Posted on Jun 7, 2018
When can we finally be done with these "give me" awards like the NDSM and GWOTSM?
7.01K
24
15
3
3
0
I am a firm believer that we should no longer be issuing the National Defense Service medal or the Global War on Terror service medal (atleast to those who have yet to truly go forward deployed and protect this country). When can we finally be done with these give me awards?
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 4
That's fair. In fact, it could be argued that wearing the uniform is as good as the NDSM or GWOT. Then again, what harm do they do? And how do you reconcile the fact that some will have them and some won't when all have served under the same conditions? Do we take them back?
(7)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
That’s the point I am getting at sir. If we just continue on because we cannot come up with an end to what seems like a no win situation one must just pull the cord and hope we packed the parachute correctly.
(1)
(0)
SP5 Michael Cates
I agree Jack! The uniform is maybe just as good as the Medal or Ribbon! It is what's inside the person that we REMEMBER not the Medal/She was wearing! It is that old saying that it is what's INSIDE that COUNTS!!!!
(0)
(0)
Since they are for joining/serving during a time of war, and we are still deploying combat troops, at least the NDSM is appropriate being awarded as it always has been. The GWOTSM is probably outdated, and we should arguably just have the appropriate campaign medals though.
(5)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Actually Bush declared war without congress which means it was only for 30 days. Yes, members of the armed forces are still over there but the deaths are significantly less. I am not saying taking it away from those members but those who have yet the opportunity
(1)
(0)
2LT (Join to see)
No, declaration of war is a specific governmental term, and the Unites States has not done it as a nation since WWII.
Congress did authorize Iraq (Public Law No: 107-243, Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002)
Afghanistan was balled up under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF, Public law No: 107-4)
A President May take military action to protect US interests for 30 days without congress, but that is not a declaration of war.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States
Congress did authorize Iraq (Public Law No: 107-243, Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002)
Afghanistan was balled up under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF, Public law No: 107-4)
A President May take military action to protect US interests for 30 days without congress, but that is not a declaration of war.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States
Declaration of war by the United States - Wikipedia
A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation and another. The document Declarations of War and Authorizations for the Use of Military Force: Historical Background and Legal Implications gives an extensive listing and summary of statutes which are automatically engaged upon the US declaring war.
(0)
(0)
2LT (Join to see)
Lol, I think that since we are still using the same AUMF and still have 10,000 troops, and nearly 20,000 contractors associated with Afghanistan alone, an equal amount in Iraq/Syria, and then that number over again in Africa/Asia, it's still a thing.
I'm not about gimme medals, I'm with you, but I think if we have an active campaign medal (still awarded for the "war in Afghanistan") it's fair enough that kids are joining during a time of war for the NDSM. I agree that makes an automatic GWOT Service too much though.
I'm not about gimme medals, I'm with you, but I think if we have an active campaign medal (still awarded for the "war in Afghanistan") it's fair enough that kids are joining during a time of war for the NDSM. I agree that makes an automatic GWOT Service too much though.
(0)
(0)
A case could be made that the NDSM and GWOTSM are redundant based on the history of conflict related service medals since WWII. During WWII military members were awarded the American Campaign Medal for service in the United for various periods of service based on branch of service. It was the "I served in WWII but didn't necessarily go anywhere" medal. If they were sent overseas they received the service medal(s) appropriate for the theater(s) in which they served. In 1953 the National Defense Service Medal was authorized for all that served honorably during a designated period of national emergency usually defined as war or conflict regardless of where they served. In '53 the NDSM was awarded for service during the Korean War, Conflict or Police Action effective from '50 to '54. Those that served in Korea and environs also received the Korean Service Medal. The next emergency period was declared for the period 1961 to 1974, the Vietnam Era. Those that served but didn't go to Vietnam received the NDSM; those the went to Vietnam one way or the other received the Vietnam service Medal as well. The Gulf War('90 to '95) worked the same way. The NDSM for those who served but not in the war zone and the NDSM and the SWASM for those in the war zone. So there's the tradition - a service medal for serving during a declared national emergency but not going to the actual site of the emergency and a service medal for serving in the area of conflict. Nowadays there's the NDSM for all who served in the current period of national emergency(9/11 through a date to be announced), a Global War On Terrorism Service Medal for all who served in a period so far concurrent with the current eligibility for the NDSM whether or not the service includes deployment to those areas of conflict for which service medals(ASM,ISM, IRSM and GWOTEM) are awarded. That's an "I served during a national emergency"medal, an "And that emergency was the War on Terrorism, but I didn't necessarily go anywhere" medal and, finally, a "During the current national emergency here's where I went" medal(s). Based on historical precedent the GWOTSM is redundant. Based on current awards practice maybe not so much...
(3)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Thanks for the input. I suppose I made a all to vague post. All those conflicts had an end while this one does not seem to have an end. I just feel it may be time to look at what we must do to call the overall concept complete and only give those medals to those who serve in the areas now. An odd concept yes as that’s not what they are suppose to do.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next