 |  |
 
October 2012
August 2012 July 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003
     |
 Greetings! You are reading an article from The Mudville Gazette. To reach the front page, with all the latest news and views, click the logo above or "main" below. Thanks for stopping by! October 8, 2004 Tell me again why...By Soldiers from 1st Battalion, 77th Armor Regiment, 1st Infantry Division, fight house-to-house during Operation Baton Rouge, in Samarra, Iraq. Photo by Sgt. 1st Class Johancharles Van Boers. [John of Castle Argghhh!, guest-posting] These soldiers don't qualify for a badge at least equivalent to, if not, the Combat Infantryman's Badge? Explain, if you will, how these soldiers, fighting in this way, don't qualify, while 11-series MOS soldiers a block over do *exactly the same thing* do qualify? Is it time for a re-think on 'combat badges'? I'm not dissing the CIB or the medic's equivalent, the Combat Field Medical Badge. Both are earned by sticking your relatively unarmored self into the crucible of direct fire combat right out there on the field where, as the Germans said, "The Iron Crosses grow." But the picture above is of Armor crewmen fighting as Infantry. Not incidentally dismounting their Steel Steeds to chase some errant RPG gunner, or some such. Not checking out a house as a place to sleep for the night, incident to resuming some nice mechanized combat on the morrow. We can find similar pictures of Artillerymen - fighting as infantry. And not because they are defending a position incident to their primary duties - but because they are being EMPLOYED AS INFANTRY. This is a war being fought more like our pre-mechanized combat wars were fought, albeit we bring to it a whole lot of tech. The CIB was developed back when the artillery had developed range that pushed the guns back, off the line of battle. Back when tanks ruled just about any battlefield they appeared on, if they were competently handled. But the war now is truly an infantryman's war. And since we don't have enough infantry, and don't need as many tanks, or artillery - we've rediscovered the manly virtues of soldiering - and the fact that in some manner, every soldier is an Infantryman. No disrespect to the essential craft of the Infantry. But, if I slog through Samarra hip-to-hip with you, fighting just as you fight, taking exactly the same risks you take - well... Just a thought. In the extended entry are the thoughts of an Infantry Major on the subject. He was a Captain when he wrote the piece - but I asked him if I could use it in conjunction with this post... and he stands by what he said here. What say you? Cross-posted to Castle Argghhh! Combat Badges and the Combined Arms Team
In the opening days, a combined arms brigade task force was the first to deploy. It was built around an IBCT (-) but augmented with an armor battalion, an armored cavalry troop and a mechanized infantry battalion. A significant slice from division headquarters was there to command and control the fight and control the influx of reinforcing elements. The enemy struck first, when the unit was getting itself organized on the battlefield, and therefore most vulnerable. The heavily outnumbered Americans, though caught by surprise, fought valiantly against the onslaught. The outcome was very much in doubt for the first couple of days. American forces fought a continuous combined arms battle for three consecutive days, unlike any in the Army but the most senior general officer or command sergeant major had experienced. Soldiers in the infantry-based organization fought hand-to-hand. Infantry commanders ordered “fix bayonets” on more than one occasion. Infantry soldiers were forced to resort to hand-held weapons to defeat enemy armor at times. Indirect fire was adjusted to within tens of meters of friendly positions. The opening battle was over in three days with the American reinforced interim brigade victorious but very bloodied. The war ended a week later. The unit was recognized with a Presidential Unit Citation, the first unit since Vietnam. Over a dozen Medals of Honor were recommended. Individual acts of heroism were numerous among the infantry and the other members of the combined arms team. But the post battle awards ceremony held at the home station of the unit pointed out an anomaly in the regulation very seldom thought of. In the scout platoon of the mechanized infantry battalion, the platoon leader, being an infantry officer, was awarded a Combat Infantry Badge (CIB) along with a Bronze Star for Valor. Two 11M10s who filled up the platoon as vehicle drivers were also awarded Combat Infantry Badges. Unlike previous campaigns, there was not even a hint of controversy over these badges. However, the remaining members of the platoon, all 19D Scouts as per the MTOE, including the section leader who was awarded the Silver Star, were not awarded any badge showing meritorious performance in combat, despite taking the same or greater risks to gather critical battlefield information. In the armor battalion, the mortar platoon leader, being an armor officer was not awarded a CIB, despite his Bronze Star with V device and Purple Heart. His 11C mortar men were all awarded the CIB. The platoon leader of the MGS platoon in B Company of the 3rd Interim Infantry Battalion, being an armor officer, and his 19-series crewmen were not awarded CIBs along with the rest of their rifle company, despite the platoon’s counterattack into the teeth of an enemy bunker network to extract the surviving members of B Company. The platoon leader was recognized with a Distinguished Service Cross. He and his men were not totally out of place though, because the company FIST team was left out of the CIB portion of the awards ceremony, as was the company chemical NCO (54B20), despite his action, “picking up an M249 SAW from a severely wounded 11B and holding an enemy infantry platoon at bay for fifteen vital minutes, despite being grievously wounded.” This action merited a Silver Star and a Purple Heart, but not a CIB. The armored cavalry troop endured one short, but very intense fight lasting just under two hours. The troop decimated a reinforced mechanized battalion, equipped with modern armor, about to conduct an attack into the flank of the IBCT. The tanks and CFVs were in a maelstrom, suffering numerous casualties, but never let the enemy get within 500 meters of the unit. The troop mortar section fired fourteen fire missions, but never came under direct fire and was able to avoid the enemy counter-fire by skillful survivability moves. The troop mortar section was recognized with CIBs. While doing their duty well, no mortar-man particularly distinguished himself. Four members of the troop from the tank and CFV platoons were awarded Silver Stars and twenty-two men received Purple Hearts. Perhaps the most confounding situation involved an infantry captain and an infantry sergeant first class assigned to the G3 section at the Division Main Command Post. During the first day of the battle, an enemy special operations platoon identified the CP and conducted an attack. Surprise was complete. Casualties were significant and the enemy was able to temporarily disrupt operations. However, the CP was effectively functioning within six hours of the attack because of the individual actions of the captain and NCO. Both men, with total disregard for their own safety, managed to kill at least twenty-three of the enemy and repulse the attack in less than 3 hours. They then assisted in the casualty evacuation until they both were forced to get on a medevac bird by the Division Chief of Staff. Their actions saved the CP and saved the Division. For their actions they were both awarded the Medal of Honor, but, despite being infantrymen, were ineligible for the Combat Infantry Badge due to their echelon of assignment. During the three-hour ceremony, the Chief of Staff of the Army, accompanied by the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of Defense, noted these anomalies and a few others. “This is wrong. The nature of close combat has changed somewhat. We need to re-look at the eligibility criteria but preserve the special nature of the CIB,” he told his aide-de-camp. At that moment, he vowed to fix this seemingly small, but culturally significant problem.
I strongly disagree with Major General Bell’s point that the creation of a CAB would be divisive within the Armor and Cavalry community. I believe the award would only become divisive if it carried disproportionate weight for its value. By that I mean, if the badge was watered down and issued as a service award for “just showing up with the right MOS in the right echelon” then it would be a problem. If, however, the badge recognized outstanding conduct while engaged in close combat with enemy forces, then it should not be a problem. The Combat Infantry Badge has this problem today because many feel it is given away cheaply, including many soldiers authorized to wear it. Originally it was conceived of as an award for outstanding performance in the face of enemy fire and not as a mere service badge, but it later devolved into that. Operation DESERT STORM is the most immediately obvious case in point. Many 11-series soldiers earned the CIB because they were in a brigade or lower unit and crossed the LD, but they never actually engaged in close combat by firing on the enemy or even received enemy fire. In the minds of many, this insults those who earned the CIB in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and those who actually did get into serious fights in Iraq. In an attempt at fairness, the Army awarded all 11-series soldiers the CIB as long as they crossed the LD. Ironically, this included the 11C mortarmen assigned to armored cavalry troops. The myth of a 30-day requirement, never actually in the regulation, but possibly theater command guidance in past conflicts, exacerbates this problem. A tightening of the eligibility criteria is in order for this badge. 1) The Department of the Army creates a Close Combat Badge (CCB) for wear on dress uniforms and battle dress uniforms. The eligibility criteria is: a soldier must be in an MOS or branch, other than Infantry, Special Forces, or Medical Corps, that routinely operates as part of its mission in close contact with the enemy; the soldier must actually engage the enemy and come under direct fire and perform in an outstanding manner; and the soldier must be assigned or operationally controlled at maneuver battalion task force level or below. This would recognize combat engineers, tankers, cavalry scouts, SHORAD, fire supporters, assault aviation crewmen and pilots, attack and cavalry pilots, signalers and MI collectors who are routinely task organized to the fighting elements. 2) The Department of the Army creates a Combat Action Badge (CAB), both in a First and Second Class. This badge would be somewhat akin to the Department of the Navy’s Combat Action Ribbon. The CAB 2nd Class would recognize a soldier’s service in a division-based combat brigade, separate maneuver brigade or lower unit in an active theater. It would be awarded regardless of MOS. Depending on the tactical situation, the eligibility criteria could be amended for unusual circumstances, such as an entire division being surrounded and cut-off. The CAB 1st Class would be awarded as a merit award to any soldier, regardless of echelon, who engages the enemy. It would be awarded on a case-by-case basis and require a level of performance higher than merely “being there”. The CAB 1st recognizes the meritorious performance in direct fire combat those who are not expected to routinely engage in direct fire combat, but in fact do. The CAB 2nd recognizes those who very closely support and assist the close-combat forces and thus are exposed to a higher probability of injury and death without minimizing the value of the special badges reserved for the close-combat soldiers. 3) No soldier would be eligible to wear more than one badge. He would have to choose between the CIB, CMB and CCB, which would have equal value and be higher in precedence than the Combat Action Badges. The CAB 1st Class would take precedence over the CAB 2nd Class. Subsequent awards of the specific badge can be recognized with appropriate appurtenances. A few additional examples of the current mismatch that exists with the CIB today are in order. First, while I was a young Captain serving on brigade staff as the assistant S4, I was just as eligible to receive a CIB as I was as a rifle company commander. That struck me as silly. Today, an infantry captain or sergeant, serving on an “armored” brigade’s staff would be eligible for a CIB, whereas their armor brothers would get nothing. The CAB system would alleviate this. The infantry officer serving as a rifle company commander would likely earn the CIB, whereas the infantry officer serving as an assistant S4 would receive a CAB 2nd Class. The Infantry captain and sergeant on division staff from the opening vignette would earn a CAB 1st Class. All on brigade staff would receive the CAB 2nd class. At lower echelons, a turret mechanic in an armor battalion task force, for example, would get the CAB 2nd Class. If he were to engage enemy forces while defending the UMCP, he may be eligible for the CAB 1st Class in addition to any awards for valor depending on his individual conduct. A tank gunner serving on a tank in combat would automatically earn the CAB 2nd Class. If he were to engage enemy forces, he would be eligible for the CCB. I believe this solution, while only roughly sketched, would go a long way toward keeping the special nature of the CIB and CMB while appropriately recognizing the members of the combined arms team who are absolutely vital to battlefield success as much today as they were in World War II.
Posted by / October 8, 2004 12:46 PM | Permalink 1 TrackBackI agree with Greyhawk that it's time to reevaluate the Combat Infantryman's Badge.... Read More 14 Comments |
November 26, 2010America@war [Greyhawk]
I think anyone who's ever pondered the "comment" option - once only available on blogs and bulletin boards, now ubiquitous on almost any web site - will appreciate this:
The so-called faculty of writing is not so much a faculty of writing as it is a faculty of thinking. When a man says, "I have an idea but I can't express it"; that man hasn't an idea but merely a vague feeling. If a man has a feeling of that kind, and will sit down for a half an hour and persistently try to put into writing what he feels, the probabilities are at least 90 percent that he will either be able to record it, or else realize that he has no idea at all. In either case, he will do himself a benefit. That's wisdom from the past, captured for posterity at the US Naval Institute, shared via the web on the institute's 137th anniversary. From their about page:
"The Naval Institute has three core activities," among them, History and Preservation: The Naval Institute also has recently introduced Americans at War, a living history of Americans at war in their own words and from their own experiences. These 90-second vignettes convey powerful stories of inspiration, pride, and patriotism. Take a look at the collection, and you'll see it's not limited to accounts from those who served on ships at sea, members of the other branches are well-represented. I'm fortunate to have met USNI's Mary Ripley, she's responsible for the institute's oral history program (and she's the daughter of the late John Ripley, whose story is told here). She also deserves much credit for their blog. ("We're not the Navy nor any government agency. Blog and comment freely.") We met at a milblog conference - Mary knew (and I would come to realize) that milbloggers are the 21st-century version of exactly what the US Naval Institute is all about. Once that light bulb came on in my head, I mentioned a vague idea for a project to her - milblogs as the 21st century oral history that they are. "Put that in writing," she said (of course - see first paragraph above!) - and here's part of the result. Shortly after the first tent was pitched by the American military in Iraq a wire was connected to a computer therein, and the internet was available to a generation of Americans at war - many of whom had grown up online. From that point on, at any given moment, somewhere in Iraq a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine was at a keyboard sharing the events of his or her day with the folks back home. While most would simply fire off an email, others took advantage of the (then) relatively new online blogging platforms to post their thoughts and experiences for the entire world to see. The milblog was born - and from that moment to this stories detailing everything from the most mundane aspects of camp life to intense combat action (often described within hours of the event) have been available on the web... And et cetera - but since you're reading this on a milblog, you probably knew that. And you know that milblogs aren't just blogs written by troops at war, that many friends, family members, and supporters likewise documented their story of America at war online in near-real time, as those stories developed. The diversity in membership of that group is broad, the one thing we all have in common is the impulse to make sense of the seemingly senseless, and communicate the tale - for each of us that impulse was strong enough to overcome whatever barriers prevent the vast majority of people from doing the same. Everyone at some point has some vague idea they believe should be shared - we were the people who, from some combination of internal and external urging, found and spent those many half hours persistently trying to write it down. But where will all that be in another 137 years? Or five or ten, for that matter. That's something I've asked myself since at least 2004 - when I wrote this:
Membership in the ghost battalion has grown in the years since, and an ever growing majority of those abandoned-but-still-standing sites are vanishing. Have you checked out Lt Smash's site lately? How about Sgt Hook's? If you're a long-time milblog reader you know the first widely-read milblog from Operation Iraq Freedom and the first widely-read milblog from Afghanistan are both gone from the web. If you're a relative newcomer to this world you may never even have heard of them - or the dozens upon dozens of others who carried forth the standard they set down. If you have a vague notion that something should be done about that, (a notion I've heard expressed more than once...) then you and I and the good folks at the US Naval Institute are in agreement. Preserving the history documented by the milbloggers is just one of the goals of the milblog project, the once-vague idea that we're now making real. And it's a big idea, if I say so myself - too big to explain in one simple blog post, so stand by for more. Likewise, it's too big a task to be accomplished by just one person. So if you're a milblogger (and exactly what is a milblogger? is a topic for much further discussion on its own) I'm asking for your help. All I'll really need is just a little bit (maybe just one or two of those half hours...) of your time, and your willingness to tell the tale. We've already made history, it's time to save it. (More to follow...) Posted 4:02 PM | Permalink |
Comments (0) |
|
The Mudville Gazette is the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him. They prefer to see peaceful change render force of arms unnecessary. Until that day they stand fast with those who struggle for freedom, strike for reason, and pray for a better tomorrow.
 
 
 Furthermore, I will occasionally use satire or parody herein. The bottom line: it's my house. I like having visitors to my house. I hope you are entertained. I fight for your right to free speech, and am thrilled when you exercise said rights here. Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1)the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2)the property of the Mudville Gazette, with free use granted thereto for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email. Original content copyright © 2003 - 2011 by Greyhawk. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed. Contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com  Tending Distant Far from hearth and home, watching What tales we'll tell When things grim Some distant sunset, vision fading Saluting fallen friends whose names - Greyhawk, Baghdad, December 2004 |
The Swift Boat Vets still have info. to set free.
As a Desert Storm vet, I earned the right to wear the Big Red One on my right shoulder. I love seeing her doing so well yet again.
As to the CIB, the LTC I drove during the war had a CIB even though he was branched artillery. He was granted it by serving in an infantry company for a few days in Vietnam. The precedent is there for awarding the CIB to non-infantry soldiers.
Even though I held an 11B specialty, I think that if you do the job of an infantryman, as this picture shows, then they deserve the award.
Under the concept that every Marine is trained as a rifleman the USMC has a combat action ribbon awarded to those personnel who are fired upon and return fire regardless of MOS
Under the concept that every Marine is trained as a rifleman the USMC has a combat action ribbon awarded to those personnel who are fired upon and return fire regardless of MOS
You're right, this isn't really fair. One of my (two) sons serving in Iraq is a Combat Engineer acting as infantry. So even though he's been wounded by shrapnel, been shot at and shot back (successfully, I might add)and blown up on occassion, he will not qualify for the CIB.
I would be proud to welcome the gentlemen to the fold.
Walter E. Wallis
C.I.B. 1950
So I showed my wife this picture you lead off with tonight, hoping to teach her about the injustice you cite.
Pointing at the three guys sweeping the area with their rifles, I said, "Dear, do these look like infantry or cavalry to you?"
"Cavalry," she said.
"Really?" I asked. "What makes you say that?"
"Well, look how short they are!" she answered.
Greyhawk;
You have nailed a good one down. It's an issue connected to other military uniform items of various types, but the examples I would be able to mention are petty compared to the issue of the CIB. God bless those who set foot on the battle field for our sake.
I think there is an issue here worth commenting about. The issue of those perfoming their duties outside of their "PD." My comments stem from the lack of the ability of the civilian sector to comprehend what's going on here. Here we have people trained to do a job, but something changes, and they need to fill in, for the sake of the organization meeting its' goals (read: mission). Off they go, showing their flexibility, and their ability to quickly absorb the finishing points necessary to compliment what they already understand. This indicates you have a person that can be shifted about to make the most effective use of resources, and also that the people kind of keep tuned in with what's happening around them. Why wouldn't you want people like that working for you? Yeah, that's right, those are the people who have to be told what to wear to work daily....
I think it would be a great idea to drop the MOS requirement for the CIB, yet rigidly enforce the standard for the awarding of same. How come anyone making a combat jump gets a star for their wings, if only infantry can wear the blue badge with a wreath?
During my career (USN), I always felt, and do now, if you qualify for something, then you should be allowed to do it, or in this case wear it. I still hold to that, with this caveat: Don't make the standards for whatever artificial, make them match the situation. If it's being shot at, then that's good.
In the warrior society, it would be a good thing to honor those who have been in combat close quarters.
OT note: The quality of your posts are incredible. Keep up the good work!
Give them the CIB now. Change the regulation later. Lord have mercy on the PERSCOM official who stands in the way of that.
Just to pass this on, in the letter section of the US Army's ARMOR magazine this debate has already been going on. There the proposal is to come up with a "Close Combat Badge" to be awarded to anyone who has been in a close combat/small arms fight. We will have to see if this goes anywhere. I favor the idea myself and think it would be a real morale booster. One thing soldiers crave is honest recognition of work done or things endured. The infantry could keep their combat badge while the other MOS's get the "Close Combat Badge". I find myself smiling everytime I see tankers having to do infantry work as tankers often refered to infantry as "crunchies" and that tanks stay out of cities. I know this as I have been a tank crewman as well as infantry (Regular Army)and now am an intelligence analyst(TXARNG). I helped out on a couple of perimeter patrols of TQ/(then)FOB Ridgway and pondered how it would be ironic if I got shot at as a 96B after all the years in combat arms. I am home now after just under a year in Iraq and my TXARNG HQ unit all got back safe with a few close calls; Thank the Good Lord.
Don't torture the CIB regulation, leave it as is.
BUT, award a close combat badge, for the branch involved, using CIB criteria, substitute appropriate branch for infantry.
Combat Armor ,Combat MP, Combat Artillery, etc.
Much deserved recognition, and NO small matter.
All our troops are heros, period.
Godspeed,
Jim H/RVN vet
KJB43,
I wrote the piece in late 2000/early 2001 as you might be able to surmise from some of the dated references, i.e., IBCT and first Presidential Unit Citation since Vietnam. I really spent a lot of time thinking about the issue and researching it to try to create the optimal solution.
This issue raises it head each time we get into a significant shooting war where Armor/Cavalry forces play a significant role.
There was a piece in ARMOR on the proposed Combat Armor Badge (and Expert Armor Badge) in 1992 in the post ODS period also.
Seeing as GEN Schoomaker has recently approved the Sapper Tab for wear, and started out as a Cavalryman before moving over to SFOD-D, I submit this issue will be resolved in favor of the CCB or some alternative shortly.
JimH,
The CIB was created for a very specific reason and has a very deep history over the past 63 years. we risk watering it down with individual branch combat badges, e.g., Combat Adjutant General Badge????
Hence, why I structured my proposal the way I did.
Re: Combat Adjutant General Badge
Because the pen is mightier than the sword. LOL
All kidding aside, many, many thanks and honors to those on the pointy end of the stick.
Jack H.
SGT, 75B (82-89)
I am currently an Infantryman serving in Iraq and earned my CIB. You know there are some instances that people do actually get jacked over and it sucjs but they chose their MOS. The biggest problem is that if they change the policy for the award everyone and their grandma will attempt to get the award and lower its prostegiousness. Just like the CMB or the Black Beret worn by Rangers. the CMB was Intended to be issued to line medics, now BAS, MASH, and CAS medics who never see combat and stay in a air conditioned office recieve them which is wrong when I see my medic who works extremely long hours in the field with us, and some POG medic recieves the same badge. Its a catch 20/20. To Allow all mos's as long as they have seen contact before, which most everyone in country has seen, let it be indirect or direct to completely destroy the award or keep the current policy and still keep it intact. Its all about setting a standard and yeah there would be some people who would recieve it because they deserve it but for every one who got one 100 more non deserving personall would get it to. I do agree that the best solution would be to create a seperate award below the CIB for non-infantry MOS's with STRICT requirements for constant and active engagements in the field\patrols, not just a one shot wonder outside the wire to get one to restrict the badge from loosing its meaning.