Canada's Medal Glut
In August last year, Canada announced it was instituting a medal for those killed or wounded in action, to be called the Sacrifice Medal.
To some, this seemed a crass imitation of the Purple Heart, which the U.S. gives to those killed or wounded due to enemy action. Recipients are often described as having “won” the Purple Heart, when actually simply being wounded entitles one to the medal.
In WWII and Korea, Canadians and Brits were inclined to make fun of the Purple Heart; they considered it more commendable to be in action and not get wounded. If wounded, Canadians and British forces were entitled to wear a gold stripe on their battle dress sleeve. It was optional. No big deal.
Today, the Sacrifice Medal is a very big deal, and brings the total number of “new” medals authorized by Canada since the end of WWII to around 115 – and counting.
Despite the fact that WWII and Korea vets were uneasy with the idea of awarding medals for being wounded, Defence Minister Peter MacKay has eased the terms by which the medal will be given.
The Sacrifice Medal has been “expanded to recognize all service related deaths after Oct. 7, 2001,” says a Department of National Defence release. In other words, any soldier on duty who dies or is injured gets the medal. This is more generous than the Purple Heart, which implies a serious wound by the enemy, even though Sen. John Kerry, (Democratic Presidential candidate in 2004), got three Purple Hearts (one requiring a band-aid) which entitled him to leave Vietnam early.
Why on earth are we calling it the “Sacrifice Medal?” That’s not very soldierly, and suggests passively offering oneself without fighting back. Soldiers don’t think of themselves, or their role, as “sacrificing.” They do their duty, take their choices, are prepared to fight, even to be killed, but usually don’t consciously view it as “sacrificing.”
That’s a civilian term to make their loss more acceptable.
In past wars, Canadians tended to place greater emphasis on not getting wounded, and forcing the enemy to die for their country. Even though we seem to be emulating an American military custom, we also seem intent on diluting the award.
Under revised qualifications, the Sacrifice Medal can be awarded to someone killed or injured in an accident while traveling on duty. A civilian is entitled to it if he or she is injured while working for the military.
Being harshly treated while a prisoner entitles one to the medal, as does a mental disorder brought on by hostile action. Even being “exposed to the elements” (bad weather?) can qualify.
When the Sacrifice Medal was first proposed, the likes of Cliff Chadderton, Chairman of the National Council of Veteran Associations (56 organizations) was uneasy. Why now, and not when we were in the big war, where those killed got nothing? Is life more precious today?
How about the 100-plus Canadians who died during 30-plus years of UN peacekeeping in the Middle East, Congo, Cyprus, the Balkans and elsewhere? Don’t they rate? Presumably not. This medal is awarded for injuries sustained on or after October 7, 2001 - following President George Bush’s declaration of the War on Terror which Canada endorsed.
Anyway get used to it. The Sacrifice Medal joins the expanding mosaic of colorful medals and ribbons, issued by Canada.