Not the same as combat
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Friday, March 29, 2013, 8:57 p.m.
A new medal for drone operators and others not in direct ground combat will be ranked above some long-standing combat valor medals, according to a recent letter from Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa.
Toomey asked why the Pentagon decided to rank these medals above some other ground-combat medals. Toomey received a response in which Hagel said he was convinced the new Distinguished Warfare Medal was properly ranked among other medals.
I feel it is a disgrace and a disservice to rank noncombat-related service higher then those medals earned and awarded for combat service. Toomey is correct in standing up to the Department of Defense.
Veterans ask nothing more than to be respected and cared for in our time of need. I have not earned battlefield medals for valor. In one respect, I am glad not to have been in such a position. I witnessed battle from the deck of a ship during the Vietnam War. I was relatively safe even after four shipboard deployments to Vietnam combat waters in the South China Sea and the Tonkin Gulf, oftentimes just a few miles offshore.
I still was infected by the herbicide Agent Orange, as were thousands of other sailors now doing battle with cancer. After over a year, I have been awarded by the Department of Veteran Affairs 100 percent disability combat-related compensation. My mission for these past 24 months has been to fight Congress to approve legislation for VA benefits. So far our legislators have failed to do so.
Will the veterans of today's wars be forgotten in time? Freedom is not free.
John J. Bury
The writer is a U.S. Navy war veteran.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Corbett’s choice
- Islam & women
- ‘We the people’ are veterans
- Invest in pre-K
- UPMC in the wrong II
- Medicaid’s future
- Not reviled abroad
- Shredded Wheat & ‘Low T’
- Obstacles to hiring
- Tarentum’s ‘questionable practices’
- Obama & Reaganomics I