Relative Worth, Revisited

[Re-post: In his 16 December 2011 piece, The Medal of Honor and Messenger, Ranger suggested his associate MSG Benny Adkins receive the Medal of Honor (MOH) for his action in 1966; subsequently Adkins was belatedly awarded the MOH in October 2013.

In his 20 December 2010 piece, Relative Worth, Ranger wrote that Stephen Sanford should also receive the MOH, especially in light of the recent upgrades to medals received by veterans of the Vietnam War. We hope Mr. Sanford does not have to wait that long.] 

 

  Cpl. Stephen Sanford received DSC (2007)

And I believe we need heroes,
I believe we need certain people
who we can measure our own shortcomings by
--Richard Attenborough

The ultimate measure of a man is not
where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience,
but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy
--Martin Luther King, Jr.

Aspire rather to be a hero than merely appear one
--Baltasar Gracian
__________________

In continued consideration of the Medal of Honor, let's compare Staff Sgt Salvatore Guinta's recent MOH (the first living MOH recipient since the Vietnam War) to the Distinguished Service Cross (DSC) awarded to Private First Class Stephen C. Sanford.

[See SSG Guinta's MOH citation HERE; PFC Sanford's DSC HERE. Note, 7, AUG 2014: Two additional MOH's have been awarded, both to 2/503/173 members.] 

The short and sweet question is, why did Guinta receive a MOH when Sanford received only a DSC? What differentiates their actions? Even patriotic site BLACKFIVE posed the following question regarding the dearth of coverage on the actions of PFC Sanford: "Read this and ask why this story hasn't been all over the media. It was released more than 8 weeks ago...only the Army has information on it. I found no media services have picked this up at all..."

Sanford was wounded in the initial burst of fire, yet he elected to continue the assault. He repeatedly assaulted into the face of the enemy though wounded, receiving two "potentially fatal" gunshot wounds in the service of saving and protecting other soldiers. He administered combat life-saving while under direct fire, sustaining two additional solid hit wounds while so doing.

Objectively reading the citations, it is clear that Sanford exceeded the requirements for the MOH, and in fact, his actions exceeded the valorous acts of SSG Guinta.

Of the eight MOH's awarded in the Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©), three have gone to Special Operations Forces - Special Operations Command assets and five to the rest of the entire military. That is a heavily weighted fact. Is the SOCOM more valorous than regular line soldiers?

Some painful questions arise from this comparison. Would Stephen Sanford have received the MOH if he were to have been killed? Would Sanford have received it if he were an SOF asset? If so, why?

This is not a criticism of SSG Guinta, who is a fine soldier and an MOH-worthy recipient. The sole purpose is to question the apparent bias in the conference of this prestigious award. If Guinta deserves the MOH, then so, too, does Pvt. Sanford. That is as clear as a front sight on an M4 carbine.

The Medal of Honor and The Messenger

Send lawyers, guns and money
The shit has hit the fan
--Lawyers, Guns and Money, Warren Zevon

Studies and Observations Group (SOG) joke:

I was recommended for the Medal of Honor

but it was downgraded to a letter of reprimand

____________________

Suggestions of inconsistencies in the citation of the most recent Medal of Honor recipient, Dakota Meyer, is in line with Ranger's thinking on most of the recent MOH awards (Marines promoted inflated story for Medal of Honor recipient).

McClatchey News reports, "[C]rucial parts that the Marine Corps publicized and Obama described are untrue, unsubstantiated or exaggerated." Before this allegation, RangerAgainstWar had suggested that the Murphy, Miller and Guinta's citations shared the same problems, as well. This overview was written before reading the source article, because he does not want that writer's views to affect his thinking. (After surveying the materials, he will write a detailed abstract.)

Some recent history on military commendations is in order. Ranger has been where Medals of Honor used to grow on trees when he was assigned to 5th Special Forces Group (Airborne) in 1970-71 in the Vietnam War. When Bennie Adkins was nominated for his deserved MOH in the late 1960's, General Westmoreland went on record to ask the 5th Group Commander if they were "running a Medal of Honor factory"; Bennie did not get his medal.

The awarding of the Medal of Honor -- the military's highest valor award -- has often been contentious. Army SF scuttlebutt Vietnam era was that Captain Donlon received his MOH because President Johnson wanted to ramp up support for the war; Captain Carpenter's MOH was rescinded because the facts did not corroborate with the citation. General MacArthur and General Wainwright received what could be described as political awards of the coveted honor (in 1941 and '45).

Ranger contends that the Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©) MOH winners have exhibited conspicuous tactical bravery that did not translate out to anything of military value for anybody concerned. Fighting and killing with no larger purpose is butchery, not soldiering. The purpose of combat is to achieve tactical success to influence the strategic goals of a Commander. Or, battles are fought to achieve a decisive conclusion to an otherwise dull brawl. While this should be the case, in actual execution it is not always achieved.

In the Civil War, General Lee produced brilliant tactical victories (at Seven Pines, Antietam, Chancellorsville and Fredericksburg), but he never exploited his successes to achieve strategic dominance. All the killing was simply a butcher's bill. Likewise, General Meade did not exploit his success at Gettysburg, hence it was much motion with little strategic progress. Unexploited victories are wasted motion.

When Medals of Honor are awarded simply for killing and tactical prowess sans further benefit, they are meaningless, like the above cited battles which were also filled with overwhelming examples of conspicuous gallantry.

Back to 5th Group in Vietnam, and specifically the MOH's awarded to the classified Studies and Observations Group (SOG). The SOG MOH's differ from Murphy's, Miller's, Meyer's and Guinta's in this way: They were all awarded for strategic reconnaissance and/or exploitation of strategic intelligence gathered by the teams. The death and killing served a larger strategic purpose.

Whenever a SOG reconnaissance team was shot out of an Area of Operation, these were always bloody meeting engagements. When our exploitation or hatchet forces would go in to exploit the meeting engagement or the intel derived therefrom, this would then be a planned attack. The ensuing violence had a military purpose.

The mentioned MOH's awarded in Afghanistan lack any purpose beyond the immediate slugfest. The violence served no larger purpose, and violence without purpose is not a military concept.

____________________

NEXT: Commonalities in the Afghanistan Medals of Honor citations

Relative Worth

Cpl. Stephen Sanford received DSC (2007)

And I believe we need heroes,
I believe we need certain people
who we can measure our own shortcomings by
--Richard Attenborough

The ultimate measure of a man is not
where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience,
but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy
--Martin Luther King, Jr.

Aspire rather to be a hero than merely appear one
--Baltasar Gracian
__________________

In continued consideration of the Medal of Honor, let's compare Staff Sgt Salvatore Guinta's recent MOH (the first living MOH recipient since the Vietnam War) to the Distinguished Service Cross (DSC) awarded to Private First Class Stephen C. Sanford.

[See SSG Guinta's MOH citation HERE; PFC Sanford's DSC HERE.]

The short and sweet question is, why did Guinta receive a MOH when Sanford received only a DSC? What differentiates their actions? Even patriotic site BLACKFIVE posed the following question regarding the dearth of coverage on the actions of PFC Sanford: "Read this and ask why this story hasn't been all over the media. It was released more than 8 weeks ago...only the Army has information on it. I found no media services have picked this up at all..."

Sanford was wounded in the initial burst of fire, yet he elected to continue the assault. He repeatedly assaulted into the face of the enemy though wounded, receiving two "potentially fatal" gunshot wounds in the service of saving and protecting other soldiers. He administered combat life-saving while under direct fire, sustaining two additional solid hit wounds while so doing.

Objectively reading the citations, it is clear that Sanford exceeded the requirements for the MOH, and in fact, his actions exceeded the valorous acts of SSG Guinta.

Of the eight MOH's awarded in the Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©), three have gone to Special Operations Forces - Special Operations Command assets and five to the rest of the entire military. That is a heavily weighted fact. Is the SOCOM more valorous than regular line soldiers?

Some painful questions arise from this comparison. Would Stephen Sanford have received the MOH if he were to have been killed? Would Sanford have received it if he were an SOF asset? If so, why?

This is not a criticism of SSG Guinta, who is a fine soldier and an MOH-worthy recipient. The sole purpose is to question the apparent bias in the conference of this prestigious award. If Guinta deserves the MOH, then so, too, does Pvt. Sanford. That is as clear as a front sight on an M4 carbine.


[Note: Ranger would like to discuss this post with Stephen Sanford. Please contact us.]