[QUOTE=Soot]I see BAE settling for $$$.[/QUOTE]Ditto....

[QUOTE=SOTB;1058063855]No, to Me, the interesting issue is BAE and just simple HR practices. Really? You gonna put yourself out there in writing and block someone from getting a job elsewhere? Wow. I see blood in the water for a solid HR-focused lawyer. Of course, BAE might be of the opinion that their being a Brit company insulates them from lawsuits. [/QUOTE]

I predict this will be settled out of court, although you are correct, the bigger and more troubling issue is the sale of this restricted technology to Pakistan.

Please take any discussion about BAE selling equipment to Pakistan and the lawsuit to the Lounge thread.

Roger!
 

[QUOTE=Silverbullet;1058064002]Please take any discussion about BAE selling equipment to Pakistan and the lawsuit to the Lounge thread.[/QUOTE]

Stay safe.

Anyone catch the part where Letterman asks him what was different between Iraq and Afghanistan and Meyers says "the Taliban were serious"? Interesting insite from a Marine on the ground.

Marine Corps Embellished Dakota Meyer Account
 

[URL="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/12/14/133134/medal-of-honor-inflated-story.html?storylink=MI_emailed"]Here...[/URL]

Freaking maddening!!!

Has NO relevance to whether or not he DESERVED the MOH, but will significantly tarnish public perception of both Meyer and the whole awards system...

I HATE this kind of self-serving political BS that senior "leaders" serve up in the interest of PR, and see it way too often...

[QUOTE=gavin;1058070286][URL="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/12/14/133134/medal-of-honor-inflated-story.html?storylink=MI_emailed"]Here...[/URL]

Freaking maddening!!!

Has NO relevance to whether or not he DESERVED the MOH, but will significantly tarnish public perception of both Meyer and the whole awards system...

I HATE this kind of self-serving political BS that senior "leaders" serve up in the interest of PR, and see it way too often...[/QUOTE]

WOW! That is truly a shame. They have really brought a lot of doubt onto this warriors great deeds. It's a shame they couldn't have gone through the process like it was designed to be done and none of this probably would have happened.

I'd like to give a firm Parris Island handshake to the managing editor that approved the smear efforts of these journalists. I believe that someone should choke this dude out and be taught a lesson otherwise digging up alleged dirt on MOH recipients will become the journalistic norm going forward.

[QUOTE=Trig;1058070336]I'd like to give a firm Parris Island handshake to the managing editor that approved the smear efforts of these journalists. I believe that someone should choke this dude out and be taught a lesson otherwise digging up alleged dirt on MOH recipients will become the journalistic norm going forward.[/QUOTE]

You are mssing the point.

It ain't the journalists doing the smearing. The journalists are doing their job. It is the USMC PAO flacks who did the smearing, by embellishing an account that did not need embellishment. Meyer's true actions speak for themselves. He does not need anyone to lie on his behalf. Period. The MOH award determination appears to have been made WITHOUT these embellishments. All the lies do is muddy the waters after the fact. The lies cheapen the public's perception of the awards process. It is not the duty of the journalist to aid in the lies and embellishment!

[QUOTE=gavin;1058070342]You are mssing the point.

It ain't the journalists doing the smearing. The journalists are doing their job. It is the USMC PAO flacks who did the smearing, by embellishing an account that did not need embellishment. Meyer's true actions speak for themselves. He does not need anyone to lie on his behalf. Period. The MOH award determination appears to have been made WITHOUT these embellishments. All the lies do is muddy the waters after the fact. The lies cheapen the public's perception of the awards process. It is not the duty of the journalist to aid in the lies and embellishment![/QUOTE]

Amen. While I absolutely despise the media, and would love to see them hunted like feral dogs, I agree with Gavin. The media is bringing to light something that should have never been said by the USMC PAO or the White House folks. Shame on those that told the tales.

[QUOTE=Trig]I'd like to give a firm Parris Island handshake to the managing editor that approved the smear efforts of these journalists. I believe that someone should choke this dude out and be taught a lesson otherwise digging up alleged dirt on MOH recipients will become the journalistic norm going forward.[/QUOTE]We often see on this site, the pleading of members for true reporting. Reporting which involves serious research and the willingness to report what may be outside of the common party line. When someone does this the answer is to slam them?

The MOH need not require superhuman efforts or deeds for it's being awarded. But it MUST meet [URL="http://www.marines.mil/usmc/Pages/AwardTotals.aspx"]the stipulated requirements[/URL]. Per that link; "There must be [B]no margin of doubt or possibility of error[/B] in awarding this honor." Emboldened wording is mine.

So is there now doubt? Was there error? I think the answer to both is yes. As painful and as saddening as that may be.

No one should fault Meyer -- he didn't put himself in for the MOH. If any fault should be determined, then it should lay clearly upon Marine Corps leadership, and possibly the Dept of the Navy and higher.

Taken in that context, no one discounts Meyer's bravery, willingness to do the job and more, or his proficiency in doing so. It becomes completely irrelevant to the conversation. What DOES become part of the discussion is the manner in which the awarding criteria was followed.

I believe that reading the article demos that there are numerous points worthy of investigation. From whether someone refused orders and took upon themselves to do something, to what was actually done, to how dangerous each and every one of those events were -- all worthy of a focused investigation -- but one that SHOULD have occurred long before the decision to award the MOH was ever reached. It isn't fair to Meyer to put him in a position such as the one today, for not doing this investigation properly back when it should have been done. It is also not fair to the country to see this situation unfold, when it appears as if it could have been avoided.

If it turns out that the Corps rammed this down someone's throat because they thought they deserved one -- then heads SHOULD roll.

No one questions Meyer's dedication or sacrifice. The questions are rather focused upon people who were not even likely in theater....

[QUOTE=gavin;1058070342]You are mssing the point.

It ain't the journalists doing the smearing. The journalists are doing their job.

The lies cheapen the public's perception of the awards process. It is not the duty of the journalist to aid in the lies and embellishment![/QUOTE]

You're right,...I had the wrong target so to speak.

A little off topic but, do MOH recipients retain any sort of agent or manager? Someone to step in and say "this isn't a good idea" when a recipient may think about doing something unbecoming of the award? I'm not saying any MOH recipients need one but new-found fame can be a downward spiral for some individuals, and going through it alone could have some consequences not only for the individual but also for the sanctity of the award.

[QUOTE=SOTB;1058070350]So is there now doubt? Was there error? I think the answer to both is yes. As painful and as saddening as that may be[/QUOTE]

It is a little saddening. And when heads do roll ie someone is held accountable there will be another wave of media coverage awakening this whole thing. It's just frustrating to read from my pov.

WTF?

First, I would think a full AAR would have included an interview with Jonathan Landay, as he was present during the fight, and if it contained any discrepancies with versions presented by others who were also present, they would have been addressed very early on in the award process.

What I find most disturbing is the timing of the report - what should have been brought to light years ago, if true, suddenly emerges shortly after the lawsuit between Dakota Meyer and BAE is announced. :mad:

I stayed away until there was a legal decision but I am glad the lawsuit against McCreight was dropped. Yes, people have their opinions. I have known him for a very long time and to think that he would have done ANYTHING but look out for someone younger and incredibly courageous did not sit right with me. And so, I did not believe it.

The people who would only call him about irrelevant technical info do add to the discussion though. But I laugh, as concerned as I am about where the Gain knob would be placed. Who wants to lift their head when they are busy with their eyes? But this is not out of respect for technicians as much as it for my countless hours on a wrestling mat.

-----
The 1st period is won by the best technician. The 2nd period is won by the kid in the best shape. The 3rd period is won by the kid with the biggest heart.
[URL="http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/d/dangable198631.html"][COLOR=#0000cc]Dan Gable[/COLOR][/URL]

So with all this coming to supposed light, are the 2 Navy Crosses from that same action also being questioned?
It is painful and saddening because there would be hope that "those" in charge would get it right after some of the embellishing that has happened in the last decade and taken the true shine away from those who have and should have deservedly earned their valor status.
S/F Sgt. Meyer and may you be blessed in all of your days.

Medals should be taken with a pinch of salt. The main function is to raise morale. The military will always embellish the stories. Call it marketing.

Most medals are for arbitrary stuff such as long service, served at such n such place, blah blah. Meaningless really.

Then the ones that do count, the medals for valour, well for every guy who gets one there another 100 nameless guys who should also be getting one. So those medals are also meaningless but for different reasons. They aren't a reward for the recipient. They're a confidence boost for the masses.

So the bottom line is just respect what the guy did and don't split hairs about it. And ignore the jam stealers with inferiority complexes who search for negativity to tie to these veterans who got the nod.

This Sarge Dakota guy looks like a tough cookie :cool:

Me personally, the only trinket that I kept from those days is my beret with it's badge and my marksman badge. The rest went in the trash

Waving the BS Flag and Yon makes a good argument against the reporter
 

This is from the "Dispatches" section on Michael Yon's Website.

16 December 2011

I’ve made it back to America after being away about one year. I cannot begin to tell you how good it feels to be on US soil. This morning, in Tucson, two A-10 Warthogs flew overhead. The last time I saw A-10s was in Afghanistan. They were shooting just about every day.

Now for some sad news. Today there are more stories about Dakota Meyer. Dakota was awarded the Medal of Honor for actions during his incredible and honorable service in the Marines. These stories are saddening because the more you read, the more you realize that Dakota is being tarred and feathered. This clearly is about politics and business.

And so this morning I emailed to someone I know to be close to Dakota, offering moral support. This American remains beside you.

A trusted source also sent this dissection of recent comments that are designed to cut down Dakota:

Jonathan Landay has alleged that the Marine Corps deliberately inflated the heroism of Sergeant Dakota Meyer. This allegation has tarnished the reputations of the Marine Corps and of Sergeant Meyer. Landay quoted not one individual. Instead, he used statements made two years ago by those on the battlefield.

There are many contradictions internal to those statements. For instance, Staff Sergeant Rodriguez-Chavez at one point stated, “… the fourth time we went into the valley.. we saw Swenson.” Actually, that happened during the second trip into the valley. Such inconsistencies in memory are normal. Ask eleven football players what happened in a game, and you will receive eleven different answers. Imagine how much more confusing it is in battle!

Landay spent months poring over written statements. He wrote, “It's impossible to reconstruct a clear, chronological account of much of what followed from the statement.” He then selected some sentences that supported his bias, and ignored other sentences. The result was a series of half-truths, inconsistencies and errors, as illustrated below.

1 Landay: “Rodriguez-Chavez recounted the Afghans got into the vehicle themselves on both runs. He said Meyer stayed in the turret, firing a Mk 19.”

Error: On the first run, the Mk 19 jammed. They switched to a truck with a .50 cal for the second run.

2 Landay: “Meyer didn’t save the lives of 13 U.S. service members… helicopters saved the remaining (six) Americans.”

Comment: Two outposts with four Americans and over a dozen Afghans were under continuous fire, as were the six Americans pulling out of the valley. Meyer and Rodriguez-Chavez, in the only vehicle in the valley, became the bullet magnet for the insurgents, drawing their fire and, with Meyer on a .50 cal in the turret, preventing open enemy maneuver.

Consider these written statements: Rodriguez-Chavez: “Meyer laid down suppressive fire” Swenson: “They (Meyer and Rodriguez-Chavez) drive forward; they provide suppressive fire.”

The fact is there was suppressive fire both from the light helicopters and from Sgt. Meyer’s .50 caliber. Landay knew that, because he saw Meyer. Yet he chose not to report what he saw.

3 Landay: “Meyer killed one, not eight”

Comment: The most famous Medal of Honor recipient in World War II - Audie Murphy - is credited with killing over one hundred Germans. His book is filled with killings. Yet if Murphy required eyewitnesses, nowhere near one hundred would have been credited. Similarly, this is true of the MoH for SEAL Lt Murphy in the 2005 battle in Afghanistan. There wasn’t the verification or exactitude Landay is demanding.

Consider these other statements not used by Landay: Fabayo: “I saw 2 woman/children fire two RPG at CPL (Meyer).” Swenson: “How close the fight actually was, we are talking about people 20 meters away..” Rodriguez-Chavez: “Meyer shot one right next to the door with his M4.”

(Rodriguez-Chavez drove over another one, and later Meyer killed another in hand to hand combat)

Meyer, a deadly shot, fired over a thousand rounds of .50 cal and 7.62 machineguns. Are we to believe he killed insurgents at point blank range, but missed every other target over the course of six hours of shooting?

4 Landay: “Statements undermine the claim that Rodriguez-Chavez and Meyer drove into the valley against orders… Marine Corps doctrine authorized the two staff sergeants to take that initiative.”

Error: the night before, Meyer told SSgt Rodriguez-Chavez he had arranged with his team to drive in to get them if an ambush occurred. When the ambush began, over the radio 1st Sgt Garza ordered Meyer not to come. When Rodriguez-Chavez and Meyer called a second time, they were told to get off the radio. Meyer then said, “we’re going in”.

Two staff sergeants did not discuss this; up at his observation post, SSGT Valadez was told they were going in. He then offered to observe the road. It is disingenuous to assert that Marine doctrine authorized the two staff sergeants to take initiative. It was Meyer who persistently showed initiative, despite orders to the contrary.

5 Landay: 1st Sgt Garza “called Meyer forward” when he (Garza) was at the Casualty Collection Point”

Error: Meyer had already been forward in the valley on three trips, and had covered Garza’s escape to the Casualty Collection Point.

6 Landay: “Meyer didn’t ride in the unarmored Ford Ranger pickup with Swenson.”

Error: Meyer was in the Ranger with Swenson. It was just the two of them. Swenson has said this repeatedly. Swenson was driving. He helped Dakota put the body of Dodd Ali, Dakota’s best friend among the Afghan soldiers, in the back of the Ranger while they were under fire.

7 Landay: “The account of the battle in Swenson’s nomination is sharply at odds with the Marines’ account of Meyer’s deeds.”

Error: the fact is that the Marines and Meyer have struggled for two years to insure Swenson is recognized as equally courageous and determined. In fact, Meyer has sent to the Army two pages of testimony, explaining in detail that Swenson was the man in charge on the battlefield and concluding that he, Meyer, is alive only because of Swenson. By portraying battlefield confusion as deliberate exaggeration, Landay has jeopardized Swenson’s nomination.

8 Landay: “No sworn statements refer to him leaping from the Humvee’s turret to rescue 24 wounded Afghan soldiers.”

Error: Both Rodriguez-Chavez and Swenson have said that Meyer repeatedly left the safety of various vehicles to run in the open under fire to aid Afghan soldiers.

9 Landay: “The official account doesn’t explain how the pair could have evacuated 24 Afghan soldiers."

Misleading: Does not take account of the whole battle. Meyer began picking up Afghans at about 0700. First trip: 5. 2d trip: 4. That’s nine.

Then from 0930 (when Landay left the battlefield) to 1130, Meyer stayed in the valley. Between 0930 and 1130, at least six Afghan pickups drove in and out behind the gun truck. Meyer was in at least five different trucks during six hours of battle. All witnesses attested that Meyer was hopping in and out of the trucks to help the wounded. There were 90 Afghan soldiers in the valley when the battle began. Meyer had an overstuffed medbag, with more than 14 tourniquets. He used all the tourniquets.

Nine plus fourteen equals 23, not 24. But the figure of 24 is not misleading; it is illustrative of Meyer’s efforts.

In sum, Landay selected sentences to buttress his assertions. But other statements contradict Landay. There is no evidence of deliberate exaggeration. There is ample evidence of battlefield confusion. That is to be expected.

Actually No
 

[QUOTE=Spike Pretorius;1058071163]Medals should be taken with a pinch of salt. The main function is to raise morale. The military will always embellish the stories. Call it marketing.

Most medals are for arbitrary stuff such as long service, served at such n such place, blah blah. Meaningless really.

Then the ones that do count, the medals for valour, well for every guy who gets one there another 100 nameless guys who should also be getting one. So those medals are also meaningless but for different reasons. They aren't a reward for the recipient. They're a confidence boost for the masses.

So the bottom line is just respect what the guy did and don't split hairs about it. And ignore the jam stealers with inferiority complexes who search for negativity to tie to these veterans who got the nod.

This Sarge Dakota guy looks like a tough cookie :cool:

Me personally, the only trinket that I kept from those days is my beret with it's badge and my marksman badge. The rest went in the trash[/QUOTE]

Spike, respectfully and strongly disagree with you on this. Medals are not about Morale, despite what Napoleon said. They are given out, usually, for acts that matter. You are right, a lot of guys do not get recognized and I have seen certain branches contribute to award inflation but the USMC is one that is so tight with awards that if they give out anything with a V on it I usually assume it should be at least one award higher. Check out what the USMC did in the Sgt. Rafael Peralta case, they did a bloody autopsy on the guy to make sure it should be a MoH or Navy Cross. I know of few guys in the Navy who should be up for MoHs and I shake my head that they did not get them when you read the citations but it is what it is.

[QUOTE=Spike Pretorius;1058071163]Medals should be taken with a pinch of salt. The main function is to raise morale. The military will always embellish the stories. Call it marketing.[/QUOTE]

Blood and guts called a "pinch of salt"? "War valor" called a pinch of salt?

"Marketing"?

Must disagree. The military aren't the embellishers, the "doubters" and anti-war MSM are usually the ones that call into question a military award for valor like Sgt. Dakota earned, the MoH.

[QUOTE=Spike Pretorius;1058071163]Most medals are for arbitrary stuff such as long service, served at such n such place, blah blah. Meaningless really. [/QUOTE]

"blah, blah"? "Meaningless"?? You, sir, are in the wrong business. We don't do blah blah or meaningless. We go to war to fight for the rights and freedoms of those here in the US as well as those who cannot fight for themselves. I wouldn't classify that as "blah blah or meaningless.. Mebbe I'm reading your post wrong. Please enlighten me.

[QUOTE=Spike Pretorius;1058071163]Then the ones that do count, the medals for valour, well for every guy who gets one there another [B]100 nameless guys[/B] who should also be getting one. [/QUOTE]

and every soldier who has earned the MoH for the last 60 years has said the exact same thing. "I didn't earn it, they did"....[U][B]and they are not "nameless guys"[/B][/U], they are warriors who gave their lives and/or sacrificed life and limb for the freedoms of others.

[QUOTE=Spike Pretorius;1058071163][U][I][B]Me personally[/B][/I][/U], the only trinket that I kept from those days is my beret with it's badge and my marksman badge. [U][B]The rest went in the trash[/B][/U][/QUOTE]

[U][B]Not our fault.[/B][/U]










Congrats Dakota, from those who weren't there but appreciate your sacrifice and effort. :cool:

Awesome. I give this a big thumbs up...

[QUOTE=RB;1058078881]Blood and guts called a "pinch of salt"? "War valor" called a pinch of salt?

"Marketing"?

Must disagree. The military aren't the embellishers, the "doubters" and anti-war MSM are usually the ones that call into question a military award for valor like Sgt. Dakota earned, the MoH.



"blah, blah"? "Meaningless"?? You, sir, are in the wrong business. We don't do blah blah or meaningless. We go to war to fight for the rights and freedoms of those here in the US as well as those who cannot fight for themselves. I wouldn't classify that as "blah blah or meaningless.. Mebbe I'm reading your post wrong. Please enlighten me.



and every soldier who has earned the MoH for the last 60 years has said the exact same thing. "I didn't earn it, they did"....[U][B]and they are not "nameless guys"[/B][/U], they are warriors who gave their lives and/or sacrificed life and limb for the freedoms of others.



[U][B]Not our fault.[/B][/U]










Congrats Dakota, from those who weren't there but appreciate your sacrifice and effort. :cool:[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=RB;1058078881]
"Marketing"?

Must disagree. The military aren't the embellishers, the "doubters" and anti-war MSM are usually the ones that call into question a military award for valor like Sgt. Dakota earned, the MoH.



"blah, blah"? "Meaningless"?? You, sir, are in the wrong business. We don't do blah blah or meaningless. We go to war to fight for the rights and freedoms of those here in the US as well as those who cannot fight for themselves. I wouldn't classify that as "blah blah or meaningless.. Mebbe I'm reading your post wrong. Please enlighten me.
[/QUOTE]

"The military aren't the embellishers"

The awards I saw given in the Army were embellished all the time. My own awards make me sound like a good candidate to be the future Sergeant Major of the Army. I've seen my brother-in-law's embellished USMC awards as well so I refuse to believe it's a single-service issue...

In regards to only "doubters" and anti-war MSM" questioning military awards -- what about those of us who have a lot of respect for the MoH award and don't like having hit pieces like this surface later because due diligence of the individuals responsible for issuing the award wasn't properly done? What if the journalist is actually right and the award was embellished or exaggerated? You don't see an issue with that? How do you know him well enough to question his integrity?

"We don't do blah blah or meaningless."

A huge portion of what the military does is "blah blah & meaningless" with a small portion of actual war fighting thrown in by a small portion of the actual force. Have you had your sexual harassment brief, your cultural diversity, your gay-rights brief done lately? Are you up to snuff with your Army Warrior tasks check-the-box training (or USMC equivalent)??? The military even has commonly used sayings about "blah blah and meaningless" - "hurry up and wait", "check the box", etc...

You can't be part of the solution when you don't even recognize the problem...

Not trying to be an ass but, the guy you are quoting/addressing has more than enough "Trigger time" and experience during his career to formulate his opinions. That whole tip of the spear thing and all. I happen to agree with him. Soldering is filled with some bullshit. It's part of it. I don't consider honor and valor to be in that category.

RB is a big boy, though. I'll let him defend his own opinion.

I respect RB's service as much as anyone here does -- that has absolutely nothing to do with us disagreeing over this.

My honest guess would be that being at "the tip of the spear" as you put it - has possibly allowed RB to miss seeing a lot of the bullshit that takes place in regular units during the military awards process as the guys in his unit had enough going on where they could actually earn theirs without having people feel the need to fabricate or exaggerate...
...even if you haven't seen exaggeration in your own unit - look at Jessica Lynch's Silver Star -- it happens...

In this case I don't think that anyone here is questioning whether Dakota Meyer actually deserves his MoH -- from everything I've read, he unquestionably does. I simply feel that it's definitely possible some of the claims were exaggerated by the military as I've witnessed that exact thing while serving myself and it's happened in high profile incidents in the past...

Yes there is embellishment in some awards... I have seen Valor awards given for rediculous things like, shooting a tank with an M16, Assaulting an empty building, and Shooting at your own Marine's positions. I have also seen fine men do amazing things that should have merited an award, but they recieved little or no recognition, because of fk-ups later in the tour, or the awards "quotas" were used up.

These are the extremes to be sure, and the majority of awards fall in line where they should, but when you are talking about the MOH, there are way too many eyes and scruitiny in the process to really allow much fluff.

Dakota deserves his medal, enough said. I know the guys that were there, I know how the decisions were made, I know how disjointed debriefings can get after a big action like that, and I know how hard it is sometimes to capture so many events into the limited space allowed for each particular award citation.

Bottom line: Some PAO's don't seem to know when they are out of their lane.

[QUOTE=destaccado;1058089227]...even if you haven't seen exaggeration in your own unit - look at Jessica Lynch's Silver Star -- it happens...[/QUOTE]

Just for clarification, Jessica Lynch was awarded a Bronze Star for meritorious service (no "v" device) as well as a purple heart.

Nothing wrong with that, IMO. I've seen Bronze Stars awarded for a whole lot less than what Jessica Lynch went through.

But in principle, I agree with some of what you say about how the military can embellish even the simplest citation or report. To the untrained eye, a lot of evaluation reports can sound like the soldier is the next Patton.

So are Landay's accusations going to go anywhere? It doesn't seem like Dakota Meyer has done any self aggrandizement.

I hope this doesn't go the way of Jessica Lynch. I've heard a lot of people really denigrate her regarding her Bronze Star. I was a sophomore in high school when she went through her whole ordeal so I wasn't paying much attention to the details, and didn't realize how she got dragged into the resulting media circus or book deal with that conniving ghostwriter until much later. She definitely did right by her friend Lori Piestewa's family.

[QUOTE=Ronin 762;1058089282]Yes there is embellishment in some awards... I have seen Valor awards given for rediculous things like, shooting a tank with an M16, Assaulting an empty building, and Shooting at your own Marine's positions. I have also seen fine men do amazing things that should have merited an award, but they recieved little or no recognition, because of fk-ups later in the tour, or the awards "quotas" were used up.[/QUOTE]One of my buddies was mentioned as being put in for a bronze star for jumping into a trench and smoking a bunch of Iraqi soldiers. It never went anywhere. But the BC got a bronze star for, I shit you not, calling in an airstrike.

[QUOTE=Massgrunt;1058090040]One of my buddies was mentioned as being put in for a bronze star for jumping into a trench and smoking a bunch of Iraqi soldiers. It never went anywhere. But the BC got a bronze star for, I shit you not, calling in an airstrike.[/QUOTE]

That reminds me of the NAM process. It was supposedly for any and all meritorious action, but we mysteriously had preset quotas for total amount that we be awarded, and sometimes on how many nominations we could send up. The Chaplain's Assistant got one for a bunch of reasons that could have been summed up as, "Showed up to work, and was really nice to the Chaplain." since several units didn't send in nominations due to the deployment optempo.

I've seen a cook get one for meritoriously cooking chow in the field. Meanwhile, nobody on the super squad that went to division got anything. But e could go on like this all day.