Trading Lives for Good PR

The aim of the “courageous restraint” medal is obviously to save civilian lives and deter criticism when civilian casualties occur. But are we willing to accept an increase in our own casualties?

Although it is under serious consideration, the idea of awarding a “courageous restraint” medal for soldiers risking their lives by not shooting civilians in Afghanistan, seems not only unnecessary, but downright foolish.

British Maj. Gen. Nick Carter, commander of NATO forces in southern Afghanistan, apparently came up with the idea which overall commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal is considering for U.S. and NATO forces.

The proposal, which is said to be still in the “conceptual stages,” smacks of a public relations gesture to offset inevitable civilian casualties. The idea is that front line soldiers deserve special recognition if they show courage by risking their own lives by not shooting first and asking questions later in dangerous situations.

Sounds reasonable, perhaps, but it’s what good soldiers do anyway – are trained to do.  And in countless unpublicized cases they have shown uncommon restraint. Rules of Engagement before pulling the trigger are already so stringent that they can cost the lives of our soldiers in many cases.

Battlefield valor awards are already given out to soldiers who sacrifice themselves to save others in the face of the enemy. The Victoria Cross, arguably the world’s most respected valor award, has only been awarded 1,352 times in 154 years, and a third of them have gone to soldiers who sacrificed themselves to save others.

Only three men in history have won the VC twice, and two of them were officers who risked their own lives to save others on the battlefield.

Well-trained soldiers are not necessarily quick on the trigger. But life-death decisions often have to be made instantly and delay, or the wrong decision, can mean the death of one of our guys. And that’s not what war is all about.

In Afghanistan, a car speeding towards a roadblock and refusing to stop, could well be a suicide bomber – or a frightened local. Does the soldier shoot – or take a chance? A judgment call, and the wrong decision for a Canadian or American soldier could mean a solitary journey home in a coffin – with a medal.

The aim of the “courageous restraint” medal is obviously to save civilian lives and deter criticism when civilian casualties occur. But are we willing to accept an increase in our own casualties as a result of encouraging restraints against an enemy that uses civilians at every turn?

It’s the Taliban who are killing the most civilians in Afghanistan, not U.S. or NATO troops who get blamed every time there’s an incident or mistake.

I suspect most soldiers won’t welcome the news of this proposed medal.

They’ll likely see it as cynical and a PR stunt. And unnecessary. It’s virtually a given that soldiers are prepared to sacrifice themselves for their comrades – or civilians in danger.

Awarding a bravery medal for restraint, when restraint is ingrained in soldiers anyway, sends a wrong message – to the soldiers, to the enemy, to civilians, to families back home.

I suspect Gen. McChrystal – a fighting soldier – knows this better than most. The British know it too. And a medal is no substitute for training and fire discipline.

So mark it down as yet another idea that shouldn’t be implemented, unless it’s taken over by politicians who hope for brownie points.