Politics?

This is coolbert:

It is universally recognized that the highest award this nation [U.S.] can bestow upon a person is the Medal of Honor [used to be called the Congressional Medal of Honor]. An award to a military man who acts upon the battlefield in such a courageous manner in a single heroic manner that one and all that witness the feat of heroism recognize that what has happened merits the medal. Words that are generally applied to those that win the medal are, "at the risk of his own life, above and beyond the call of duty", etc.

A single act of great heroism exemplified by such persons as Alvin York [WW1], Audie Murphy [WW2], Captain Millett [Korea], and Shughart and Gordon [Somalia]. Of course, there have been occasions when the medal was awarded to persons NOT for a single heroic act, but rather a continuous series of actions that merited the medal as well. Major Bong, the American air ace of World War Two [WW2], exemplifies this type of heroism. [Bong is credited with shooting down forty Japanese aircraft during the war, and led all American aces with the most kills of enemy aircraft].

And, it cannot be denied, that there is also a political element to awarding the Medal of Honor also. A political element that seems to cheapen the medal.

A perfect example of politics involved with the awarding the Medal of Honor occurred in the case of Arthur Mac Arthur. The father of the famous Douglas. It was not until twenty years after the fact that Arthur was finally awarded his Medal of Honor. This was for leading an unauthorized and impromptu charge up Lookout Mountain during the American Civil War. Mac Arthur either lead or inspired the charge, and is reputed to have carried the American flag aloft as the Union troops scaled and captured this key Confederate position. NOT being awarded the medal immediately must have rankled Arthur, as he had his uncle, who was a Congressman, lobby on his behalf, and the medal was eventually awarded.

In the cases of Douglas Mac Arthur and Jonathan Wainwright, politics undoubtedly played a role in the awarding of the medal to both of these men.

It should be thoroughly understood that the defeat suffered by the U.S. forces in the Philippines at the outset of WW2 is the worst defeat EVER suffered by the U.S. military anywhere, in any war fought by the U.S.

Rather than inspired, the U.S. military for the most part fought an inept and uninspired campaign. A campaign that resulted in ignominious and total defeat. And immense suffering by American POW's in the years to follow. This is not to say that the American military fought to the best of their ability. They did fight and did inflict heavy casualties upon the Japanese. But defeat was total, although NOT IN shame [John Toland].

Normally, commanders such as Mac Arthur and Wainwright, commanding the U.S. forces, would have been censured in the strongest terms for such a calamity.

But NO.

Upon escaping to Australia upon the orders of the President, Mac Arthur was awarded the Medal of Honor for his gallant defense of the Philippines. Mac Arthur in a radio address, described himself as having, "broken through enemy lines", and made his way to Australia to organize a counter attack. The truth is that Mac Arthur and his entourage made their way to Australia by a combination of PT boat and B-17 bomber. This was not "breaking through enemy lines" in the conventional manner the term would be used.

In the case of Jonathan Wainwright, the situation is even more clear that politics DID play a strong role in the awarding of the medal. The commander on the ground at the time of the American surrender, Wainwright does not have seemed to exercised the normal chain-of-command or command authority that should have existed in American POW camps. During the three and one half [3 1/2] years of POW status, Wainwright and his officers do NOT seem to have done much to exercise control over American POW's being held by the Japanese. Rather the contrary. American officers seemed to totally ignore the plight of the enlisted and did not make a serious effort to control the predatory gangs of U.S. servicemen that preyed upon weak and helpless last-legger POW's. And yet, Wainwright, upon his release, was immediately flown back to Washington and awarded the Medal of Honor. In his own words, Wainwright expressed shock and surprise at being given this honor. He felt he was being flown back to Washington to face courts martial.

It is also reasonable to infer that the awarding of the Medal of Honor twice [a mere handful of persons have won the medal twice] to the famous Marine General Smedley Butler is another example of politics intruding into the entire awards process. It is undoubtedly true that General Butler was a brave and true Marine that fought gallantly. It is also true that during the entire time General Butler was making headlines as the commander of Marine expeditions to Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and Nicaragua, his uncle was a Senator who displayed and wielded considerable clout on the behalf of his nephew.

Did these men deserve the Medal of Honor?? Let the citations speak for themselves:

For Douglas Mac Arthur:

"Citation: For conspicuous leadership in preparing the Philippine Islands to resist conquest, for gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty in action against invading Japanese forces, and for the heroic conduct of defensive and offensive operations on the Bataan Peninsula. He mobilized, trained, and led an army which has received world acclaim for its gallant defense against a tremendous superiority of enemy forces in men and arms. His utter disregard of personal danger under heavy fire and aerial bombardment, his calm judgment in each crisis, inspired his troops, galvanized the spirit of resistance of the Filipino people, and confirmed the faith of the American people in their Armed Forces."

For Jonathan Wainwright:



"Citation: Distinguished himself by intrepid and determined leadership against greatly superior enemy forces. At the repeated risk of life above and beyond the call of duty in his position, he frequented the firing line of his troops where his presence provided the example and incentive that helped make the gallant efforts of these men possible. The final stand on beleaguered Corregidor, for which he was in an important measure personally responsible, commanded the admiration of the Nation's allies. It reflected the high morale of American arms in the face of overwhelming odds. His courage and resolution were a vitally needed inspiration to the then sorely pressed freedom-loving peoples of the world."

For Smedley Butler:



"Citation: As Commanding Officer of detachments from the 5th, 13th, 23d Companies and the marine and sailor detachment from the U.S.S. Connecticut, Maj. Butler led the attack on Fort Riviere, Haiti, 17 November 1915. Following a concentrated drive, several different detachments of marines gradually closed in on the old French bastion fort in an effort to cut off all avenues of retreat for the Caco bandits. Reaching the fort on the southern side where there was a small opening in the wall, Maj. Butler gave the signal to attack and marines from the 15th Company poured through the breach, engaged the Cacos in hand-to-hand combat, took the bastion and crushed the Caco resistance. Throughout this perilous action, Maj. Butler was conspicuous for his bravery and forceful leadership."

And

"Citation: For distinguished conduct in battle, engagement of Vera Cruz, 22 April 1914. Maj. Butler was eminent and conspicuous in command of his battalion. He exhibited courage and skill in leading his men through the action of the 22d and in the final occupation of the city."

You the devoted reader to the blog decide the facts for yourself!!

coolbert.