Back in May, I wrote a post on Medals of Honor, and how the standards for awarding them seem to have changed. It was a quick look that focused particularly on how the de facto requirements for being given a Medal of Honor now, more and more, seem to include dying. In both Korea and Vietnam, more than 60% of Medals of Honor were posthumous, a dramatic shift from previously. As I said then:
The valor that garners a Medal of Honor has changed since the Civil War, when the award was first created. In fact, many of the ways that the Medal was previously given no longer hold. Perhaps the most obvious of these is that it is now extremely difficult–if not impossible–to get a Medal of Honor while surviving the acts of bravery.
We now have an interesting further case. 
Private First Class Richard Weinmaster, of the Marine Corps, was part of a patrol in Afghanistan in July 2008, and, as the award citation reads:
Private First Class Weinmaster’s squad was conducting a dismounted patrol down a narrow side street in the Sangin District of Helmand Province, Afghanistan, when enemy forces ambushed the squad with machine gun fire and hand grenades. Upon contact, Private First Class Weinmaster immediately began engaging the enemy positions with his squad automatic weapon. As he delivered suppressive fire and assaulted the enemy, encountering a withering volume of fire that passed within meters of his position, Private First Class Weinmaster saw two hand grenades tossed over a wall land in the middle of his patrol. Noting where one of the grenades landed, he quickly placed himself between the grenade and his fire team leader, using his body to shield both his team leader and several other Marines from the blast, which occurred immediately. Private First Class Weinmaster was seriously injured when the grenade detonated, but his valorous actions prevented his fire team leader from receiving any shrapnel. Although he was critically wounded, Private First Class Weinmaster continued to carry on the attack, engaging enemy forces with accurate automatic weapons fire and forcing them to break contact…
Now that reads to me like a Medal of Honor citation. Weinmaster didn’t quite jump directly onto a grenade, but he did put himself between the grenade and his fellow marines, shielding them from the explosion and absorbing the blast. More, after surviving that, he got back up, grievously wounded (including having a bit of shrapnel lodged in his brain, where it remains to this day), and continued to fire on the ambushers until literally collapsing from his wounds. Rating acts of valor is a bit of a mug’s game, but having read a fair number of Medal of Honor citations, that account would not, it seems to me, be out of place. The citation, however, is not for a Medal of Honor: Weinmaster was awarded the Navy Cross, the second highest award for sailors and marines. The most substantial difference that I can see from his situation and other recent Medals of Honor is that Weinmaster survived the action.
Does that prove that Medals of Honor are now only given posthumously? No, not particularly: my estimation of Weinmaster’s action is just that, an estimation. I’m not privy to the deliberations that went on surrounding his award. This is entirely evaluative, and evaluative at a level where I am trying to distinguish between two high awards for valor with all the delicacy that that implies. Nor is this a criticism of the Navy or of changing standards. Standards for awarding medals should, I think, change over time as circumstances and understandings change. We are now, rightly, contemplating whether Purple Hearts should be given to those with PTSD, albeit not without a lot of shouting. But Weinmaster’s case is, I think, worthy of consideration and contemplation. It suggests, at least, an example of extreme valor that the military has decided is not worthy of the Medal of Honor (it should be noted that, as has happened in the past, it is possible that Weinmaster’s medal could be upgraded to a Medal of Honor). To make a final, historical point, Weinmaster would have been awarded a Medal of Honor had this happened back in the Philippine-American War, or during the Boxer Rebellion, or even World War I. Having read all the MoH citations for the first two, I can say safely that the PFC’s actions not only equaled those of most of the MoH awardees, but surpassed them.
The Edge of the American West 
37 comments
August 21, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Jason B.
Wow. Great post, great point, great story.
Wow.
August 21, 2009 at 7:14 pm
TF Smith
Silbey –
For a variety of reasons, I have some personal knowledge of what it takes to get a MOH citation through; at the time, and especially after the fact, it gets extraordinarily complex. The evidentiary standards are very high; I know of one case (Army) where the citation was submitted three times before it went through, almost 60 years after the fact – see:
http://history.amedd.army.mil/moh/Salomon.html
I know of another (Navy-Marine Corps) where a former Commandant of the Marine Corps was the final endorser and it is still languishing.
Politics, of course, both domestic and foreign, can be a significant influence; the award to WL McGonagle is a case in point.
The facts are that an MOH citation in the 21st Century is held to a higher standard than in the 20th, and astronomically higher than in the 19th. They even got higher between 1941-42 and 1944-45, as can be seen by reading the citations.
There are also some very real, but unwritten, issues, including commissioned vs enlisted, branch of service, combat arms vs service/support, etc.
It is also worth remembering that the Navy Cross only dates from 1919, and was not restricted to awards for valor (thus moving it up in relation to the DSM) until WW II.
One final point on the DSC, AFC, and Navy Cross, as opposed to the MOH – when it comes to individuals like Puller and Davenport (each with four OLCs to their NC), or Fluckey, Donaho, and Dealey (each with three OLCs), one has to consider two things: survival vis non-survival, and the officer vs enlisted issue.
Best,
August 21, 2009 at 10:00 pm
wry bread
Dave,
Don’t forget, when the MOH was established it was the only medal awarded, a situation lasting until about WW I. My read is is that with fewer options to officially and publicly (the wearing of an award) recognize gallantry, the broader, albeit not lower, the standards. Moreover, anecdotally, the marines since the mid to late twentieth century have prided themselves on being stingier (wc) than the other services. Given their limited numbers and comensurately limited involvement in pre-1917 conflicts this played into creating the myth of an elite service.
August 21, 2009 at 11:34 pm
Daniel De Groot
This has happened in Canada as well with the Victoria Cross (our highest Military valour award). Even in WWII the big majority of winners died in the act. The citations all read like fictional stories of ludicrous bravery and inhuman endurance. The ones who survived did so by sheer miracle, charging straight at machine guns and managing not to get hit by fluke etc.
In my time in the Canadian Forces, even having seen a VC winner at a veterans function or something was anecdote worthy to others.
I suspect what happens is that over time the highest award gains a kind of mythos within military circles. Units boast of having any VC winners, and teach new recruits their stories in regimental history. Thus, for a unit to have a member get one (living or dead) in a contemporary conflict takes on an element of the unreal, like something out of a legend.
So maybe that explains why the politics become difficult. The authorities want to remain impartial, and fear awarding one to this soldier because the other units will demand their medal winners get one too. The awards become so admired that they’re essentially unawardable, particularly to living receipients.
August 22, 2009 at 5:14 am
silbey
Good comments all, folks. It’s a fascinatingly complex issue.
August 22, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Doctor Science
There are also some very real, but unwritten, issues, including commissioned vs enlisted, branch of service, combat arms vs service/support, etc.
I would love to hear you elaborate on these “unwritten issues”. Are they also undiscussed issues, the sort of thing that is “mentioned” with nods and hand gestures, so that they never have to be spelled out?
For instance, you say there are issues of “commissioned vs enlisted”. Do you mean that a given action is more likely to garner the medal for a commission officer? — because the people making the decision are commissioned, too — or for an enlisted? — because bravery is more of an expectation for C.O.s, more beyond the call of duty for enlisted personnel.
I would be astonished if there were not also issues of race and gender, but I dare not guess how they play out.
August 22, 2009 at 3:10 pm
TF Smith
Dr. S –
You don’t have to guess; read the recent history on the awards – mostly from WW II – that were the result of upgrades from DSCs or NCs; these were undertaken as the direct result of inquiries into disparities involving recipients of African-American, Asian-Pacific Islander, and even religious background. Gender obviously has played a role, in that the MOH basic requirement is action above and beyond the call of duty in the face of the enemy…
The unwritten rules are often discussed, actually, and fairly well understood; “tombstone” awards (officer KIA in a last stand, or keeping an aircraft in flight so the crew can bail out); service equity (ground forces vs navy and air); combat vs non-combat (chaplains and medical personnel vs combat arms personnel); etc.
The differential between commissioned vs enlisted is very obvious – enlisted MOH recipients are often as the result of direct combat operations (storming/defending a position, like John Basilone; “single-combat” type action, like Alvin York, etc) which are – usually – not the environments that officers generally, and senior officers, in particular, find themselves in, and the awards show it. Capt. McGonagle’s award is a good example; putting aside the obvious questions of politics inherent in anything dealing with USS Liberty, both are are incredibly deserved, but comparing his with that of Marvin Shields, from roughly the same period, give a pretty good contrast of the vastly different levels of responsibility:
See McGonagle:
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/pers-us/uspers-m/w-mcgngl.htm
See Shields:
http://www.mishalov.com/Shields.html
Another question worth considering is military vs non-military awards; here, for example, is a description of the action of a bunch of (mostly) civilians, fighting “naatzees” as the eminent historian Dr. Tarantino would have it, that compares quite interestingly with the actions of the crew of USS Liberty; except the crew of the SS Stephen Hopkins (most notably, Paul Buck) did not receive the recognition that the captain and crew of the Liberty did:
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/sshopkins.htm
and
http://www.msc.navy.mil/inventory/citations/buck.htm
Best,
August 22, 2009 at 3:31 pm
silbey
I would be astonished if there were not also issues of race and gender, but I dare not guess how they play out.
I can think of at least one example.
August 22, 2009 at 4:55 pm
TF Smith
Silbey –
More than one; I think the final decisions in the reviews of the AA and API DSC/NC recipients ended up with about 15 awards being upgraded, IIRC. There were no AA recipients at all during WW II; it’s pretty clear that was unjust.
The cases of Salomon and Rubin can also be seen as – potentially – having an equity element.
A woman will undoubtedly win the MOH sometime in the next few decades; there was one WW II recipient of the DSC for combat operations (she was an OSS officer) and there have been two Silver Star with V from SW Asia. It is going to be a violent century, I think.
See:
http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2005/fall/extraordinary-stories.html
and
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/30/AR2008043003415.html
Best,
August 22, 2009 at 6:43 pm
silbey
More than one; I think the final decisions in the reviews of the AA and API DSC/NC recipients ended up with about 15 awards being upgraded, IIRC. There were no AA recipients at all during WW II; it’s pretty clear that was unjust.
TF, I think you can assume that I know that; I was pointing out that I’d actually done a post on exactly that topic. It was 22 Asian-Americans, as mentioned in that previous post.
August 23, 2009 at 6:37 am
dan robinson
From my years in the military, medals for merit seemed to be skewed toward awarding better medals to officers than enlisted men. I served in a unit in Germany where the post commander was a general and MOH winner. An NCO in our unit was with the general (then a lieutenant colonel) when their artillery unit was almost overrun. The LTC directed defenses and led the counterattack that saved the firebase. The NCO was with him in all of that. The LTC got the MOH, the NCO got something less.
August 23, 2009 at 9:28 am
dave
Y’know, if the TLA ratio in this thread goes any higher, people are going to be USC PDQ…
August 23, 2009 at 10:08 am
TF Smith
Silbey –
My apologies; not meant to offend.
Best,
August 23, 2009 at 10:32 am
wj
It may be worth noting, in addition, that advances in medical technology mean that a lot of people today survive wounds that, even as recently as Vietnam, would have been fatal. Which further reduces the chances of meeting a “died in combat” test for the Medal of Honor — i.e. there are fewer winners than there would have been for the same kinds of actions, even if the actual wounds received are the same.
August 23, 2009 at 11:42 am
Muffy
i get the impression the NAVY likes recruiting slogans more than anything, and dead really doesn’t cover it. but, that’s my first impression on seeing “NAVY cross”
I might have a biased view from watching “courage under fire” recently
August 23, 2009 at 12:02 pm
silbey
My apologies; not meant to offend.
No worries.
that advances in medical technology mean that a lot of people today survive wounds that, even as recently as Vietnam, would have been fatal.
That’s a nice point, and I’ve been thinking about a post on the advances in military medicine in the last decade, with consequences intended and unintended (people are surviving a lot worse attacks through a combination of better body army, more advanced medical technology, and more advanced medicine [they’re putting doctors right up to the front line now], but the side effect is 1) a lot more limbs lost in survivors, and 2) a lot more traumatic head injuries in survivors).
August 23, 2009 at 9:28 pm
TF Smith
Muffy –
I may be especially obstuse, but I don’t understand your point regarding the Navy Cross.
Silbey –
Thanks.
August 24, 2009 at 3:55 am
ajay
I think that Muffy may be under the impression that “NAVY CROSS” is some sort of counterpart slogan to “ARMY STRONG”…
August 24, 2009 at 5:27 am
tpb
So: Navy Cross: Join the Navy and Get Your Miffed On.
August 24, 2009 at 11:53 am
ScottyMac
A quick view from a military outsider: After a screening of “Conscientious Objector,” a documentary of the events surrounding his actions in the Pacific during WWII, I had the opportunity to shake hands with MOH awardee Desmond Doss. The amazing story of bravery depicted in the documentary aside, there was something quite striking and affecting in having the opportunity to actually meet him, if only for a moment, a fact demonstrated when nearly everyone in attendance (around 250 people, as I recall), lined up to gently take the hand of the 90-some-year old, wheelchair-bound man. The man up on the screen, in spite of the skill of the filmmakers, was still to some extent an abstract, larger-than-life hero. The man in the wheelchair confronts you with his comfortable humanity, giving you an opportunity to place yourself in his shoes, and consider what it would take to act as he did.
We often note how little direct connection there is nowadays between our soldiers and the public at large, but by restricting the MOH mostly to the deceased, we may be giving up an opportunity to transmit important values from one generation to the next.
August 24, 2009 at 12:05 pm
silbey
We often note how little direct connection there is nowadays between our soldiers and the public at large, but by restricting the MOH mostly to the deceased, we may be giving up an opportunity to transmit important values from one generation to the next.
That’s a lovely point. May I steal it for my next post on the topic? (full credit given).
August 24, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Anderson
I served in a unit in Germany where the post commander was a general and MOH winner.
Surely not an MOH winner for acts performed while a general? I am trying to think what that could be.
August 24, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Erik Lund
Here’s a thought to worry about. Dominque Barthelemy has just consolidated his long attack on the “Feudal Revolution of the year 1000,” in which he amongst other targets, takes on supposed upwardly mobile soldiers of fortune.
One key point is that while lower class milites could show the same kind of bravery as nobles, the narrative always has them dying to do so, taking care of any socially awkward loose ends.
Valour was not allowed to be a challenge to the existing, immobile, social order.
In reality, no doubt, any living hero just had his grandfather retconned into the nobility, but isn’t that the kind of pulling-the-ladder-up-after-him play we fret about today with respect to, for example, higher education?
August 24, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Doctor Science
Thanks for the info, TF.
I’ve been actually thinking about the converse of ScottyMac’s anecdote. The advantage to mostly posthumous MOHs might be that there are no pesky live winners around, to either (a) develop a cult of personality around them, or (b) say inconvenient things. If the object of the award is to develop a narrative of military virtue, it really helps if there’s no living narrator to muddy the message. Or to exploit it for their own purposes, either.
August 24, 2009 at 1:16 pm
ScottyMac
Silby: Please do.
August 24, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Josh
Or to exploit it for their own purposes, either.
You mean like Bud Day?
August 24, 2009 at 6:33 pm
serofriend
I think Day fits both (a) and (b).
August 24, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Doctor Science
Josh:
I was thinking more of Julius Caesar, or Sgt. York. We haven’t had a sufficiently charismatic MOH winner collide with reality TV … yet … but it’s a scary thought.
August 25, 2009 at 5:00 am
ajay
Surely not an MOH winner for acts performed while a general? I am trying to think what that could be.
Unsuccessfully defending the Philippines (Douglas MacArthur).
August 25, 2009 at 5:28 am
snarkout
That’s an interesting and all-too-plausible idea, Dr. Science. Either reality TV or Joe-the-Plumber-esque punditry would probably have been an easier career path for today’s Audie Murphy. The original wasn’t really a success in Hollywood despite the assistance of Jimmy Cagney.
August 25, 2009 at 6:05 am
ajay
Although the UK has an equally well developed reality-industrial complex, we have yet to see Johnson Beharry VC become part of it, or indeed make much of his celebrity except for an autobiography and a few speaking engagements. (Plus, presumably, never ever having to buy a drink again in his life.)
This may be due to one of: the UK doesn’t apotheose its soldiers to the same degree as the US; Beharry is a fairly modest guy; persistent pain from head trauma isn’t the best qualification for sitting in front of cameras all day surrounded by mewling quasi-celebrities.
August 25, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Erik Lund
And for a long time (that is to say, during my single visit) Kent’s Kitchen in Vancouver’s downtown Chinatown had a single table reserved in the centre, complete with a single bottle of hot sauce standing amidst the sea of bare white cafeteria tables, for one of the few Chinese-Canadian veterans of WWII. The vet would come in around noon to enjoy real home cooking (stir fried liver and vegetables, anyone?) and preside over lunch. The regular I was with made sure to point out his service ring to me.
August 25, 2009 at 6:16 pm
TF Smith
Dr. S –
Not a problem.
Semper F
August 26, 2009 at 2:40 am
ajay
A closer parallel to the MoH winner/reality TV celebrity thing is probably the early astronauts. Read “The Right Stuff”. John Glenn managed to make quite a good thing out of it in political terms.
September 3, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Vietnam Vet
The standards for the Medal of Honor must remain very high, Politics must be kept out of it. In today’s military with so many officers in the seals, and special forces, they get their chance also. The first MOH could not go to officers. We had two living MOH recipients here in Idaho for many years, they were quiet soft spoken people and tried to remain out of the limelight, except the news media would show up and bug them, there are some medals that are only awarded to senior officers, (none for valor)
September 6, 2009 at 10:02 pm
Jonathan Dresner
FYI: HNN article on MOH standards
September 10, 2009 at 11:22 am
USMC
This is an interesting thread. The amount of MOH’s awarded to officers as compared to enlisted, and the percentage of enlisted recipients that were postumously awarded compared to the officers who were awarded and survived are seriously skewed. This came to my attention while visiting the MOH museum at Patriots Point in Charleston SC, and the Marine Corps Museum in Quantico, VA. I noticed that the MOH was originally intended for the enlisted and eventually was opened up to officers. In this comment I will give rough figures and estimates, if you want the exact figures do the research. They stuck out like a sore thumb. The differences were astronomical.
I believe it was around the Vietnam War that I noticed that many more officers were being awarded the MOH, and if you counted every posthumous award you would notice that rarely an enlisted serviceman was awarded an MOH and survived but a much larger percentage (and I believe it was around 50%) of the officers survived. Also the percentage of MOH’s awarded to officers in proporortion to officers in the battlefield compared to enlisted personel based on the same criteria was also greatly in favor of the officers. Giving a rough estimate of 80 enlisted to 1 officer ratio at best the same ratio would apply to the MOH- not true.
One of the criteria for the MOH is for actions initiated by the recipient for which he was not ordered to perform, so why would someone be awarded for ordering actions? Is this not what they are supposed to do and they themselves are not actually doing the actions. Also how many officers actually find themselves charging a machine gun nest or jumping on a grenade? If I remember correctly there were none. It is generally not in an officers responsibility to be sitting in an OP, guarding the wire, or patrolling in a small squad so the chances are slim that he would be involved in many of the actions that result in a MOH.
When I returned from the Gulf War in 1991 all of our LT’s were awarded Bronze Stars and all of our Captains were awarded Silver Stars and none of the enlisted personel were awarded anything higher than a Navy Achievement Medal. To be completely honest with you, the actions we were involved in (my unit) are nothing like what was going on in Vietnam or are going on in Iraq or Afghanistan now. The Bronze and Silver Stars were not earned and were completely political. I was a grunt in the Marines just to clarify my experiences.
I also had a high school friend who was with an AAV battalion and after I read an article in the Stars and Stripes describing the actions of his CO who earned the Silver Star we spoke, I congratulated him and told him that I had read the article. He laughed and said it was complete BS. He was on the same track as the Captain and they had pulled up to some bunkers were everyone dismounted and went to clear out the bunkers. My friend was left to guard the AAV and maintain comm. He said a few minutes later a bunch of Iraqis came from the other direction (they were hiding out) and surrendered to him. He was alone and thought he was going to die. They peacefully surrendered and he processed them alone. When the troops came back they helped him. The officer was awarded the Siver Star for actions that the my friend had performed. My friend who is an honest person also stated that no one should have received a Siver Star for that including himself.
I would imagine that more troops today are being awarded medals that they deserve than when I was in, but I still believe there is an old boys club within the officers ranks that are writing themselves up for medals for political and career purposes.
My point that I am trying to make is that when I see an officer awarded the MOH and survived, and sometimes even deceased it makes me think about all of the enlisted men that were awarded it posthumously or were awarded a lesser medal for actions far exceeding what the officers did to earn it, it makes me question the legitimacy of the award. It is a shame and it cheapens the names of the men who actually did something “above and beyond the call of duty”.
PS. By the way I also remember reading in the Stars and Stripes about an E-7 working in the chow hall at Camp Pendleton who was awarded Bronze Star during the Gulf War- he had never left the base. The Marines are stingy on giving awards, if this is what I observed while I was in I can just imagine the abuses of the other services.