Recognising the Case for Recognition. Thoughts on medals.

 

There are few things in life more certain to garner debate among fans of the armed forces than the subject of medals. Be it the case for a ‘national defence medal’, a ‘Cold War’ medal or the awarding of a medal for discrete operations, the subject always garners strong opinions.

It was perhaps inevitable then that shortly after the final shut down of PITTING, the debate has quickly turned to the practical issue of medallic recognition. A variety of media articles have been run, making arguments for and against, and considering the criteria that could be used.

To start with, its important to understand that no decisions have been made, nor are they likely to be made for some time. The discussions on medal award criteria is complex, strictly governed and takes time to get right. There needs to be time to agree whether any operational awards or honours will be issued for the Op, as well as a wider discussion on the medal earning criteria.

Image by Ministry of Defence; © Crown copyright

If anyone is saying that someone is at risk of losing out, then right now they are wrong, because this criteria has not been agreed. Its not possible to be at risk of not earning a medal whose criteria hasn’t been confirmed.

When the criteria is announced, it will almost certainly result in a wider discussion about the UK ‘going American’ from some quarters, or frustration that person X or Y missed out due to the cut off. This is an inevitability of medallic recognition. There are two separate issues here to consider – firstly, is the UK ‘going American’ and secondly ‘do we get recognition right’?

The first issue is an easy one to answer. No the UK is not ‘going American’. The US system of career recognition is utterly different to the UK’s and completely misunderstood by many Brits. In essence the US career model results in what can best be explained as ‘CV on a chest’ for people to grow their salad bar of decorations as their career progresses.

It is a quick and visual way to show where a person has served, a visual recognition of their accomplishments and career progression and confirmation that they are qualified and trained in some roles. It is not about recognition of deployment in an area involving risk/rigour.

The US does also operate medallic recognition, but this is a separate issue to the so-called salad bar, and does come with some surprisingly tight qualifying criteria. It is entirely incorrect, and incredibly unhelpful to suggest that the UK is following suit, because these are two different systems.

There is though a deeper question -what is the fundamental issue with recognising that people have taken part in career activity and visually showing this? Maybe it’s a British thing, we don’t believe in visual recognition in the same way, and also due to the smaller size of our armed forces, its easier to know your peers and other career trades, and make value judgements on a persons likely experience based on hearing their rank, branch and unit.

By contrast the vastly larger and more complex US military may not have this level of awareness, and the salad bar is a good way of providing instant credibility with peers and others who may not be familiar with your professional role or skills.

The UK system has traditionally been somewhat parsimonious with medal awards, relying mostly on either bespoke campaign medals (Eg TELIC and HERRICK) or the OSM with clasp for the specific operation that met the qualifying threshold. This means many UK service personnel now have very few operational medals, due to the reduction in medal earning opportunities, and the smaller numbers of tours available.

The criteria for medal award has varied, but is generally linked to the concept of ‘risk/rigour’ – e.g how much risk was an individual genuinely in, and how much rigour. This is why, despite protestations to the contrary, there is highly unlikely to ever be a BAOR medal -despite the threat which loomed, the daily life for personnel based there was low risk (relatively the same as the UK), with limited opportunities for rigorous service against hostile opposition.

At times this criteria can appear a little odd to the outsider- for example the continued awarding of the GSM for Northern Ireland significantly past the point of normalcy in the province, which essentially led to a number of personnel getting a medal for a peacetime deployment.

At the other end of the spectrum the demands of risk and rigour can lead to circumstances where personnel deploy, often for long periods of time, living and working in challenging and unpleasant conditions and to a demanding operational tempo, but do not qualify. The long running situation where despite it being the primary operational focus of the RN Mine Warfare force, there is no medal for deployment on OP KIPION or UKMCC, despite many people doing repeat tours in this complex environment is regarded as deeply unsatisfactory by some.

We are now in a situation where its has been the best part of a decade since the last TELIC medal was awarded, and 7 years since the last OP HERRICK. The result is that there is an increasing medal gap for many junior people going through the system, resulting in a ‘naked chest’ and a sense of missing out on medal earning tours.

Those medal tours that are on offer are often discrete, small-scale and may involve a handful of people who qualify. The result is that for many junior personnel, and now increasingly mid-level seniority (SNCO / SO2) they have worked hard in difficult places, but lack any recognition of their efforts.

Some may argue that there is no need- to do the job, and claim the compensation associated with it, is reward enough. But this perhaps misses the deeper point – people yearn to be recognised for what they do, and to have the chance to show among their peers that ‘they’ve done stuff’.

This recognition is about showing credibility to peers, and in feeling that the hard work and commitment that has occurred has been recognised in a visible and enduring way. From a wider perspective it is about showing others outside of the military that your career has been more than just postings in anonymous HQ’s. Don’t underestimate the strong desire to show that your career has been more than just a series of UK bound desks.

The question of whether medals devalue the system is a reasonable one to make, but the counter challenge has to be ‘devalues to whom’? It would be one thing to issue a medal for every tour or posting ever done, as we’d end up with troops with medal racks that look like despotic Presidents, but equally is there anything wrong with constantly questioning and changing the definition of risk/rigour?

After all, at the end of WW2 there was some fairly loose scrutiny applied to the award of the medals ranging from one day in a vast operational theatre, to 28 days service in general, and 180 days in a non threatening area. It was entirely possible to accrue a large ‘rack’ without ever hearing a shot fired if your combination of WW2 postings were judicious.

Do most people really mind if troops are issued with a medal that covers a challenging period away from home, when there was an element of challenge, and which acts as a visible reminder of their service? The number who get worked up about it often seem to be those for whom any medal is a disgrace, or who feel that until their pet medal project (usually a National Defence Medal) is awarded, then there is no fairness in the world and its all a bad thing.

There is a balancing act to be struck as medals act as both a visible record of gallantry, and also of service. The threshold for gallantry is naturally incredibly high, and should rightly remain so. These awards should only be awarded in the most exceptional of circumstances and remain the very pinnacle of recognition.

However does wearing a visible reminder of serving overseas devalue the system? Given the clearly delineated campaign awards, its clear that with few of them out there and the likely participation being relatively small, there will never be a free for all of gongs that everyone can claim.

If anything, instituting slightly more medallic recognition may help tell the story of what the armed forces are doing to others. Its much easier to explain the role of the military if, when in uniform, people ask you ‘whats that medal for’ and you can explain. By awarding some more medals, its easier to have the conversation and raise awareness of the role of the armed forces around the world.

There is also a significant retention positive impact here too. The promise of a medal earning tour, particularly to a young soldier, is enormous. The chance to earn something few have got, and show that ‘you’ve done stuff’ is always a big draw. For units, to offer up the prospect of an op tour with medal award is a great way to get people to stay on a bit longer, possibly not put their notice in, and focus their minds.

Its not the medal that matters, its that there is a chance to ‘do the job for real’ which psychologically always feels easier when deployed in an environment where medals are on offer, than on an interminable operation where you return with nothing to show for it. Never underestimate how powerful the opportunity of earning a medal is.

Perhaps the answer is to inject a third-tier medal into the system – below the gallantry awards and the OSMs, and call it the ‘Operational Deployment Medal’ (ODM). A onetime only award for 180 days service in non-rigorous (e.g. medal earning) conditions while assigned to specific operations (e.g. deployment to OP KIPION). Further increments result in the award of a bar to represent extra time away from home.

The advantage of this is it visibly shows that people have been away and done often very challenging work in difficult environments. It is not theatre specific and is a one time only award, but it allows people who have genuinely gone on an Operation (arguably a deployment outside of the UK under the OPCON of PJHQ/JFHQ) to have this recognised appropriately.

No doubt some will see this as the thin end of the wedge. But why – why does a single medal that does more to say thank you than a decade of “Armed Forces Days” cause such anger. Is it jealousy, or is it some ill-defined inability to define why we should not try to visibly recognise peoples work.

It genuinely puzzles the author why people seem so fiercely resistant to the notion of awarding recognition where it is genuinely deserved. It isn’t stolen glory, it isn’t trying to pretend to be something people are not. It is about recognising service in a visible way that helps show the story of the more adventurous parts of peoples careers.

Next year will see the award of a new long-service medal to mark Her Majesty The Queens jubilee. No one will complain about devaluation then, so it seems we’re happy to accept long service medals. It is hard to square this with the reluctance by some commentators to accept that maybe we could issue one or two more medals.