As an officer in the US Navy, here are some of my personal thoughts of why we have had an exponential growth in military awards since WWII:
1) More campaigns = more campaign medals. This comes up especially for Navy and USMC who can participate in Kosovo and OSW, or now, OIF & OEF in one cruise. The US was more isolationist in previous centuries.
2) All-Volunteer force creates a stronger careerist mentality, which leads to people expecting awards for remembering to breath, just so their career is not damaged if they don't get an award.
3) Inflation. If everyone starts getting medals, distinguishing who legitimately did an award-worthy event or tour of duty either risks raising the mean award level or it gets lost among everyone else's medals.
I still think that awards are appropriate on non-combat tours, but it should be for the top 10%, not the top 90% of performers. However, it becomes tough to take the recognition away once it is given.
Heavy Medals
Email To A Friend
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
Compared with their World War II counterparts, today's senior U.S. military officers are so weighed down with medals that they appear in danger of listing to port. The military at first disdained all decorations as undemocratic. Not until the Civil War did it hand out medals, and then there was only one kind: the Medal of Honor. In World Wars I and II, the list grew—the Navy Cross, the Distinguished Service Cross, the Silver Star and others—and after World War II came a great expansion of good-conduct decorations. There's been little talk of reducing the list. "It would be like starting employee-of-the-month and deciding you don't want to do it anymore," says Doug Sterner, a medals expert who runs a Web site called HomeOfHeroes.com. Medals still have meaning. A chestful of them is a kind of walking résumé. But there is something slightly opéra bouffe about lieutenants wearing more than Ike on D-Day.
© 2009









Discuss