Giving soldiers medals for 'COURAGEOUS RESTRAINT?'

Is that like giving a trophy to the losing team, too, as many schools do today? Only a liberal would want to reward NOT doing the job. Then again, this is par for the course in a regime that thinks victory is a dirty word.

NATO commanders are weighing a new way to reduce civilian casualties in Afghanistan: recognizing troops for “courageous restraint” if they avoid using force that could endanger innocent lives. I hope they are planning to award purple hearts at the same time, as all that restraint will likely result in many more soldiers and Marines getting killed or wounded.

“The idea is being reviewed at Headquarters ISAF,” Sholtis said. “The idea is consistent with our approach. Our young men and women display remarkable courage every day, including situations where they refrain from using lethal force, even at risk to themselves, in order to prevent possible harm to civilians. … That restraint is an act of discipline and courage not much different than those seen in combat actions.”

[S]ome soldiers say rewarding “restraint” while risking their own lives is a troubling concept…

A U.S. Marine captain who has served in Iraq, said that he understands the intentions of the award but believes “it’s just a bad idea.” He said, “They teach us not to second-guess our decisions in dangerous situations. When people second-guess themselves they can be putting lives at risk.”…

[O]ther soldiers saw the medal proposal as a reinforcement of troubling rules of engagement. “Unfortunately, we are being reduced to a police force,” said another U.S. soldier. “There are troops that never leave Bagram or Kandahar airfield. … Maybe if they left us all on base and never sent us out to confront the enemy, we could all be honored [for] valor.” WASHINGTON EXAMINER

I can understand wanting to minimize civilian casualties. But as an end goal in and of itself? No. It’s inhumane. It’s inhumane to the soldier, and immoral to ask it of him to this degree. (Rewarding it with a medal.) It’s an insult to his countrymen, whom he is defending. They need to know the soldiers they agree to send understand that winning the fight is the point, not minimizing civilian casualties. Actually, Americans know this, it’s the President who does not.

If “courageous restraint” is one of your goals, don’t go to war. Go to fight and win, not to restrain yourself. You cannot tell parents or voters to support a mission where soldiers will be “rewarded” for “courageous restraint.”

American soldiers have been fighting with courageous restraint IN THE CONTEXT OF WINNING WARS for decades. Separating the virtue out in this manner — as if it’s a great idea in this new feminized military — sends the wrong message. If this passes, I hope they will publish a list of the Generals who think it’s a good idea. That way, the families of dead soldiers who receive this medal for courageous restraint will know to whom to send it back.

I would start with Gen. David Petraeus who has recently sold out to the Obama Regime by calling the Times Square Jihadist a lone wolf and blaming Israel for American troop casualtes in Afghanistan and Iraq.

RELATED STORIES:

did-we-apologize-to-germany-or-japan-for-killing-civilians-during-wwii

obamas-new-rules-of-engagement-are-killing-u-s-marines-and-soldiers

afghanistan-troops-wonder-which-is-the-bigger-enemy-the-taliban-or-obamas-rules-of-engagement

obamas-roe-rules-of-engagement-are-killing-our-troops

traitor-in-chief-to-the-marines-dont-shoot-back-when-the-taliban-terrorists-shoot-at-you

as-taliban-terrorists-are-emboldened-appeaser-in-chief-continues-ill-conceived-pointless-outreach-to-them

obamas-rules-of-engagement-have-the-troops-dangerously-preoccupied-with-worrying-about-captured-enemy-fighters-rights