A Matter Of Honor
October 7th 2009 19:20
On April 1, 1942, General Douglas MacArthur was awarded the Medal of Honor. His citation read:
“For conspicuous leadership in preparing the Philippine Islands to resist conquest, for gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty in action against invading Japanese forces, and for the heroic conduct of defensive and offensive operations on the Bataan Peninsula. He mobilized, trained, and led an army which has received world acclaim for its gallant defense against a tremendous superiority of enemy forces in men and arms. His utter disregard of personal danger under heavy fire and aerial bombardment, his calm judgment in each crisis, inspired his troops, galvanized the spirit of resistance of the Filipino people, and confirmed the faith of the American people in their Armed Forces.”
After the Japanese invasion of the Philipines, MacArthur was ordered by President Franklin Roosevelt to relocate to Melbourne, Australia, leaving the defense of Bataan to Major General Jonathan Wainwright. MacArthur, from Australia, ordered the American forces not to retreat, but U.S. forces surrendered when they saw no other recourse. This led to the infamous Bataan Death March, during which 5,000 Filipinos and 1,000 Americans died at the hands of their brutal Japanese guards.
After the surrender of Bataan, General Wainwright was held in prison camps in Luzon, Formosa and Manchuria. MacArthur was extremely angry that Wainwright had surrendered U.S. forces to the Japanese, and he, at first, refused to sign Wainwright’s Medal of Honor citation. Upon Wainwright’s return to the U.S., he was awarded the Medal of Honor.
The Medal of Honor is the highest military award bestowed by the U.S. military on a man or woman who is a member of the U.S. armed forces and who distinguishes him/herself “conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his/her life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in action against an enemy of the United States.” Should MacArthur, by the previous criteria, have been judged worthy to receive the Medal of Honor? Should he have sat in judgement of Wainwright, who more closely met the criteria for the Medal of Honor, and been able to deny him the honor?
On October 1, 2009, Ed Hooper wrote “Leave the Medal of Honor Alone” (The Washington Post, Ed Hooper, 10/1/09) in response to groups and lawmakers who are pushing the military to award the Medal of Honor more frequently; it has only been awarded six times since the September 11 attack. These groups believe the criteria for awarding the medal to be too stringent, and they want the criteria relaxed, believing those who received lesser awards qualify for the Medal of Honor. They feel that President George Bush, acting out of fear of political repercussions, instructed the military to be overly careful during their investigations of Medal of Honor nominees.
Hooper writes that relaxing the criteria would cheapen the award, which has happened many times. In 1917, the 911 of the medals were recalled from those deemed not worthy of the award, with 864 of the recalled awards having been given for service during the Civil War (some for just re-enlisting).
I wonder if the relatives of those who received the Medal of Honor posthumously receive comfort from the fact that their loved one was so honored for the service they gave to their fellow service members and country? Do they find solace in the fact that there are those among us who question the motives for awarding the honor and want to broaden its scope?
All of our service men and women who have received awards for bravery and gallantry during combat deserve our respect and admiration, not just those awarded the Medal of Honor. Only those who have had to faced death in combat should be able to judge whose sacrifice during armed conflict is worth what award. Politicians, who care only about their image and their careers, and self-aggrandizing generals, should have no say in the matter. They are all poor judges of character, including their own.
“For conspicuous leadership in preparing the Philippine Islands to resist conquest, for gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty in action against invading Japanese forces, and for the heroic conduct of defensive and offensive operations on the Bataan Peninsula. He mobilized, trained, and led an army which has received world acclaim for its gallant defense against a tremendous superiority of enemy forces in men and arms. His utter disregard of personal danger under heavy fire and aerial bombardment, his calm judgment in each crisis, inspired his troops, galvanized the spirit of resistance of the Filipino people, and confirmed the faith of the American people in their Armed Forces.”
After the Japanese invasion of the Philipines, MacArthur was ordered by President Franklin Roosevelt to relocate to Melbourne, Australia, leaving the defense of Bataan to Major General Jonathan Wainwright. MacArthur, from Australia, ordered the American forces not to retreat, but U.S. forces surrendered when they saw no other recourse. This led to the infamous Bataan Death March, during which 5,000 Filipinos and 1,000 Americans died at the hands of their brutal Japanese guards.
After the surrender of Bataan, General Wainwright was held in prison camps in Luzon, Formosa and Manchuria. MacArthur was extremely angry that Wainwright had surrendered U.S. forces to the Japanese, and he, at first, refused to sign Wainwright’s Medal of Honor citation. Upon Wainwright’s return to the U.S., he was awarded the Medal of Honor.
The Medal of Honor is the highest military award bestowed by the U.S. military on a man or woman who is a member of the U.S. armed forces and who distinguishes him/herself “conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his/her life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in action against an enemy of the United States.” Should MacArthur, by the previous criteria, have been judged worthy to receive the Medal of Honor? Should he have sat in judgement of Wainwright, who more closely met the criteria for the Medal of Honor, and been able to deny him the honor?
On October 1, 2009, Ed Hooper wrote “Leave the Medal of Honor Alone” (The Washington Post, Ed Hooper, 10/1/09) in response to groups and lawmakers who are pushing the military to award the Medal of Honor more frequently; it has only been awarded six times since the September 11 attack. These groups believe the criteria for awarding the medal to be too stringent, and they want the criteria relaxed, believing those who received lesser awards qualify for the Medal of Honor. They feel that President George Bush, acting out of fear of political repercussions, instructed the military to be overly careful during their investigations of Medal of Honor nominees.
Hooper writes that relaxing the criteria would cheapen the award, which has happened many times. In 1917, the 911 of the medals were recalled from those deemed not worthy of the award, with 864 of the recalled awards having been given for service during the Civil War (some for just re-enlisting).
I wonder if the relatives of those who received the Medal of Honor posthumously receive comfort from the fact that their loved one was so honored for the service they gave to their fellow service members and country? Do they find solace in the fact that there are those among us who question the motives for awarding the honor and want to broaden its scope?
All of our service men and women who have received awards for bravery and gallantry during combat deserve our respect and admiration, not just those awarded the Medal of Honor. Only those who have had to faced death in combat should be able to judge whose sacrifice during armed conflict is worth what award. Politicians, who care only about their image and their careers, and self-aggrandizing generals, should have no say in the matter. They are all poor judges of character, including their own.
| 23 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
