governor General not award the precedent that has been set with the SC or CV, rather than move the precedent to be the VC? If they were to start awarding the VC more often, do you not think that opposition parties would try and use that $3000 a year paid to recipients as an example of "wasteful" spending. (No I do not think it is wasteful spending, I'm just thinking on a political standpoint here)

To be perfectly honest, if there wasn't an annuity, in my opinion we would probably have seen a VC or 2 awarded during the combat role in Afghanistan.

Wow. I just shakes my head ... and walk away from responding to this post ...