'Unit's' military expert has fighting words for Bush

Yes, I read a story of a cook in Saigon that recieved a Purple Heart one day and couldn't for the life of him figure out way...

Seems the citation mentioned something about removing a shell fragment from his eye...

Too, bad it didn't mention that it was an egg shell!

Mike Sr.

 

emeraldctyangel....curious....if a the ship is in receipt of a battle star...does that mean it was in combat? If President Ford was on the ship when it received a battle star, was he in a combat zone?

Asking this with all sincerity, not trying to debate a point.

 

I guess LBJ, like Dubya, was "special."

 

Good question! I'll give it a stab!

The term "combat star" or "battle star" refers to the small bronze or silver star device that's added to denote multiple awards of the same award. The silver star replaces five bronze stars. Note: This device is not the same as the Bronze Star Medal or Silver Star Medal which are awarded to an individuals and are for a completely different reason!

Service awards, such as the Vietnam Service Medal, are rather broad in scope and don't necessarily signify direct combat participation. Campaigns are defined periods of time based on some major offensive action. The Vietnam war was divided into 17 such campaigns. A person who served in multiple campaigns of that war would be awarded the Vietnam Service Medal with one bronze star device for each campaign.

I'm guessing the "combat star" or "battle star" you asked about is of a similar nature for the Asiatic/Pacific Campaign Medal of World War II.

Military units are sometimes given specific awards as units. An example is the Presidential Unit Citation given for extraordinary heroic actions of a unit. This unit award is similar in status to an individual Distinguished Service Cross. They don't give these away! All persons assigned to a unit given this award may wear it while assigned to that unit. Persons who were assigned to the unit during the period for which the award was given may wear this award permanently even after they move on to another unit.

 

They are both veterans who served honorably and that makes them worthy of at least basic respect for that service to their nation regardless whether they were great heroes in battle or not and regarless whether any awards they received may or may not have been fully justified.

 

Just walking away from one's duty station is not what I call "honorable." Getting busted from flying status for failure to appear is not "honorable."

That one will dog him forever.

Apparently, LBJ at least had an urge to do the right thing about his case. I see no such inclination in Bush.

 

Good question! I'll give it a stab!

The term "combat star" or "battle star" refers to the small bronze or silver star device that's added to denote multiple awards of the same award. The silver star replaces five bronze stars. Note: This device is not the same as the Bronze Star Medal or Silver Star Medal which are awarded to an individuals and are for a completely different reason!

Service awards, such as the Vietnam Service Medal, are rather broad in scope and don't necessarily signify direct combat participation. Campaigns are defined periods of time based on some major offensive action. The Vietnam war was divided into 17 such campaigns. A person who served in multiple campaigns of that war would be awarded the Vietnam Service Medal with one bronze star device for each campaign.

I'm guessing the "combat star" or "battle star" you asked about is of a similar nature for the Asiatic/Pacific Campaign Medal of World War II.

Military units are sometimes given specific awards as units. An example is the Presidential Unit Citation given for extraordinary heroic actions of a unit. This unit award is similar in status to an individual Distinguished Service Cross. They don't give these away! All persons assigned to a unit given this award may wear it while assigned to that unit. Persons who were assigned to the unit during the period for which the award was given may wear this award permanently even after they move on to another unit. </font>[/QUOTE]Yep. Stars are used to denote subsequent awards. However when one is awarded five, then another piece (such as an oak leaf cluster or star made from different metal) is used.

I was only asking because I had never heard of any heroic events involving the President. President HW Bush, President Carter, President Kennedy - sure. Most of us learned that in boot camp. I meant no disrespect at all to President Ford.

In this day and age, Presidential Meritorious Unit Citations, and campaign medals abound. I have four campaign medals, two Pres Mer Unit Citations, and a partridge in a pear tree. It means I was there with that unit and did my part. I hope that makes sense, its been a long day.

 

Oh yeah...if the ship was recognized as a Meritorious Unit, it mostly involves combat - but not always. Sometimes the ship is involved in counter drug ops or humanitarian causes (like the exodous from Cuba).

 

So would President Ford qualify as a "combat veteran"??? Sounds as if whether he did heroic things or not, the ship may have been involved in combat??? Again, just asking.

 

I've got a MUC for merely being part of the team that earned it... VQ-3 while on Guam...

The real issue isn't if a person was in combat but whether they have a Warriors Heart...

Isreal had tons of volunteers in Joshua's days yet...

Only 300 had a Warriors Heart acceptable for the battle...

Even combat veterans can have a change of heart once the bullets start to fly...

When they suddenly find they aren't *really* the Warriors they thought they were...

Witness Kerry's using what some have called relative scratches to get to go home...

While others hid far worse wounds to stay with their guys past the three wound limit...

Yet, only God *really* knows what is in the heart of a man...

Mike Sr.

 

Ooops... Make that Gideon.

 

Just walking away from one's duty station is not what I call "honorable." Getting busted from flying status for failure to appear is not "honorable." </font>[/QUOTE] You have been corrected before but I'll go ahead and do it again.

One, his command said he had fulfilled his obligations. In every case, that is satisfactory. Whether the commander's judgment was sound or political is another question... that has no bearing on whether it is correct to say Bush was AWOL. "Absent without leave" is a charge with a definition. That definition does not appear to apply to what Bush supposedly did.

Two, unless he was under some kind of special order during this period in Alabama there were no regulations to base an AWOL charge on for a reservist that didn't show up for drill. I was in for 7 years. When we went to AT, we were under active duty orders and could charge a soldier with being AWOL for not appearing. On regular weekend drills, we were not under active duty orders. Absentees were disciplined by not being paid or else by being administratively dropped from the unit. If the unit dropped a soldier with a contract, and especially if they got a signing bonus, they could be forced to serve on active duty.

Only because people are willing to be deceptive or ignorant about the situation. Beyond that, I guess to some people his relatively minor infraction is far more severe than what Kerry or Clinton did... but it isn't to me.

Bush made a young man's mistakes but nonetheless fulfilled his obligations. Both Kerry and Clinton engaged in purposeful deception... though Clinton's could certainly be charged to youthful poor judgment as well.

Because you don't want to. You and I have gone round and round about Clinton because for whatever reason you only wanted to see the best things about him.

 

Just walking away from one's duty station is not what I call "honorable." Getting busted from flying status for failure to appear is not "honorable."

That one will dog him forever.

Apparently, LBJ at least had an urge to do the right thing about his case. I see no such inclination in Bush. </font>[/QUOTE]Do you prefer Dan Rather's version of the story with its dishonest implications?

President Bush completed his military obligation and received an honorable discharge. He may not have served in Viet Nam, or some other war like many of us have, but he did for his country what they assigned him to do. If he'd been sent to war I'm sure he would have gone. Like it or not, the Air National Guard was and still is a valid component of our military and there's nothing either dishonorable or dishonest about serving in it.

That's the record that will stay with him forever.

 

Things have changed a lot in recent years and expect they'll continue to do so. I wish the medals meant more - they're suppose to - but I do see the trend. Regardless, I appreciate everything our military does in these most difficult times. It's people like you that are carrying on with the traditions set by those before you. The job you do is easy to talk about but a whole lot harder to carry out and the stakes are high with someone alwasy ready to second guess everything that happens. If it were up to me, I'd give you all a raise, some free land, a big break on taxes, and a free pass to the best possible things. Maybe you'd even get an orchard of pear trees and a flock of partridge.

 

If Ford was on a ship anywhere, in any ocean in the world during WWII, he was in a combat zone. Whether he actually participated in what one would commonly call combat is a moot point. He was in harm's way at all times for several years.

 

The body armour thing is not true. The solders do not want to wear the armor issued by the Army so they buy their own. Last week the army made it against Army Regulations to use commercial body armour.

 

The body armour thing is not true. The solders do not want to wear the armor issued by the Army so they buy their own. Last week the army made it against Army Regulations to use commercial body armour. </font>[/QUOTE]Correct! I also think they're going ahead with more testing of some of the suppliers to see if they can meet the specifications. I don't think they're going to take anyone's body armour away and leave them with nothing. Rather they're just going to replace it with tested and proven gear.

I can tell you that today's body armor is far better than what existing 30 years ago and that was better than 30 years before that! It was, and still is heavy and hot, and some didn't like to wear it. Some didn't like wearing the old steel pots because they were heavy and awkward.

Vehciles are better and offer a lot more protection these days as well.

We've made some great progress in the area of protective gear and light armored vehicles.

 

We have become a fairly amazing society with respect to our tolerance for sacrifice. Just a generation or two ago over 16 million Americans trudged off to fight a fanatical fascist dictator who was not dealt with at the proper time.

In about 3.5 years, about 291,000 of these men died with another 671,000 wounded. Every one of them had a family. They all had lives cut short. Their deaths, like those in Iraq, were tragic and simultaneously heroic.

Few if any were protected by body armor, everyone knew that war is a sacrifice that is sometimes necessary to secure real peace,... and no one complained.

We should do everything we can to protect our soldiers but you can't eliminate risks in combat. Saddam wasn't Hitler... yet. But he had similar aspirations and his Baathist party had a direct ideological link to WW2 era fascism. Perhaps if Bush had been President in 1935 he'd have enforced the terms of the Armistice and prevented the deaths of 60 million people.

 

This is true, Scott.....

Sadlly, many people do not realize that war is real and not a video-game. Our technology has improved dramatically and we have honestly had very few casualties compared to historical wars. But, war is still real and still deadly. Isn't that the point of war, kill the enemy?

I have lost relatives in every major war, up until Desert Storm. I have had relatives in all of them and up until the Iraq wars did we not lose someone. In WWII my mother found out about her brother being killed with nothing more than a letter from the war department about six months after he was dead.

I also don't think that most people realize that there are very IMPORTANT strategic reasons why we had to make our presence known and maintain military control in certain countries in the gulf....and it has NOTHING to do with oil.....

Good Post, Scott.