RANGER AGAINST WAR: Stephen C. Sanford Deserves Medal of Honor <

Wednesday, October 05, 2016

Stephen C. Sanford Deserves Medal of Honor


 --PFC Stephen C. Sanford
receiving his DSC
_______________________

Fourteen years after his action, USAF Technical Sergeant John Chapman (KIA) is being considered for a posthumous Medal of Honor (MOH). This would be an upgrade of his Air Cross, an action which Ranger suggested should have been taken six years ago (in 2010).

Ranger would like to remember another serviceman whose Distinguish Service Cross also needs to be re-considered for an upgrade -- that of Private First Class Stephen C. Sanford of the 172nd Stryker Brigade. PFC Sanford's actions on 19 NOV 2005 clearly met the bar for a Medal of Honor. The awarding of the Distinguished Service Cross is a diminution of his actions.

The upgrading of PFC Sanford's Distinguished Service Cross to a Medal of Honor would be a correct and just action that needs to be accomplished. Ranger suggested this in 2010.

The Medal of Honor is not an award to be treated lightly, nor should this proposed action.

Labels: ,

4 Comments:

Anonymous David said...

The questions you raised about this issue years ago seem just as relevant today.

I know I'm probably asking you to speculate here, but do you think the disproportion is due to the growing political influence of the special operations community, the fact that they were just involved in more combat situations, or some other factor?

I don't know how military award decisions are made but it definitely seems to echo what I see on the civilian side with the fascination with hypermasculine special forces as opposed to "mere" regular soldiers/Marines. You can probably get a book deal for your story of how you were involved in seizing a ridge or killing Bin Laden. Less so for seizing a house, even if your individual actions merit the highest recognition.

Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at 12:31:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous jim hruska said...

D,
the 1st MOH was a combat engineer. e-7 type. no sof there, just good sense shown by his chain of command, and ,oh yeah, his soldiers fought for him to get the award. He was KIA in the action.
a couple of others were not sof. the 503rd awards are not really sof types although elite unites.
As for Sanford i have no idea why he was passed over for consideration.Maybe, just maybe, the Army leadership were sensitive about busting down doors and shooting up peoples homes. this is NOT hearts and minds terrain.
whatever the case i sure wish Sanford the best.
he stood up when required.
jim

Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at 1:04:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous David said...

It was your original questions about Sanford years ago I was referring there.

Disappointing if your guess there is correct, but it is what I feared. The inanity of political objectives and considerations really shouldn't be a factor in determining the merit of an individual, positive or negative. I imagine I wasted time even bothering to type that.

Thanks for your thoughts, as always.

Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at 3:07:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous jim hruska said...

David,
for some perspective.
we invaded iraq.
we invaded france held by the nazis.
the policy in 1944 was ONE MOH per regiment to be determined by the BN/Regt/Div cdrs.
so, why not a similar system in the pwot?
jim

Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 9:28:00 AM GMT-5  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home