Honours & Awards (merged)

[armyvern]

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.

Sorry, I forgot to mention technology. War is very different today than it was then. Even when we're up close now, we still manage to do lots from afar. It is my opinion, that these wars are incomparable --- that includes South Africa. These days, we'd simply send in the rotor heads to blow up a gun so it didn't fall into enemy hands ... you wouldn't see it being saved by someone requiring to snatch it off it's carriage and run with it to keep it from being taken. 

Happy belated birthday to the RCDs too ...

 

[Stoker]

Does anyone know of a mbr actually being nominated for a VC for Afghanistan or were they downgraded to a lower medal?

 

[PuckChaser]

I don't think you can nominate for a specific medal, or at least that's how it was explained to me. There's a few of the individuals who were awarded the SMV that (with only getting part of the picture for the citation) seem to definitely fit the criteria outlined for the Victoria Cross. One member shielded a wounded comrade with his own body, took strikes on his body armour and fought off an enemy attack. Reads like a movie script, which is what most VC winners seem to have as their citations, unbelievable acts of valour.

 

[Stoker]

I don't think you can nominate for a specific medal, or at least that's how it was explained to me. There's a few of the individuals who were awarded the SMV that (with only getting part of the picture for the citation) seem to definitely fit the criteria outlined for the Victoria Cross. One member shielded a wounded comrade with his own body, took strikes on his body armour and fought off an enemy attack. Reads like a movie script, which is what most VC winners seem to have as their citations, unbelievable acts of valour.

I think it would be certainly interesting to find out the actual reason why a VC wasn't awarded yet not just speculation. I doubt if we'll ever fight another conventional war like WW2 and perhaps that's the standard the VC is being held by. I think if the intention is not to award a VC again or wait for the next big one then strike it off the honors list.

 

[Hurricane]

Just did a bit more reading up on the Canadian VC. The very first medal created wasn't even unveiled until May 2008, so that's also a possibility. The possibility being that the medal hadn't even been created yet, therefore could not be awarded. Maybe we could in fact see some awarded posthumously?

 

[PuckChaser]

I think it would be certainly interesting to find out the actual reason why a VC wasn't awarded yet not just speculation. I doubt if we'll ever fight another conventional war like WW2 and perhaps that's the standard the VC is being held by. I think if the intention is not to award a VC again or wait for the next big one then strike it off the honors list.

Yep, to be a fly on the wall in the H&A boards would be very interesting. However, I doubt we'll ever see those notes as the process is designed to be closed-door to prevent outside interference, which now brings all these questions to light because there's no transparency. No one is going to redress being awarded a valour decoration, 95% don't even know they've been nominated for one.

 

[Infanteer]

War is very different today than it was then. Even when we're up close now, we still manage to do lots from afar.

Warfare isn't very different today than it was then when you get down to it.  Technology has provided some increases in time, space and magnitude, but the dynamics of attrition, manoeuvre and the human on the battlefield are relatively similar to the point that someone from a century ago would have little problem identifying what is going on on the battlefield.  Dirty soldiers running around in defensible positions trading fire with the enemy - images from Bloemfontein, Passchendaele or Panjwayi?

 

[Infanteer]

Does anyone know of a mbr actually being nominated for a VC for Afghanistan or were they downgraded to a lower medal?

I believe there was a nomination for a VC; the nominee was awarded the SMV.

I don't think you can nominate for a specific medal, or at least that's how it was explained to me.

There is a spot right in the DND 2448 where the CO writes the award that is being recommended.  I am unsure if CEFCOM has any specific policies regarding medals for valour, but my observation is that the unit puts in the type of award and it passes through the chain of command to be elevated, downgraded or supported as is.

I doubt if we'll ever fight another conventional war like WW2 and perhaps that's the standard the VC is being held by.

...and what are you basing those doubts on?  Didn't they say that after the "War to End All Wars"?  One shouldn't get into the business of making assumptions in this line of work.

On the H&A system in general, I saw an interesting article in the RUSI Journal about the overhaul of the British system of H&A a while back.  In it, the author describes the ascending order with which awards for Gallantry are awarded.  The highest, the VC, was reserved for actions in the face of the enemy where the chance of death was 90-100%.  The next level down, the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross (the equivalent of our SMV) featured a 50-90% chance of death.*

I know not if DHR and/or Government House has some sort of similar criteria that tries to apply some objectivity to gallantry awards (nor am I aware of how one devises a formula to figure out how the chance of death was over 90%) but I did find it interesting that there is a method to the madness in the British Forces for this kind of thing.  I can only assume that our boards for Valour have some similar sort of existing criteria.

As for the VC and why it has or hasn't been awarded in Afghanistan, the reason is likely one of two:

1.  The political will isn't there.  The military will certainly is (or was) as I heard General Hillier once say that he was convinced there would be a Canadian VC by the end of the Afghan campaign.  If anyone remembers the media that the first SMVs raised, you can only imagine what attention a VC would have garnered; attention is not something that is always wanted when you are trying to sell the idea of progress in war.  There were similar murmurs to this down in the U.S. where comments that political will was making "posthumous" a prerequisite for the Congressional Medal of Honour; this is something that has changed in the last year or two.  A different mentality or approach in places like Australia may explain why there has been a VC there; or

2.  No recommendations merited the VC.  This is plausible as well; there were no VCs for the Canadian contingent in Korea, which saw far more soldiers and far more fighting.  While the Brits and Americans have seen VC/MoH presented, they have also had a greater amount of soldiers in battle, meaning far more instances that could merit such an award.

My SWAG is that it is a mixture of the two.  We have a few instances that could legitimately be considered for the VC (IMO, there are 2 on the list of SMV recipients that read close to actual VC citations).  Of those very few, they either clearly didn't meet criteria (whatever that criteria is) and the national attitude and political reality was such that committees would err on the side of caution; unless there was a slam dunk case then the SMV would be awarded.

* Ryder, Brig. Stuart. 'Reform of Operational Gallantry Awards: A Missed Opportunity' in The RUSI Journal, Vol. 142, No. 1, pp. 41-44. 

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I've actually spoken to the person in charge of all honours and awards for the CF.  There is no conspiracy surrounding the awarding ( or non awarding) of the VC.  The board that sits and decides these things is entirely independent of any political influence ( he admitted that people approach him all the time and encourage him to award a VC), but he does not answer to the CDS, or the PM or anyone else for the boards decisions.  He did not lay out the specific criteria the board uses to decide the level of award, but it is based at least in part on the awards submission and what the CO recommends (interpolation- are COs reluctant to recommend a VC?).

He assured me that the medals exist (he has several brand new VCs in a safe in Ottawa). I got the distinct impression that he would like nothing better then to be able to award one.  Who knows- maybe one is still in the research phase?

 

[Infanteer]

I've actually spoken to the person in charge of all honours and awards for the CF.  There is no conspiracy surrounding the awarding ( or non awarding) of the VC.  The board that sits and decides these things is entirely independent of any political influence ( he admitted that people approach him all the time and encourage him to award a VC), but he does not answer to the CDS, or the PM or anyone else for the boards decisions.  He did not lay out the specific criteria the board uses to decide the level of award, but it is based at least in part on the awards submission and what the CO recommends (interpolation- are COs reluctant to recommend a VC?).

The guy responsible for all honours and awards in the CF is the CDS.  As far as I understand things, boards make recommendations and the chain of command is not obligated to heed such recommendation.  A VC would require the approval of the CO, the Task Force Comd and Comd CEFCOM on the DND 2448 and, likely, some sort of memo from the CDS before it moves to Government House for final approval (I've heard this process is largely a rubber stamp).

 

[armyvern]

Warfare isn't very different today than it was then when you get down to it.  Technology has provided some increases in time, space and magnitude, but the dynamics of attrition, manoeuvre and the human on the battlefield are relatively similar to the point that someone from a century ago would have little problem identifying what is going on on the battlefield.  Dirty soldiers running around in defensible positions trading fire with the enemy - images from Bloemfontein, Passchendaele or Panjwayi?

Not when coupled with scale, incidents and technology. You will not convince me that this past war is comparable to those that came before it. We no longer go in "bayonets first" for trench warfare, as a rule, unless our technology is not sufficient to sort it out before we send the troops in. In essence, although still sometimes necessary, we most often use other means first to lessen the risk to our own as the rule now.

 

[dogger1936]

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

Agree. The Taliban we fought were well organised and I respected them. BZ to all the boys who got well deserving medals and recognition.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

The guy responsible for all honours and awards in the CF is the CDS.  As far as I understand things, boards make recommendations and the chain of command is not obligated to heed such recommendation.  A VC would require the approval of the CO, the Task Force Comd and Comd CEFCOM on the DND 2448 and, likely, some sort of memo from the CDS before it moves to Government House for final approval (I've heard this process is largely a rubber stamp).

Infanteer- you are, as usual, pedantically correct.  However, the CDS does not do all of the research in each case nor does he  chair the board.  I've spoken to the guy who does all that and then drafts the letters for the CDS. I doubt that there are many changes after he is does his work.  However, I should have been more clear about whom I was speaking.

 

[Infanteer]

Not when coupled with scale, incidents and technology. You will not convince me that this past war is comparable to those that came before it. We no longer go in "bayonets first" for trench warfare, as a rule, unless our technology is not sufficient to sort it out before we send the troops in.

I'm not sure what you're inferring with "scale, incidents and technology" but a large degree of the technology would be recognizable to someone from a century ago.  What's more, the new stuff hasn't vastly changed things; a UAV dumping a 500-lb bomb on an enemy still means that there is a bunch of HE from overhead killing him - that it is done by a bunch of rubbernecks in Nevada is really irrelevant.  What's more, modern technology has the same problems of overcoming the opacity and cover provided by terrain (as described here); I'm sure anyone who's wandered the greenspace of Panjwayi can attest to this.

As for "bayonets first" and tactics part of things, we never went in "bayonets first" in 1916 and we still don't.  I'll let the Gunners speak to the artillery side of things, but I've researched the evolution of infantry tactics and much of what you see in today's manuals can be found in pamphlets from the First World War.  Organizations, both administratively and tactically, are recognizable, sometimes almost the same.

What's more, the quantitative research has been done, (notably here and here) on this and points (IMO) pretty convincingly to a lack in any substantial change in the conduct of battle in the last century.  So, while I may not convince you, the evidence out there points to your opinion being inaccurate.

How does it relate to the discussion?  We shouldn't assume that any evolutionary changes in the conduct of warfare have substantially altered the criteria or threshold for the awarding of a VC.

 

[Infanteer]

Infanteer- you are, as usual, pedantically correct.  However, the CDS does not do all of the research in each case nor does he  chair the board.  I've spoken to the guy who does all that and then drafts the letters for the CDS. I doubt that there are many changes after he is does his work.  However, I should have been more clear about whom I was speaking.

As I Staff Officer, I'll take "pedantically" as a compliment. 

I willing to bet personality plays a part in this; the Commander I work for takes interest in H&A and reviews all submissions, especially ones going to Ottawa.  I also have no doubt that, considering the gravity of an SMV or VC (only 10 SMV and no VC), when a file for this level of award comes across the desk of the CDS he probably reads into the file a bit.  That's just my guess, and I could be wrong but I'd be surprised if SMVs and VCs didn't receive the personal attention of every level of the chain of command, implying that there is more input into the process than the H&A committee.

Would be interesting to follow a file from the battlefield to Rideau Hall and see how those things really play out though.

 

[Pusser]

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.

The $3000/a pension is completely irrelevant as that only applies to VCs awarded to Canadians for WWII and before.  There is no pension attached to the current Canadian VC (or any other current Canadian awards for that matter). 

It is worth noting that these awards come under a great deal of scrutiny.  After a nomination has made it through the Chain of Command, it ends up in front of the CF Decorations Advisory Committee (CFDAC), which is chaired by the CDS and includes all the Environmental Commanders.  The level of scrutiny at CFDAC is high and all nominations have the benefit (or hindrance) of all being compared to each other.  In other words, no one can accuse one organization of having different standards than another as all nominations are reviewed by the same people in the end.

Consider also the following:

1)  Modern warfare is (for lack of a better term), "safer" than in the past in that it is no longer necessary to send hundreds of men over the top in order to attain an objective.  Modern warfare uses fewer people and relies more on technology than it did in previous generations.  Now, before the dogpile starts, I'm not saying modern warfare isn't dangerous, but we do fight it differently to the point where I think there are fewer opportunities for individuals to exhibit personal valour than in the past;

2)  In keeping with the above point, we as a society are less willing to sacrifice human life for "glory" or to gain turf than we have been in the past.  The Charge of the Light Brigade would never happen today;

3)  if you look at recent awards, they are virtually all for cases where individuals go in harm's way in order to save other people, not to achieve an objective.  Capturing the enemy's colours would win you a VC at Crimea, but would be seen as foolhardy today;

4)  I think the bar has been set pretty high for a VC when you look at what we have awarded SMVs for.  I'm not sure anyone knows how much more valour will be required for a VC.

5)  comparing a VC to CV is apples to oranges.  What is considered exceptional bravery for a civilian working outside of his/her area of expertise, could be seen as routine for a trained soldier in a combat zone.  Since 1972, only about 20 CVs have been awarded and each case involved a person who could easily have saved themselves or avoided the situation, but chose not to and instead dove in and did more than anyone could ever have reasonably expected.  A soldier in combat is expected to get involved and do something.

6)  The standard for the VC has steadily risen over the years.  Modern VCs are harder to win than the original ones at Crimea were.  In fact, modern VCs are worth more at auction for that very reason.

7)  The biggest challenge will be awarding the first Canadian VC.  Once the standard has been set, others will follow.

 

[Pusser]

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

This legislation deals strictly with the former British awards, for which Canada has assumed responsibility for Canadians.  It does not apply to any current Canadian awards, including the Canadian VC.

 

[Infanteer]

1)  Modern warfare is (for lack of a better term), "safer" than in the past in that it is no longer necessary to send hundreds of men over the top in order to attain an objective.  Modern warfare uses fewer people and relies more on technology than it did in previous generations.  Now, before the dogpile starts, I'm not saying modern warfare isn't dangerous, but we do fight it differently to the point where I think there are fewer opportunities for individuals to exhibit personal valour than in the past;

Are we assuming that warfare has become "safer" or "different", or perhaps we simply haven't faced a peer enemy in a long enough time to appreciate what a conventional battle requires?  I will agree with you that lethality of modern weapons has forced greater and greater dispersion, but I feel a lot of what we accept as "modern warfare" are really circumstances of dreadfully outclassing most opponents since about 1951 (this includes the Iraqis and the Taliban, who are generally third rate).

As for your other points, very good and I agree with them all, especially this one:

7)  The biggest challenge will be awarding the first Canadian VC.  Once the standard has been set, others will follow.

Cheers

 

[PuckChaser]

4)  I think the bar has been set pretty high for a VC when you look at what we have awarded SMVs for.  I'm not sure anyone knows how much more valour will be required for a VC.

This is the biggest issue. We've set it so high that I don't think its attainable. Comparing some of the citations of SMV recipients to VC winners from NZ and AUS, they are remarkably similar in context and what the individual soldier accomplished.

 

[Pusser]

This is the biggest issue. We've set it so high that I don't think its attainable. Comparing some of the citations of SMV recipients to VC winners from NZ and AUS, they are remarkably similar in context and what the individual soldier accomplished.

Unfortunately, it is also worth noting that the citations often don't do justice to the event.  Sometimes, it's hard to describe something spectacular in 90 words or less.  CFDAC, however, has all the supporting documentation at their disposal and that can be volumes.  Two different files can clearly show a difference between two events, that is not readily apparent in a 90 word summary.