It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The Pentagon is considering awarding a Distinguished Warfare Medal to drone pilots who work on military bases often far removed from the battlefield.
Pentagon officials have been briefed on the medal’s “unique concept,” Charles V. Mugno, head of the Army Institute of Heraldry, told a recent meeting of the Commission of Fine Arts, according to a report in Coin World by our former colleague Bill McAllister.
Mugno said most combat decorations require “boots on the ground” in a combat zone, but he noted that “emerging technologies” such as drones and cyber combat missions are now handled by troops far removed from combat.
The Pentagon has not formally endorsed the medal, but Mugno’s institute has completed six alternate designs for commission approval
A “manned aircraft . . . that scrapes the top of a combat zone, well outside the range of any realistic threat” is deemed in “combat,” Blair writes, but a Predator firing a missile is considered “combat support.”
The proposed medal would rank between the Distinguished Flying Cross and the Soldier’s Medal for exceptional conduct outside a combat zone.
Pakistan is at war. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that there are several interrelated armed conflicts underway in Pakistan. By this report's conservative estimate about 35,600 Pakistanis have been killed from 2004-2010 and more than 40,000 have been injured during that period by the various parties to the conflict. Given the pace of the fighting in 2011, several thousand more have likely already been killed and wounded this year. Specifically, from January to through August 2011 about 400 have been killed in drone strikes, and another 500 killed in 2011 by militant suicide attacks. Since 2004, perhaps as many or more civilians may have died due to armed conflict in Pakistan as have died in Afghanistan. Most of the fighting is concentrated in the Northwest, but the bloodshed not infrequently affects civilians throughout the rest of the country
Pakistan is at war. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that there are several interrelated armed conflicts underway in Pakistan. By this report's conservative estimate about 35,600 Pakistanis have been killed from 2004-2010 and more than 40,000 have been injured during that period by the various parties to the conflict. Given the pace of the fighting in 2011, several thousand more have likely already been killed and wounded this year. Specifically, from January to through August 2011 about 400 have been killed in drone strikes, and another 500 killed in 2011 by militant suicide attacks. Since 2004, perhaps as many or more civilians may have died due to armed conflict in Pakistan as have died in Afghanistan. Most of the fighting is concentrated in the Northwest, but the bloodshed not infrequently affects civilians throughout the rest of the country
Originally posted by justwokeup
As a service medal its not so ridiculous.
True, theres no personal risk involved, but you are possibly making decisions to kill people in real time. In some cases due to bad intel possibly innocent people, and then getting to see your bloody handiwork in HD.
Like it or loath it, its here to stay as a facet of modern war and its not the same as stacking tins of peas.
Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
Originally posted by justwokeup
As a service medal its not so ridiculous.
True, theres no personal risk involved, but you are possibly making decisions to kill people in real time. In some cases due to bad intel possibly innocent people, and then getting to see your bloody handiwork in HD.
Like it or loath it, its here to stay as a facet of modern war and its not the same as stacking tins of peas.
Regrettably I'm not quite sure I understood the tone of your post...no offense. I believe you may have missed my main point of my OP, but that's okay, perhaps I did not do a good enough job of explaining my point.
My main concern is that as effective as this type of warfare maybe, it is unethical and morally wrong. There is no justification for bombing whole villages in the hopes of killing one "militant" who in reality is just a regular Joe defending his homeland from a barbaric invasion based on corporate and strategic expansion. These wars are just garbage, and the methods they fight these wars are even worse.
These are just my thoughts so I don't necessarily expect all of you to agree with me.
Do you see any difference between piloting a drone, firing a tomahawk from a submarine 50 miles off the coast or dropping a JDAM from a B52 unseen and untouchable above?
Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by justwokeup
Do you see any difference between piloting a drone, firing a tomahawk from a submarine 50 miles off the coast or dropping a JDAM from a B52 unseen and untouchable above?
That is a very good question.
To be honest, I think those other methods are also unecessary, but that is just my opinion. I don't see a difference whether the strike comes from a drone or all the other options you mentioned.
I was rather disturbed by the massacre by NATO in Libya with the Tomahawk and jet airplane strikes so yes those methods bother me as well. I don't have the stats to back this up so you can consider it as speculation but drone warfare is a constant reality for the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan and more recently Yemen and a few other countries from what I have seen.
Sorry, I'm just terribly against innocents being slaughtered then the culprits of the murder justify their actions by labeling the victims as "militants" or "terrorists".
No way in hell does this deserve any recognition in the form of a medal.
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I see no problem with giving the drone operators service medals. They give those out like candy at a Birthday party. My Father once joked before he passed away and I learned what he did on his second tour in Vietnam that his Vietnam Service Ribbon was the prettiest thing he ever saw awarded for serving Ice Cream. He'd been on the supply ships off the Northern Coast on his first trip...hence the Ice Cream Ref.
So...a medal to say they did that and participated in combat operations sounds fair. They sure aren't earning a true combat medal or merit based award, in my view. Giving them something of their own prevents some idiot from just saying 'we have nothing else...so...' and going ahead to give them the same medal an Airman at Bagram or the former Camp Victory would have received after really being there in person.
Of course, if these really come to be awarded with some meaning of risk and sacrifice implied, someone needs to explain how a 19-20yr old in an Air Conditioned trailer at Creech Air Force Base, Nevada or a little parking lot in a nondescript suburb of Kuwait City risked anything more than paper cuts and eye strain.
A recognition of the evolving 21st Century warfare, the medal will be considered a bit higher in ranking than the Bronze Star, but is lower than the Silver Star, defense officials said.
The Bronze Star is the fourth highest combat decoration and rewards meritorious service in battle, while the Silver Star is the third highest combat award given for bravery. Several other awards, including the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, are also ranked higher, but are not awarded for combat.