Military proposes medal for troops showing restraint

[IScreamSundays]

Source: CNN

U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan could someday be awarded medals for restraint that prevents civilian casualties in combat.

The possibility is under consideration by the staff of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander in Afghanistan, according to Lt. Col. Tadd Sholtis, McChrystal's spokesman.

The idea of rewarding battlefield restraint was proposed by British Maj. Gen. Nick Carter, who is in charge of the international forces in southern Afghanistan. Sholtis said the idea is still in its "conceptual stage."

"Although no decisions have been made on the award itself, the idea is consistent with our strategic approach," Sholtis said. "Our young men and women display remarkable courage every day, including situations where they refrain from using lethal force, even at risk to themselves, in order to prevent possible harm to civilians. In some situations our forces face in Afghanistan, that restraint is an act of discipline and courage not much different than those combat actions that merit awards for valor."

snip>

Read more: http://afghanistan.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/13/military-proposes-medal-for-troops-showing-restraint/

[ShortnFiery]

1. That's part of the job! So you don't get prosecuted when you breech the Geneva Convention

and/or abuse the enemy.

However, if you happen to NOT kill innocents while blasting away "suspected insurgents" you get a f**king medal?

Un-f**king-believable. :puke:

[wtmusic]

2. I didn't murder anyone today, and I want my fucking medal too.

You nailed it SnF :thumbsup:

[ShortnFiery]

3. Yes, my heart goes out to the teenage kids who are forced to kill and die for empire.

The older 20 somethings are figuring it out.

The mental health issues that we will have to face as a society are both tragic and frightening.

[wtmusic]

5. Throw away the worthless medal, institute mandatory training for soldiers in

1) A history of international law
2) What/what doesn't constitute a war crime
3) Why revenge is not a justification for anything

since most these kids' parents and/or "faith" neglected to teach them the difference between right and wrong.

[ShortnFiery]

7. Yes, those are excellent recommendations to maintain a truly professional military.

However, I get the impression that the MIC wants these occupations to be SELF-PERPETRATING. :wow:

If there's NO CONFLICT, how will they justify getting a paycheck for their pretty weapons and armaments?

Nothing good can be accomplished in either nation with ANY continued infusions of more combat troops.

[wtmusic]

9. No doubt.

When discussing most social ills I'm constantly amazed at how easy it is to end up on the subject of antitrust enforcement.

Break up huge corporations like General Dynamics and General Electric, have the FCC institute controls on media conglomeration (Clear Channel), eliminate corporate tax dodges which have reduced their tax obligation by 45% since the 1970s - and suddenly you have a competitive, vibrant economy with far less opportunity to wield political influence.

We need to get to the root of the problem.

[crikkett]

4. It's too bad the military doesn't propose ending occupations. n/t

[wtmusic]

6. That's where we need the restraint, isn't it? nt

[pattmarty]

8. What the fuck is this shit? Getting a medal for doing what you are............

...........supposed to be doing? Only in fucking America!

[elocs]

10. People, soldiers must be taught to kill. The enemy, the opposition must be dehumanized.

In WWI they found that many soldiers would not shoot at the enemy, the Germans, to kill them, that they would shoot high. So the enemy was dehumanized to make them the evil, baby-killing Hun.

Then consider the famous Christmas truce of 1914 when British and German troops spontaneously stopped the war on the front lines of the western front to celebrate Christmas. The British generals went ballistic over it because a soldier is supposed to kill the enemy and they took steps from stopping it happening the next Christmas. Here's a great McCartney video that captures that moment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVK_mJrLbmY

Innocent civilians have always been killed in wars either through reckless indifference or by accident. That has been true in all wars and not just the current ones. Peace would be nice in a perfect world but reducing civilian casualties through reckless indifference is good too and is particularly appreciated by those whose lives are saved.

[wtmusic]

11. Disagree.

The enemy should never be dehumanized, soldiers should have to understand that they are taking a human life.

They should also never be put in a situation where that is not absolutely necessary, and taught that it is a war crime to consider civilians the enemy.

[elocs]

12. You can disagree that it should not be done, but it is done.

Soldiers are taught and trained to dehumanize the enemy and the opposition. Otherwise too many soldiers would choose not to kill. Yes, they are undoubtedly taught that it is wrong to kill civilians, but this conflicts with the dehumanization of the enemy, particularly when the enemy does not wear a uniform. The reality is that no soldiers will be charged with war crimes except in the most egregious and horrific cases. Even then it is likely they will not be convicted.

When there are young soldiers who are scared shitless, being shot at and blown up and watching their fellow soldiers being killed and wounded they will not always act rationally and they will do things they should not do. In a perfect world that would not happen, but ours is not a perfect world. We need to deal with reality as it exists and not how we wish it to be.