torious achievement" or for "valor in combat." It's meant to be a slap on the back for a job well done. What was meritorious or valorous about these three soldiers conduct? No weapons were fired except by the Serbs and the Pentagon's three latest heroes -- remember Capt. Scott O'Grady (Bosnia) and Warrant Officer Michael Durant (Somalia) who received similar heroes' welcomes when their actions were also on the "flakey-side" -- didn't successfully evade the "enemy." All the latest poster-boys did was surrender. That kind of violation of the "Code of Conduct" gets rewarded? Article II of the Code states: "I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender my men while they still have the means to resist." The purpose of awards is to inspire and recognize troops when they have stood tall in battle, fought the good fight and displayed valor "in the face of the enemy." That could entail returning fire upon a superior force and shooting holes in some bad guys. Put simply, a fighting force needs to inspire and recognize FIGHTING, RESISTING, and COMBATING the enemy. What is referred to as FIGHTING SPIRIT! As Hack pointed out to me, "They give a medal out now for just being a P.O.W." Yes, I do believe that surviving as a P.O.W. is an accomplishment that requires, in most every case, heroic efforts just to survive, but giving an award for it seems trite, condescending and demeans all the past P.O.W. heroes such as Vice Admiral James Stockdale and Colonel George "Bud" Day. In nearly three and a half years in a combat theater, Audie Murphy received 13 decorations and a battlefield commission. During his hitch with the 3rd Infantry Division, he fought from North Africa to Sicily to Italy to France and right on through Germany and into Czechoslovakia. All his time was spent in rifle companies and the number of days he spent in the line was damn near 400. Audie Murphy, America's most decorated G.I. from WWII,...
