Risk, Rigour and REMFs - the new criteria for the OP SHADER medal.

The Secretary of State for Defence has announced that the eligibility criteria for the OP SHADER medal has been extended to include personnel outside of the ‘conventional area of operations’ including Reaper pilots (link HERE). The decision to extend the award to personnel not directly based in theatre has caused some discussion on the internet, including by many who feel that the ‘risk and rigour’ criteria of supporting operations from home is minimal.

Medal eligibility criteria is an intensely controversial topic, guaranteed to arouse strong emotions in anyone who has served. The UK medal system is divided into three main categories – distinguished conduct & gallantry medals (such as the Victoria Cross), Campaign medals (such as the Operational Service Medal) and Jubilee / long service medals. Every medal has different qualifying criteria, ranging from acts of supreme valour through to serving for a specified period.

The eligibility for these awards varies depending on where you served, what unit you were with and how often you flew into the operational theatre, which in turn determines the type of medal or clasp you receive. For instance the Gulf 1991 medal has different criteria ranging from 30 days service in theatre between August 1990 and March 1991, while the combat phase requires only 7 days service. Other operations such as participation in OP BARRAS (rescue of hostages) require one days service to qualify for the Sierra Leone OSM.

The point where it becomes contentious is distinguishing the area of operations and asking whether people are exposed to sufficient risk or rigour. Were people in Cyprus at risk during TELIC, and should they qualify for the same TELIC medal (albeit without clasp) as others operating in the JOA?

There is a strong argument to be made that the chain of support to operations is extensive, and that from the foxhole on the front line, there is a long line of people all the way back to the UK involved in supporting and delivering operational success. At what point do you draw the line between qualifying for medallic recognition and simply acknowledging that someone was doing the job expected of them?

Medal Worthy? Image by Ministry of Defence; © Crown copyright

A Risky Business

 In the case of OP SHADER, the extension of the medal award criteria to Reaper crews, often based in the UK or elsewhere is seen, by some, as controversial. There is a view held that to be based at home, on two-year tours and living with your family and commuting to work every day does not constitute ‘risk and rigour’ in the same way as others operationally deployed experience. Why should someone sitting in the comfort and security of an air-conditioned box at RAF Waddington qualify for the same design of medal as a junior private on watch in a dusty sangar in the heat of the Iraqi desert?

The issue Humphrey has with this sort of argument is that the definition of ‘risk and rigour’ is not uniformly accepted. For example, the OP HERRICK medal with ‘Afghanistan’ clasp was awarded to everyone who served 30 days on the ground in theatre. A relatively small proportion of the at times 10,000 strong UK contingent was daily exposed to extreme risk, danger and heavy casualties, existing in isolated patrol bases and in a real battle for survival. Many many more of the force arrived in Bastion or Kandahar, having done the slightly surreal descent in darkness wearing body armour in the back of the Tristar. 

Many of  them did not leave the camp, or ever do anything which could be construed as ‘risky’ (e.g. going outside the wire) and arguably simply did their day job in a barracks like environment, albeit in the desert – as anyone (Humphrey included) who transited through Bastion found when encountering the ‘bullshit baffles brain' barrack routines inflicted on all comers by bored SNCOs and SO2s with nothing better to occupy their time. Are these people, who spent 6 months living in an environment of hardened accommodation, eating at Tim Horton’s donut stores, shopping for DVDs in US Armed Forces ‘PX’ supermarkets and never once being exposed to actual risk from hostile forces entitled to the same medal as an infanteer in a patrol base near Sangin?

In the case of the RAF reaper force, Humphrey feels that there is an exceptionally strong argument for their inclusion into the awards for this medal. Drone operations are a particularly surreal way of supporting military operations – sitting in a ISO container with phenomenally clear imagery and watching live developments in an operational war zone, the crew see and witness some horrendous sights. They are also expected to take human life on a regular basis, firing missiles into targets where their actions will directly result in another person’s death.

They do this against the backdrop of home life, coming in to work in the morning, supporting ongoing operations but still being able to pick the kids up from school and go home at night. This is rightly not risky in the sense that they are not going to be exposed to IDF from militia forces, but there is a very strong element of mental rigour attached. This is in the sense of the mental pressure felt by having to conduct weeks of surveillance on a target, gaining an intimate understanding of their life, without being seen, and then at a time and place of your choosing, be responsible for killing them. This is an emotionally brutal form of operations, and one that potentially poses significant psychological risk.

Part of the challenge comes from not being able to switch into an ‘operational tour mentality’ – when Humphrey has deployed he has used the period of going from the Gateway ‘hotel’ (whose TripAdvisor entry is HERE) to getting to theatre to compartmentalise his time away. The use of ‘chuff charts’ and counting down to R&R etc all forms part of the process of being away – you know you have a start date and an end date – and that all being well, you will return home in due course. Reaper crews do not have the same luxury – they live at home and do this day in, day out – it is a long slog and one that doesn’t have a defined end date. This is an intense mental and emotional commitment to make, and one that is worthy of recognition.

Recognising the Problem?

Part of the problem stems from a sense by some traditionalists that we are somehow ‘becoming American’ in awarding medals. This is due to a common misunderstanding that the US ‘salad bar’ of decorations (essentially a CV worn on their uniform to denote their career history) is the same as the award of a medal.

In fact, the UK is probably the most parsimonious nation out there with regards to medal awards – other than the blip of the 1990s and early 00s when it was possible to accrue many medals, often for short tours across UN peacekeeping, national operations and long service, it is increasingly likely that most UK personnel will have few medals in future. Already it is getting rarer to spot people holding both the Afghanistan and Iraq OSM’s, and there is no GSM for Northern Ireland anymore. Similarly the days of  'double bubble' whereby it was possible to get two medals due to being in the same JOA as criteria changed have also gone (e.g. people who have got the Air Ops Iraq and TELIC medal from the same deployment).

Part of this reluctance to award medals seems to stem from what some characterise as an Army dominated mentality of ‘there must be demonstrable risk and rigour’ to qualify. While this may be a stereotyping, it is reasonable to note that many RN operations continue to fail to qualify for medallic recognition, despite placing very significant pressure on their crew – for instance on OP KIPION where RN vessels are transiting the Bab-Al-Mendab straits and under direct risk of coming under anti-ship missile fire from hostile forces. In 2017 HMS DARING spent considerable periods of time closed up at action stations, sailing alongside UK entitled vessels to protect them from attack in waters where warships have been previously fired on. This is far closer to risk than many Army personnel will ever experience, yet does not yet qualify for a medal.

While some may mock it, the need for medallic recognition is seen as an important rite of passage by many service personnel. Humphrey remembers feeling very self-conscious when in his No1 uniform until he’d earned his TELIC medal, feeling that he had not proven himself. There is also the subtle hierarchy established, between those who parade with a veritable rack of medals acquired in difficult places, and those who turn up with a rack of ‘The Great Battle of the Jubilee Campaign 2002-2012’ medals.

The reality is that not everyone who has served automatically deserves a medal just for doing their job, but equally many of those who ‘merely’ have long service medals have actually spent time away from home, often in demanding situations supporting operations that never qualified for a medal. One only has to look at the huge asks placed on the RAF force in Cyprus, where many personnel have forward deployed, working very long hours doing difficult and challenging work to support the aircraft deployed on OP SHADER. They may not be subject to any particular risk, but they are away from home, working in difficult conditions and subject to constraints and restrictions on their life for a long period of time.

Deploying in such a manner doesn’t make the pressures of being away easier – Humphrey has done long deployments (over 6 months) in locations where it was an operational battle rhythm. It was just as emotionally and mentally challenging to be away from home for a long period of time, and the pressures and frustrations of long hours, 7-day weeks and difficult challenging work were just as clearly felt as when he was on TELIC or HERRICK. The only difference was no medal was awarded – the rigour was there but was not deemed quantifiable.

 It is particularly difficult for more junior service personnel who are away a lot, but don’t qualify for medals to explain to friends and family why they’ve not got one. This may seem obvious, but in the eyes of many of the public, if you deploy to serve your country, surely you deserve a medal – if you’ve not got one, then were you really deployed?

This frustration was perhaps keenly felt by the reservists who worked for large companies that Humphrey used to work with, who mobilised into difficult roles overseas, did superb work but came back without a medal – when they met with their company directors alongside others who’d gone to Iraq or Afghanistan to talk about their experience, there were often pointed questions about whether they’d really been deployed or if it had been a jolly. In turn this sort of gentle cynicism undermined goodwill towards reservists, as employers who thought they were supporting a national effort felt instead that the lack of a medal meant they’d been taken advantage of by HM Government to solve a short-term manning problem. The long-term loss of goodwill it generated was potentially damaging for the reservist recruitment cause.

Rewarding the Solution

Maybe the solution is to try and find a compromise and establish a so-called ‘Campaign Service Medal’? There is already an Accumulated Campaign Service Medal (ACSM) which is awarded for 720 days deployed service (and which several Civil Servants have been awarded purely for their deployments as civilians). This is quite a hard medal to get unless you are in a role which is likely to see you already possessing several medals anyway from prior deployments.

 The idea for the Campaign Service Medal is to set a reasonable qualifying criteria (say 180 days) and award it to UK military and civil service personnel who deploy on Operations that have an official Op name, but do not have specific medal qualifying criteria. There are dozens of such operations underway at any time – as the list HERE of BFPO numbers issued for Operations shows. These are often highly demanding and place heavy commitment on their people – indeed the preparation for an operational deployment can be as long, if not longer, than the operation itself.

Similarly there are issues like the constant commitment of RN MCMV crews to Bahrain to support the vessels based out there (many of whose personnel in the Mine Warfare community are now on their 8^th or 9^th 4 month tour of Bahrain in 10 years), or the SSN community who engage in ‘challenging’ operations that are highly secret and not publicly recognised (hence the suggestion at times of an award for submariners known as the MT1.2 award).

Creating a ‘campaign service medal’ would fill the gap where the work does not meet the criteria for the award of the 2008 General Service Medal. It could be used as a one time award to recognise when an individual has deployed away from home to conduct challenging work and which visibly recognises their efforts and personal sacrifices. Such an award would be relatively low cost, but the value from retention and morale may be significant – it captures the gap in the market between campaign medals and long service medals, and ensures that people who do deploy are not ‘seen off’.

Changing Times, Changing Values...

We should bear in mind too that the criteria for the awarding of medals changes on a regular basis. What to us today seems extraordinary would seem to our forbears to be merely mildly noteworthy. As a means of illuminating this, below is a copy of the citation for the award of the Military Medal to Humphreys grandfather in WW2, who served in the Infantry in Africa, Italy and Europe from 1940-45. It was only found after his death, and it is at times hard to imagine that the kindly old gentleman who so loved his cigars and whiskey was the same person in the text below.

Humphrey is probably hugely biased in saying that it’s an impressive write up of an extremely brave series of actions. He kept a copy of it with him as a reminder during HERRICK that no matter how bad a day it was, others before him had often far more challenging ones…

On the night of 24/25^th June 44, Rfn ‘Appleby’ was in a vehicle returning from a Recce in the Caen area when the road on which he was travelling was heavily attacked by enemy planes. The drivers of an Ammunition and Petrol replenishment convoy moving along the road in the opposite direction, left their vehicles to take cover and so blocked the roads, preventing any movement along it.

Without hesitation Rfn ‘Appleby’ despite the heavy bombing and strafing ran across the road to the Ammunition and Petrol lorries and personally drove eight of them away and so cleared the road, enabling the tanks to move forward.

He then heard a cry for help from a wounded man who had been injured on a mine and was lying in the middle of a minefield. Rfn ‘Appleby’ then ran across the minefield to his assistance, but on finding the man too badly injured to be lifted, went back for a stretcher and then went back across the minefield for the third time. With the assistance of another man, who also run into the minefield but was uninjured Rfn Appleby bought the wounded man on the stretcher back to safety, but first he crawled forward using himself as a ‘human mine-detector’ to find a safe passage through the minefield, and on the way disconnected two booby trapped mines.

Throughout the whole period the area was being heavily bombed and strafed. This Rfns courage, prompt action and complete disregard for his own personal safety was an inspiration to others, no doubt was the means of saving the vehicles, stores and a wounded comrades life.

The citation was written and signed by the units CO, but never approved beyond Unit level, and the medal was not awarded. The only proof left of the act is the copy of the draft citation. In a time of global war, where many normal men and women had been drafted into the armed forces, the view seems to have been that this sort of action was not sufficiently risky or rigorous enough to warrant recognition. There are many forgotten tales like this out there, and we should remember that medallic recognition can only cover a tiny percentage of them. But in an age when our armed forces are smaller than ever, and society rarely meets people who serve, providing medals provides a visible sign that the person in uniform has given something to the nation beyond just doing a job.

While Humphrey absolutely rejects the notion of a ‘National Defence Medal’ as being too much, it is entirely appropriate to suggest that we worry less about the direct ‘risk and rigour’ of medal criteria, and focus instead on seeking more opportunities to visibly recognise the superb work of the men and women of the Armed Forces and Civil Service who deploy and work in demanding conditions to keep us safe.