The Conservative Wahoo makes an interesting point: “Are There No Live People Worthy of the Medal of Honor?”

News yesterday of the upcoming posthumous award of the Medal of Honor to SFC Jared Monti, USA for conspicuous gallantry in Afghanistan. I am humbled and awed any time I read of the bravery and selflessness of those who earn this most sacred of honors, and my debt as an American to SFC Monti is incalculable.

That said, I wonder why it is that this country has been at war for nearing eight years and to my knowledge, not a single live person has been awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for action in Afghanistan or Iraq. Yes, I know that the standards are high, and that is where I want them to be.

But I would surely like to see the President draping that Medal over the head of a living, breathing hero. I hope that we haven’t reached the point where one must give his or her life for the MOH.

Looking at the list of Medal of Honor recipients, it certainly seems that we have.   We’ve awarded two for action in Afghanistan (Navy LT Michael P. Murphy and Army SFC Monti) and four for Iraq (Army SFC Paul R. Smith, Marine Cpl Jason Dunham, Navy MA2 Michael Monsoor, and Army SPC Ross McGinnis).  All died as a result of their heroism.   Similarly, the two men awarded the Medal for the Battle of Mogadishu (Army MSG Gary Gordon and SFC Randy Shugart) died in action.

No one has earned a earned a Medal of Honor and lived to tell the story since the Vietnam War.

Contrast this with Vietnam, which saw 246 Medals of Honor awarded, 154 posthumously.  Or Korea:  133 Medals, 95 posthumously.   WWII:  465 awarded, 266 posthumously.   WWI:  124 awards, 33 posthumous.

Clearly, it’s both harder than ever to get recognized with the Medal of Honor and harder still to do so and live to see it.

Correction: The original version said there had been no MOH action by a living awardee since he Liberty incident, for which CMDR William L. McGonagle was recognized. That’s not true. I was looking at a list arranged by conflict and, of course, Vietnam started before but continued after 1967.

John McCain’s Truth Squad, formed a few months ago in order to respond to charges by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth clone Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain, is prominently featuring an actual member of the Swifties as a spokesman, CNN’s Rebecca Sinderbrand reports.

One of the members of John McCain’s new Truth Squad — which his campaign says was launched to respond to unfair attacks on his record of military service –- was a member of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and appeared in an attack ad for the group in 2004. The group was created to attack 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry’s military service record.

“How can you expect our sons and daughters to follow you when you condemned their fathers and grandfathers?” asked former Air Force Col. Bud Day, who was a prisoner of war with McCain in Vietnam, in a 2004 Swift Boat Vets spot.

McCain has said that he opposed the group’s efforts.

Politico’s Ben Smith asked Day about the seeming inconsistency.

“The Swift Boat ‘attacks’ were simply revelation of the truth,” said Day, a former prisoner of war and Medal of Honor recipient who served I the Air Force. “The similarity does not exist here.”

“What the Swift Boat campaign was about was to lay out John Kerry’s record. John Kerry has never produced any evidence to deny that,” he said. In contrast, he said, he and others on the call had produced “evidence pointing out that [Clark's] remarks were completely inaccurate.” “One was about laying out the truth. This one is about attempting to cast a new shadow on John McCain,” he said of the salvos at the two military men.

To the extent that Day’s attacks were limited to criticism of Kerry’s postwar accusations against his fellow veterans, rather than the business about whether Kerry truly “earned” his Vietnam medals, I’d agree that the equivalence is dubious. And, certainly Bud Day has earned quite a bit of latitude.

The truth/not truth argument, however, is an amusing one.

Robert Kaplan describes the heroism that earned SFC Paul Smith a posthumous Medal of Honor and the two years it took his commander to get it through the system.

As Colonel Smith told me, “Everyone wants to award a Medal of Honor. But everyone is even more concerned with worthiness, with getting it right.” There was a real fear that one unworthy medal would compromise the award, its aura, and its history. The bureaucratic part of the process is kept almost deliberately impossible, to see just how committed those recommending the award are: insufficient passion may indicate the award is unjustified.

“Nobody up top in the Army’s command is trying to find Medal of Honor winners to inspire the public with,” says Colonel Smith. “It’s the opposite. The whole thing is pushed up from the bottom to a skeptical higher command.”

Considering how much other medals have been inflated, though, once can argue this is justified even if the bureaucratic result is excessive. Kaplan has another complaint, though:

The ceremony in the East Room of the White House two years to the day after Sergeant Smith was killed, where President George W. Bush awarded the Medal of Honor to Sergeant Smith’s 11-year-old son, David, was fitfully covered by the media. The Paul Ray Smith story elicited 96 media mentions for the eight week period after the medal was awarded, compared with 4,677 for the supposed abuse of the Koran at Guantánamo Bay and 5,159 for the disgraced Abu Ghraib prison guard Lynndie England, over a much longer time frame that went on for many months. In a society that obsesses over reality-TV shows, gangster and war movies, and NFL quarterbacks, an authentic hero like Sergeant Smith flickers momentarily before the public consciousness.

It may be that the public, which still can’t get enough of World War II heroics, even as it feels guilty about its treatment of Vietnam veterans, simply can’t deliver up the requisite passion for honoring heroes from unpopular wars like Korea and Iraq. It may also be that, encouraged by the media, the public is more comfortable seeing our troops in Iraq as victims of a failed administration rather than as heroes in their own right. Such indifference to valor is another factor that separates an all-volunteer military from the public it defends. “The medal helps legitimize Iraq for them. World War II had its heroes, and now Iraq has its,” Colonel Smith told me, in his office overlooking the Mississippi River, in Memphis, where he now heads the district office of the Army Corps of Engineers.

It’s a fair point, one I addressed in some detail more than two years ago in a post entitled “Unheralded Medal of Honor Winners?”

As to why Smith has not received the acclaim accorded York and Murphy, several explanations come to mind. Mark would point to the fact that the mainstream press supported WWII and have largely not supported this one. That is almost certainly part of the explanation. Indeed, the heroes of Korea and Vietnam don’t exactly come tripping off the tongue either, do they?

But there’s more to it than that. For one thing, Smith was killed in action while Murphy and York came home alive. Surely, a live Medal of Honor winner would be seen on television with some regularity even today.

Moreover, we simply live in a more cynical age. With the exception of post-9/11 firefighters, it is hard to think of any heroes that have received universal acclaim. There are pseduo heroes aplenty -– whether champion athletes, political whistleblowers, or what have you -– but none that have the unreserved acclaim of a WWII Medal winner. Indeed, there would almost surely be some enterprising Woodward and Bernstein wannabes trying to dig up dirt on a York or a Murphy were they around today. That’s just the nature of our society.

While I agree with Kaplan that the comparative coverage of the legitimate heroism of American fighting men in Iraq and the misdeeds of a few gives a distorted vision of reality, it’s hard to fault the press for the editorial decisions. After all, planes that crash get massively more coverage than those who don’t.

Further, while the story of Smith and others is compelling, it’s not reasonable to expect it to be covered in the same volume as an ongoing story. Abu Ghraib was several days worth of stories about what happened, followed by reports on the Congressional hearings, internal military investigations, and the various courts martial that followed. By contrast, there was nothing to cover about Smith’s heroism after his family got his Medal.

Hat tip: Spook86

Colonel David Hackworth had a legendary military career which he followed with decades as an author, commentator, and advocate for the American grunt. Like a lot of old soldiers who comment on military affairs, his views were eventually colored too much by the past and unenlightened by how modernization had rendered some old dogmas outmoded. And, like most pundits, he was a little too full of himself and thought he was even smarter than he really was.

One of the more annoying parts of the Hackworth mythology, though, is that he successfully sold himself as “the most highly decorated soldier in American military history” based on “over 90 decorations, including a Distinguished Service Cross with two Oak Leaf Clusters, a Silver Star with five Oak Leaf Clusters, and a Legion of Merit with three Oak Leaf Clusters.” Shaun Mullen repeats that description in an “appreciation” post here and here.

It’s simply not true. Hackworth’s career is storied and his heroism in combat undisputed. But no man who has not been awarded the Medal of Honor can be considered “the most highly decorated soldier.” Period. It’s rather like a young Shaquille O’Neal’s comment (before going on to win four NBA titles) that he had won championships at every level, except college and the pros. One doesn’t simply tally up the number of ribbons and who ever has the most “wins.”

It’s against the law to falsely claim you’ve been awarded the Medal of Honor. The NYT’s Adam Liptak has an interesting discussion of the matter.

“You don’t want to stifle speech about opinions and ideas,” Mr. Missakian said. “But Congress, and rightfully so, recognized the great sacrifice that people awarded the Medal of Honor made on behalf of their country. To the extent we have phony Medal of Honor winners running around like Alvarez, it dilutes the value of their sacrifice.”

That rationale is reflected in Congressional findings. The law, Congress said, is meant “to protect the reputation and meaning of military decorations and medals.”

Some First Amendment experts worry that criminalizing speech about symbols is a dangerous business and is reminiscent of laws against flag burning that the Supreme Court has held unconstitutional. “If the government cannot under the First Amendment compel reverence when it comes to our nation’s highest symbol,” asked Ronald K. L. Collins, a scholar at the First Amendment Center in Washington, “why then can it compel reverence when it comes to lesser forms of symbolic expression?”

While I’m inclined to agree with Eugene Volokh that “false statements of fact generally lacks constitutional value,” I’m nonetheless skeptical about the law.

Fraud, of course, isn’t protected speech. And if someone claims to be a veteran or a war hero in order to bilk someone out of benefits to which he’d otherwise not be entitled, it should be illegal on that basis. But why is pretending to be a hero in order to get admiration against the law?

Unseemly? Absolutely. Be punishable by state action? Something for which one should be deprived of liberty or property? Something for which scarce law enforcement resources should be expended?

Phil Carter offered the following insights upon returning home from a combat tour in Iraq:

Soldiers and civilians also share a different moral code, something highlighted by those different definitions of heroism. Soldiers exist for their team; they will do anything for love of their brothers and sisters in uniform. Civilians, by contrast, live for themselves. Americans have become the quintessential rational actors of economic lore — pursuing their self-interest above all else, seeking enrichment and gratification.

To be sure, Americans engage in a great deal of altruism, and this is to be praised too. But the sporadic acts of selfless service performed by civilians cannot compare to the life of service chosen by our military personnel.

So when civilians approach us in airports and cafes to thank us for our service, it frequently causes some degree of discomfort and alienation. Although grateful for the warm reception, many of us don’t know how to respond. Our service means a great deal to us. We will never forget the sacrifices, hardships or experiences we had in combat, nor will we ever forget those with whom we served. But I have never felt that such service merits praise, and certainly not the label of heroism.

I judge myself by the code of a warrior. That ethos demands selfless service, not aggrandizement. It praises the team, not the individual. And it saves its highest accolades for those who distinguish themselves through extraordinary acts of valor. As veterans, we know the real heroes among us; many of them did not come home. Awarding this distinction to everyone cheapens the accomplishments of those who earned it — and makes the rest of us feel guilty that we have somehow stolen recognition from the worthy.

Claiming medals that one has not earned violates the warrior’s code. Admiral Mike Boorda, the highest ranking admiral in the United States Navy at the time, killed himself when it was revealed he’d worn a relatively minor award to which he wasn’t entitled rather than endure the shame.

It’s not clear to me why that code should be enforceable against mere wannabes; that’s an honor reserved for those who have served. The penalty for failing to live up to it is scorn from those who have.

Famed oilman T. Boone Pickens has offered $1 million to anyone who can disprove claims my by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth against John Kerry — and John Kerry has taken him up on it.

Sen. John Kerry, whose 2004 presidential campaign was torpedoed by critics of his Vietnam War record, said Friday he has personally accepted a Texas oilman’s offer to pay $1 million to anyone who can disprove even a single charge of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

In a letter to T. Boone Pickens, the Massachusetts Democrat wrote: “While I am prepared to show they lied on allegation after allegation, you have generously offered to pay one million dollars for just one thing that can be proven false. I am prepared to prove the lie beyond any reasonable doubt.” Kerry, a Navy veteran and former prosecutor, said he was willing to present his case directly to Pickens, who provided $3 million to bankroll the group during Kerry’s race against President Bush.

Pickens has responded by raising the stakes:

Pickens wrote Friday in a letter faxed to Kerry, “I am certainly open to your challenge,” but he said he would not pay Kerry unless the senator first provided him with copies of his wartime journals, as well as movies he shot while on patrol and his complete military records for 1971 to 1978.

Pickens said such documentation, which the group has previously sought, would be needed to disprove its ads. “When you have done so, if you can then prove anything in the ads was materially untrue, I will gladly award $1 million. As you know, I have been a long and proud supporter of the American military and veterans’ causes,” Pickens wrote.

He also proposed a counter-challenge: “If you cannot prove anything in the Swift Boat ads to be untrue, that you will make a $1 million gift to the charity I am choosing — the (Congressional) Medal of Honor Foundation.”

Jane Hamsher thinks this constitutes “reneging” on the deal and is “cowardly.” Patterico guest DRJ figures he’s merely specifying “the material terms – the rules – regarding how the winner will be determined.”

In any event, it’s a sucker bet.

Many of the more outrageous claims in the book have been rather strongly rebutted. Likewise, the debut ad, which questioned the character of Kerry’s service in Vietnam and implied he didn’t deserve his medals, was “contradicted by the statements of several other veterans who observed the incidents, by the Navy’s official records, and, in some instances, by the contemporaneous statements of SBVT members themselves.” John McCain pronounced it “dishonest and dishonorable” and I pronounced them the Swift Boat Nuts noted that they “sound increasingly like lunatics.” That said, given the passage of time, it’s doubtful the reasonable doubt threshold can be reached.

Still, as I wrote in “Swift Justice,” a July 2004 piece for Tech Central Station, the charges about self-inflicted wounds, war crimes, and undeserved medals weren’t why the Swift Boat ads were so effective. Indeed, if they had continued on that path, the campaign would almost certainly have backfired.

The idea that Kerry’s war medals were unearned is rather dubious and almost impossible to prove. Furthermore, as Bush’s re-election team seems to grasp, the mere fact that Kerry went to Vietnam trumps Bush’s record of halfhearted service in the Air National Guard. And the business about Kerry killing “a lone, fleeing, teenage Viet Cong in a loincloth” is just unbelievable coming 35 years after the fact.

That said, Kerry’s actions after returning home from Vietnam will ultimately hurt him more than his Vietnam service helps him. We should expect to see several ads focusing on his outrageous accusations against his fellow veterans, including the Senate testimony where he put forth numerous documentable lies. As political scientist Steven Taylor has noted, most of the animus of the SBVFT was generated by Kerry’s actions as leader of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War rather than his actual conduct in theater. It seems quite likely to me that this reaction will ultimately take place in other veterans and in the swing voters who have yet to make up their minds on Kerry’s character.

The second, third, and fourth ads concentrated on those angles. Stories of medals thrown over a wall by Kerry that weren’t actually Kerry’s medals, memories that were “seared — seared!!” into Kerry’s brain but couldn’t possibly be true, and reminders that Kerry had smeared American troops in “a fashion reminiscent of GEN-jis Khan” effectively undermined Kerry’s credibility and he failed to respond effectively. It’s rather odd to suddenly be offering up proof more than three years later.

UPDATE: Jules Crittenden wonders why Kerry would want to remind people of his failed campaign.

On the eve of Veterans’ Day, a new study sheds light on the nature of heroism.

An infantryman charges a pillbox in the face of enemy fire. A firefighter rushes up the stairwell of a burning skyscraper as office workers flee. A teacher shields her student from a schoolyard gunman with her body. Heroes all. But what personal qualities made them heroic?

In the movies, heroes are charismatic rebels played by the likes of Will Smith or Bruce Willis. But researchers who surveyed decorated World War II veterans found not all heroes are cut from the same swashbuckling cloth. Quiet types with a sense of loyalty and selflessness often have the right stuff, too.

“We often think of the gung-ho, John Wayne ‘Sands of Iwo Jima’ kind of hero driven to combat,” said researcher Brian Wansink of Cornell University. “But there’s a whole lot of these heroes that are much more along the lines of that Captain Miller character Tom Hanks played in ‘Saving Private Ryan’ — the reluctant high school English teacher.”

In a paper to be published in the management-oriented journal The Leadership Quarterly, researchers asked 526 World War II veterans who experienced “heavy and frequent combat” to evaluate themselves on qualities such as leadership, loyalty, spontaneity and selflessness. There were 83 men in the group who received a medal for meritorious service or valor — either a Bronze Star, Silver Star, Distinguished Service Cross or Medal of Honor.

Unsurprisingly, veterans who had been awarded medals tended to rate themselves higher for qualities like leadership, adventurousness and adaptability. Results became more intriguing when researchers divided medal earners into two groups: those who enlisted (”eager heroes”) and those who were drafted (”reluctant heroes”). The reluctant heroes scored higher than any other group in selflessness and working well with others.

The study suggests that quiet heroes rely on a deep sense of duty and esprit de corps as opposed to derring-do. That sentiment was echoed by several of the medal-earning veterans interviewed separately for this story. To a man, they downplayed any notion of heroism. “You show me a man who says he was brave over there and I’ll show you a liar,” said draftee and Bronze Star recipient William O. Carpenter, 84, of Champaign Ill. “Every one of us was afraid. Even the Germans were afraid.”

Former paratrooper Charles Murz was shot at more times than he can recall after dropping behind enemy lines in Europe and earning two Bronze Stars. Now 83 and living in East China, Mich., he scoffs at the idea he showed any particular courage. “Brave? Well, I don’t know about that,” Murz said. “I did what I had to do at the time that I did it.”

Of course, that’s the very definition of heroism. As George Patton famously put it, “All men are afraid in battle. The coward is the one who lets his fear overcome his sense of duty. Duty is the essence of manhood.” He also said, “If we take the generally accepted definition of bravery as a quality which knows no fear, I have never seen a brave man. All men are frightened. The more intelligent they are, the more they are frightened.”

Wansink said that understanding the range of heroic qualities can be useful to people who recruit and train soldiers, firefighters and police. A quietly respectful student might be able to distinguish herself as much as the extroverted high school quarterback.

Wansink also said the study underscores the effectiveness of team building in hazardous jobs, be it partnering police officers, having firefighters live together or organizing troops into units. “A hand grenade falls on the floor and leads you to do something other than if you didn’t know who these guys were and didn’t have a commitment to them,” he said.

That sort of loyalty effect has been noted before, famously by the late author Stephen E. Ambrose, who even named one of his books about World War II combat troops “Band of Brothers.” Writing in “Citizen Soldiers” of the men who liberated Europe, he noted: “What held them together was not country and flag, but unit cohesion.” “I did it because it was expected of me,” said 88-year-old Marcel Leschot, of Indianapolis, Ill, a Bronze Star recipient. “You never thought of your own preservation.”

Indeed, the idea that men fight for their comrades-in-arms more so than for lofty ideals of patriotism, belief in the cause, and the like has been long established. Indeed, it has been the essence of professional military training for decades.

Fearing that the American soldier is not the ideal international marketing figure in the current climate, the makers of the forthcoming G.I. Joe movie have decided that not only is “G.I. Joe” not an American G.I., he’s no longer even named “Joe.”

Variety reports,

While some remember the character from its gung-ho fighting man ’60s incarnation, he’s evolved. G.I. Joe is now a Brussels-based outfit that stands for Global Integrated Joint Operating Entity, an international co-ed force of operatives who use hi-tech equipment to battle Cobra, an evil organization headed by a double-crossing Scottish arms dealer. The property is closer in tone to “X-Men” and James Bond than a war film.

IGN adds,

So why the changes? Hasbro and Paramount execs recently spoke about the challenges of marketing a film about the U.S. military at a time when the current U.S. administration and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are at a low-point in global polls. When a studio makes a film as expensive as G.I. Joe will likely be, they want to know that as many people as possible around the world will want to see it. In other words, G.I. Joe — “A Real American Hero” — is a tough sell.

This news is two months old but just starting to bubble in the blogosphere. Mike Pechar, Betsy Newmark, and RightWingSparkle are some of the bloggers I recognize who are on the story today. [Update: Via Memeorandum, I see John Hawkins, Mark Noonan, and John Cole have weighed in.]

It’s especially galling that G.I. Joe is being stripped of its American military identity while the American military is deployed to a war zone. As Vin Suprynowicz points out, “G.I. Joe” was modeled on a real real American hero, Mitchell Paige, who was awarded the Medal of Honor for his actions on Guadalcanal. He agreed to let Hasbro use his likeness on the condition that “G.I. Joe must always remain a United States Marine.”

Then again, Hasbro is an international conglomerate and business is business. As a review of its Wikipedia entry makes clear, G.I. Joe has constantly evolved over the years. The version I played with in the early 1970s was sold at a time when the American military was a hot button and was marketed accordingly:

• By 1970, in the wake of the Vietnam War, Hasbro sought to downplay the war theme that had initially defined “G.I. Joe”. The line became known as “The Adventures of G.I. Joe” for a time. G.I. Joe was now cast as the leader of the “Adventure Team”, an adventuring/spy-like organization with the goal of rescue missions and fighting evil. The look of the doll was also changed in 1970 with the addition of a flocked hair and beard (an innovation developed in England by Palitoy for their licensed version of Joe, Action Man). A retooled African American Adventurer was also introduced around this time.

• In 1974, named to meet the growing cultural popularity of Kung Fu, Hasbro introduced the “kung fu grip” to the G.I. Joe line. This was another innovation that had been developed in the UK for Action Man. The hands were sculpted in a softer plastic that allowed the fingers to grip objects in a more lifelike fashion.

• In 1975, after a failed bid to purchase the toy rights to the Six Million Dollar Man, Hasbro issued a bionic warrior figure named Mike Power, Atomic Man, which sold over one million units. Also added to the Adventure Team was a superhero, Bulletman. Both figures were not in the mold of the rest of team, and further confused the GI Joe line.

Indeed, my first G.I. Joe has red flocked hair and a beard and came with desert safari gear. I later acquired both a kung fu grip variant and got Mike Power, the Atomic Man, for my 10th birthday. My dad was in the Army at the time and I spent a substantial part of my G.I. Joe period living on military installations. It never occurred to me to note that it was unusual for a military man to sport a beard or that none of the “action figures” had traditional uniforms and insignia. I suspect today’s kids won’t ponder the political implications of this rebranding with any more vigor.

And, frankly, the fact that the organization is based out of Brussels doesn’t necessarily render it anti-American. After all, that’s where NATO is headquartered. Still, the move is annoying.

The word “hero” is getting attached to many things since 2001. Sometimes it isn’t just doing something as an individual, it is being the one making the decisions affecting the lives of 50 or 100 men, as well as oneself. That is what true leadership is.

Rear Adm. Eugene B. Fluckey, one of the greatest naval heroes of World War II who was awarded the Medal of Honor and four Navy Crosses for his daring submarine attacks on Japanese shipping, died June 28 at Anne Arundel Medical Center. He was 93 and had Alzheimer’s disease.

Adm. Fluckey, who was born and raised in Washington, was a pioneer of submarine warfare and among the most highly decorated veterans from any branch of the military.

[...]

On Jan. 25, 1945, Adm. Fluckey embarked on what Navy officials, seldom given to hyperbole, called “virtually a suicide mission — a naval epic.” In “an exceptional feat of brilliant deduction and bold tracking,” in the words of his Medal of Honor citation, Adm. Fluckey found more than 30 Japanese vessels lurking in a concealed harbor protected by mines and rocky shoals.
Evading a cordon of armed escort boats, the Barb slipped into the harbor on a moonless, cloudy night and scored eight direct torpedo hits on six large ships. One of them was an ammunition vessel, which exploded and caused “inestimable damage by the resultant flying shells and other pyrotechnics,” according to the Medal of Honor citation.

As Adm. Fluckey watched from the bridge of his submarine, The Washington Post reported in 1945, “Japanese ships were erupting in the night like a nest of volcanoes.” The Barb then fled at high speed “through uncharted rocky waters thick with fishing junks,” pursued by two Japanese gunboats. Because of the shallow water, the submarine had to stay on the surface, dodging obstacles and steady fire for a full hour before reaching the safe depths of the open sea.

“The significance of that mission,” said retired Navy Capt. Max Duncan, who was the chief gunnery and torpedo officer of the Barb, “was that we completely disrupted the entire shipping system the Japanese had developed at that point in the war. [...] Adm. Fluckey and his 80-man crew were credited with sinking 29 ships, including an aircraft carrier, destroyer and cruiser. He destroyed more gross tonnage than any other submarine commander. For his wartime exploits, he became known as “Lucky Fluckey” and the “Galloping Ghost of the China Coast.”

Adm. Fluckey sometimes violated Navy regulations by stashing cases of beer in the officers’ shower. Whenever the Barb sank a ship, everyone on board was entitled to a cold beer, which endeared him to his crew.

In addition to the Medal of Honor and Navy Crosses (second only to the Medal of Honor), Adm. Fluckey received the Distinguished Service Medal, the Legion of Merit and a host of lesser decorations. His greatest achievement, he often said, was that no one under his command ever received another well-known medal: the Purple Heart.

Wikipedia has more on this hero:

As commanding officer of Barb, he established himself as one of the greatest submarine skippers, credited with the most tonnage sunk by a U.S. skipper during World War II: 17 ships including a carrier, cruiser, and frigate. In one of the stranger incidents in the war, Fluckey sent a landing party ashore to set demolition charges on a coastal railway line, which destroyed a 16-car train.[2] This was the sole landing by U.S. military forces on the Japanese home islands during World War II.

Fluckey ordered that this landing party be comprised of crewmen from every division on his submarine and asked for as many ex-Boy Scouts as possible because Fluckey knew they would know how to find their way in unfamiliar territory.

Fluckey received four Navy Cross Medals for extraordinary heroism during the eighth, ninth, tenth, and twelfth war patrols of Barb. During his famous eleventh patrol, he continued to revolutionize submarine warfare, inventing the night convoy attack from astern by joining the flank escort line. He attacked two convoys at anchor 26 miles inside the 20 fathom (37 m) curve on the China coast, totaling more than 30 ships. With two frigates pursuing, Barb set a then-world speed record for a submarine of 23.5 knots (44 km/h) using 150% overload. For his conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity, Fluckey received the Medal of Honor. Barb received the Presidential Unit Citation for the eighth–eleventh patrols and the Navy Unit Commendation for the twelfth patrol.

His book, Thunder Below! (1992), depicts the exploits of his beloved Barb.”Though the tally shows more shells, bombs, and depth charges fired at BARB, no one received the Purple Heart and Barb came back alive, eager, and ready to fight again.

The Submarine Force, a very small portion of the Navy, has been awaiting this death for a year.

Is there a Washington DC Memorial to local Medal of Honor awardees? If not, there should be, and Gene Fluckey should be the impetus for such a local monument.

And after retirement, he “ran an orphanage with his second wife in Portugal for a number of years.”

The Submarine Blogs such as The Stupid Shall Be Punished, and the Rotini BBS (yes, an old style BBS still exists) have more from the Submarine Force view.

The Citation:

For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty as commanding officer of the U.S.S. Barb during her 11th war patrol along the east coast of China from 19 December 1944 to 15 February 1945. After sinking a large enemy ammunition ship and damaging additional tonnage during a running 2-hour night battle on 8 January, Comdr. Fluckey, in an exceptional feat of brilliant deduction and bold tracking on 25 January, located a concentration of more than 30 enemy ships in the lower reaches of Nankuan Chiang (Mamkwan Harbor). Fully aware that a safe retirement would necessitate an hour’s run at full speed through the uncharted, mined, and rock-obstructed waters, he bravely ordered, “Battle station—torpedoes!” In a daring penetration of the heavy enemy screen, and riding in 5 fathoms [9 m] of water, he launched the Barb’s last forward torpedoes at 3,000 yard [2.7 km] range. Quickly bringing the ship’s stern tubes to bear, he turned loose 4 more torpedoes into the enemy, obtaining 8 direct hits on 6 of the main targets to explode a large ammunition ship and cause inestimable damage by the resultant flying shells and other pyrotechnics. Clearing the treacherous area at high speed, he brought the Barb through to safety and 4 days later sank a large Japanese freighter to complete a record of heroic combat achievement, reflecting the highest credit upon Comdr. Fluckey, his gallant officers and men, and the U.S. Naval Service.

Fair winds and following seas Admiral.

Garance Franke-Ruta, a senior editor at the liberal American Prospect, takes to the conservative editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal to decry the “Girls Gone Wild” problem and call for a nanny state solution: “It is time to raise the age of consent from 18 to 21 — consent, in this case, referring not to sexual relations but to providing erotic content on film.”

It is true that teenagers become legal adults at the age of 18, right around the time they graduate from high school. The age of consent to serve in the armed forces is also 18 (17 with parental consent), as is the minimum voting age since 1971, when an amendment to the Constitution lowered it from 21. But the federal government is already happy to bar legal adults from engaging in certain activities. Most notably, the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 raised the drinking age to 21 (by threatening to withhold highway funds from states that did not go along). In practice, the age limit is flouted on college campuses and in private homes. But it has still had a positive effect, not least by driving down fatalities from drunk driving.

A new legal age for participating in the making of erotic imagery — that is, for participating in pornography — would most likely operate in the same way, sometimes honored in the breach more than the observance. But a 21-year-old barrier would save a lot of young women from being manipulated into an indelible error, while burdening the world’s next Joe Francis with an aptly limited supply of “talent.” And it would surely have a tonic cultural effect. We are so numb to the coarse imagery around us that we have come to accept not just pornography itself — long since routinized — but its “barely legal” category. “Girls Gone Wild”–like its counterparts on the Web–is treated as a kind of joke. It isn’t. There ought to be a law.

The problem she’s trying to solve here is not all that clear. Garance is worried about the “transform[ation of] the playful exhibitionism of young women into scarlet letters that follow them around for life.” Yet, she contends that it is “socially acceptable for a freshman at, say, Ohio State — living in a dorm room in Columbus like thousands of freshmen before her — to participate in soft-core porn.” If so, where’s the scarlet letter?

Let’s presume, though, that “going wild” on video actually has not yet become socially acceptable. Indeed, I rather hope that’s the case. How old does one have to be to decide whether to buck social norms for fun, fame, fortune, or foolishness?

In expanded thoughts on her own site, Garance notes that “our laws recognize that maturity comes slowly,” with different age thresholds required for voting, drinking, serving as Representative, Senator, and President. Any “age of consent” line is arbitrary in the particular no matter how scientific it is in the aggregate. Yet we draw lines anyway.

Still, the idea that a 20-year-old woman isn’t responsible for the consequences of getting drunk and flashing her private parts for a strange man with a camera — and then signing a consent form — is hard to swallow.

For one thing, plenty of women are mothers by that age, responsible for the welfare of helpless infants. Surely, that’s a notch or two higher on the difficulty scale than remembering to keep one’s shirt pulled down? Indeed, it was not all that long ago that girls were getting married and having children at 13 and 14.

While we’re on the subject of child bearing, we should recall that girls well under 18 are permitted to have abortions every day, even without parental notification. For that matter, they’re allowed to bring their child to term and give them up for adoption. Or, for that matter, to keep the child and raise it to adulthood. Either way, those decisions will “follow them around for life,” too.

I’m not the first to point out the incongruity of people being eligible to join the military at 18 and yet deeming them insufficiently responsible to make other choices until 21. Until we abolished the peacetime draft, we routinely conscripted men into service at 18. The average age of the soldiers we sent to Vietnam was 19. Far more of the U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq were 21 or younger (974 of them as of March 24), than any other age bracket. Jessica Lynch was 19 when she was taken prisoner. Audie Murphy was 20 on the day he earned the Medal of Honor.

Ezra Klein agrees that taking freedom away from 18-, 19-, and 20-year-old women isn’t the answer but feels something must be done to protect them when they’re drunk, naked, and stupid. He suggests making it illegal to film nude women while they’re “severely impaired” or imposing “a waiting period between signing consent and making your porn so the effects of haste and intoxication are blunted.”

I suspect, however, that Ezra would be in favor of prosecuting 20-year-olds who get drunk and shoot people. Or get drunk and drive? Indeed, we have been ratcheting up the penalties for drunk driving while lowering the threshold as to what constitutes “drunk” for a quarter century now.

Perhaps we should just make it illegal for people under 21 to purchase and consume alcohol? Well, actually, we did that. During the Reagan administration.

We send 18-year-olds off to kill and risk death. We hold them responsible for crimes. Even if they’re drunk. Yet they’re deemed too immature to remember not to flash their boobies at a camera? How insane is that?

At some point, people are responsible for their own actions. I’d suggest that 18 is well past old enough to know when to keep your clothes on.

UPDATE: Jon Swift thinks GFR’s proposal doesn’t go far enough.

Can a girl of 21 really know what she is consenting to when she signs a release form for a pornographer? Does she really understand what the ramifications might be later in life? That is why I propose that we raise the minimum age of consent to participate in pornography to 65.

He fully explores the ramifications of that change at the link.

While there are current arguments that the Medal of Honor has become a posthumous event only, sometimes bureaucracy (and stupidity, we won’t talk about the TSA here) is in the way of honoring those who have been awarded the Medal of Honor. It turns out in Oregon, there is only one Medal of Honor recipient, so it would cost too much to make a special license plate (the minimum is 500 people per year to get a plate).

Oregon’s only living recipient of the Medal of Honor is 86 and, before he dies, he wants a special Oregon license plate to mark his service.

A state agency says the price would be steep, so legislators have stepped in with a bill to allow Medal of Honor plates for Robert Maxwell and others like him as they are honored.

The medal is the nation’s highest military honor, awarded by Congress for the risk of life in combat beyond the call of duty. Washington and California are among states with similar laws.

Maxwell has been trying for years to get the plate.

More than three years ago, the Oregon Department of Transportation told him that he’d have to pay $18,000, fill out an application and guarantee 500 new customers a year.

Maxwell’s supporters got the Portland company that makes Oregon plates to hammer out a special set, but the state wouldn’t allow him to use them.

Legislator in Oregon are doing the right thing and are correcting this situation.

On a related note, Bruce Crandall, 74, of Port Orchard WA, will receive our nation’s highest award for valor on Monday for actions during the Vietnam War (41 years LATE). But it gets worse.

Back in America, Arlene Crandall was facing her own struggles. She was raising their three sons in a country where opponents to the war were becoming increasingly strident. She said a teacher refused to teach her oldest son when he learned the boy’s father was fighting in Vietnam.

“I was on the principal’s desk the next morning,” she said. “Those are the kinds of things that happened back then.”

Those reactions to America’s military are what make the Medal of Honor so special to Crandall. He says soldiers appear to be held in more esteem today, despite what one thinks of the conflict they are in. In the 1960s, he hid his uniform from view when he returned home. On Monday, he said, he will wear it with pride.

“This will probably help veterans be a little prouder of the fact that they did what their country asked and realize that we’re still there and being recognized,” he said.

41 years later, that is. Over at The Volokh Conspiracy, there is an interesting series on how some are trying to rewrite history and say no soldiers were spit upon on their return to the USA from Vietnam.

Army Specialist Ross McGinnis has been posthumously nominated for the Medal of Honor for diving on a grenade to save his squad mates.

Spc. Ross A. McGinnis has been nominated by his commanders for the Medal of Honor, said Maj. Sean Ryan, a spokesman for 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division.

On Dec. 4, while on duty in Baghdad, Iraq, McGinnis used his body to smother a grenade, saving the lives of four fellow soldiers. McGinnis died from the blast. McGinnis, 19, was assigned to Company C, 1st Battalion, 26th Infantry Regiment, which is attached to 2nd BCT.

Only one soldier and one Marine have received the Medal of Honor since the beginning of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and there has been debate about why there have been so few recipients of the nation’s highest award for valor.

According to information provided Tuesday by Multi-National Division-Baghdad, McGinnis was manning the gunner’s hatch when an insurgent tossed a grenade from above. The grenade flew past McGinnis and down through the hatch before lodging near the radio. His platoon sergeant, Sgt. 1st Class Cedric Thomas, was in the vehicle at the time. McGinnis “yelled, ‘Grenade. … It’s in the truck,’” Thomas said. “I looked out of the corner of my eye as I was crouching down and I saw him pin it down.” McGinnis, who was from Knox, Pa, could have escaped the blast, Thomas said. “He had time to jump out of the truck,” he said. “He chose not to. He gave his life to save his crew and his platoon sergeant. He’s a hero.”

Three of the soldiers in the vehicle with McGinnis have returned to duty after suffering minor injuries. The fourth is recovering in Germany.

McGinnis, the youngest soldier in his company, was approved Monday for a Silver Star, the nation’s third highest award for valor, according to a press release from MND-B. In it, he was referred to as a private first class. McGinnis was promoted to E-4 the morning he died.

The other recipients were Army SFC Paul Smith, awarded the Medal August 2, 2005 for killing as many as 50 enemy soldiers and saving nearly 100 Americans, and Marine Corporal Jason Dunham, who was awarded the medal November 13th for jumping on a grenade and saving the lives of two comrades. Both were awarded posthumously.

A friend of mine emailed an MSNBC reprint of an AP story reporting that Don Rumsfeld today likened critics of the Iraq War to those who tried to appease Hitler in the 1930s.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday accused critics of the Bush administration’s Iraq and counterterrorism policies of trying to appease “a new type of fascism.” In unusually explicit terms, Rumsfeld portrayed the administration’s critics as suffering from “moral or intellectual confusion” about what threatens the nation’s security and accused them of lacking the courage to fight back.

In remarks to several thousand veterans at the American Legion’s national convention, Rumsfeld recited what he called the lessons of history, including the failed efforts to appease the Adolf Hitler regime in the 1930s. “I recount this history because once again we face similar challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism,” he said.

[...]

He said, for example, that more media attention was given to U.S. soldiers’ abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib than to the fact that Sgt. 1st Class Paul Ray Smith received the Medal of Honor.

“Can we truly afford to believe somehow, some way, vicious extremists can be appeased?” he asked.

“Those who know the truth need to speak out against these kinds of myths and lies and distortions being told about our troops and about our country,” he added.

John McQuain, however, thinks Burn’s account a “hatchet job” and does a side-by-side comparison with the story and a transcript of the speech. He’s right that the quotes, taken out of context and rearranged with Burns’ paraphrasing, puts Rumsfelds’ remarks in the worst possible light.

Still, there’s not much doubt that the SECDEF is at least strongly suggesting that administration critics are appeasers. Take, for example, this passage from the DefenseLink transcription:

We need to face the following questions:

• With the growing lethality and availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow vicious extremists can be appeased?
• Can we really continue to think that free countries can negotiate a separate peace with terrorists?
• Can we truly afford the luxury of pretending that the threats today are simply “law enforcement” problems, rather than fundamentally different threats, requiring fundamentally different approaches?
• And can we truly afford to return to the destructive view that America — not the enemy — is the real source of the world’s trouble?

These are central questions of our time. And we must face them.

Are these really the central questions of our time? Is there really serious debate about these points?

While I agree that there are parallels between the Islamist menace and that posed by European Fascism, there are few serious leaders of the opposition party who are advocating the equivalent of appeasement. Indeed, military action against the Taliban in Aghanistan had near universal support and the main debate going in to Iraq was whether it was a diversion from the primary fight against al Qaeda and its allies.

Is anyone of consequence seriously arguing that we ought to negotiate a separate peace with al Qaeda?

Certainly, there are those who think the main way to deal with terrorist groups is through detective work and law enforcement actions such as recently thwarted the London hijacking plot. But nobody seriously objects to the use of lethal force against terrorist camps or leaders. Indeed, Democrats continue the silly argument that it’s the president’s fault we haven’t killed Osama bin Laden yet.

I suppose there is a significant element that argues that, if only the United States weren’t so friendly towards Israel and dependant on Middle Eastern oil, we would not be the object of terrorist attacks. Indeed, there’s some kernel of truth in that. But few serious people are advocating that we therefore ought to pull up stakes and become isolationist–and at least half of them are in the Buchanan wing of the GOP.

While there is legitimate debate over how best to combat Islamist terrorism, it is counterproductive to conduct it using straw man attacks and barely disguised ad hominem. If that’s the best defense of current policies the administration brain trust can come up with, they’re in serious trouble.

UPDATE: Steve Benen says this is “the Defense Secretary at his least sensible” and that “with neither facts nor narratives on his side, Rumsfeld was left to simply pound the table, and hope that no one snickered at the sad rants of the poor man who doesn’t know what he’s talking about.” Now, obviously, I disagree with the last part of that but ad hominem tends to beget ad hominem.

Digby diagnoses the speech: “This is not a real critique. It’s a psych-out designed purely to make the Democrats go wobbly and to get the media to portray them that way.”

Matt Yglesias, guesting at TPM, dubs the speech, “the full wingnut monte.” While I agree with him that this seems a preview of the fall campaign (if not part it) designed to intimidate Democrats into ceding ground on foreign policy matters, he ironically takes the bait:

We’re witnessing the bitter, bitter fruits of the Iraq War. Other nations learned that they must seek nuclear weapons as soon as possible to safeguard themselves from a newly trigger happy United States of America. Muslim opinion was sharply polarized against us. Iran and Syria were told that their cooperation against al-Qaeda was no longer needed because their governments would topple soon enough. A power vacuum was left on the streets of Baghdad that parties aligned with Iran have rushed to fill. The Arab-Israeli conflict was sidelined as something that would magically resolve itself once Saddam Hussein was out of the way. And America’s allies were taught that our government was not to be relied upon — that we operated with bad intelligence and initiated wars of choice without any real plans or ideas about how to cope with the aftermath.

Apparently, America — not the enemy — is the real source of the world’s trouble. I don’t think Democrats want to lead with that one.

Living as I do very near Fort Belvoir, I read with interest this morning’s A1 piece in WaPo about the Army’s plans to build a giant amusement park and hotel complex in land owned by the base.

Army officials say they are considering allowing a private developer to build a 125-acre entertainment, hotel and conference center complex next to a national Army museum at Fort Belvoir that could draw more than 1 million people a year to traffic-choked southern Fairfax County. The possibility of adding what county officials call a military theme park arises as about 22,000 employees prepare to be transferred to Fort Belvoir in the next five years because of the federal base realignment and closure recommendations, designed to save $49 billion nationwide.

Having little to say about it aside from grumbling about not needing the added traffic–something only readers who live nearby would possibly care about–I decided it wasn’t worth blogging about. Oddly, however, a minor blogswarm is developing on the left side of the blogosphere.

Steve Benen, among the handful of left-bloggers I consider regular must-reads, writes that, in addition to the traffic issue,

[T]here’s also the question of taste. Particularly in a time of war, combat is a serious matter, not an amusement-park simulation. Those who are brave enough to wear the uniform and put their lives on the line aren’t characters in some kind children’s entertainment show.

I’m no expert, but theme-parks are about amusement, leisure, and fantasy. Is it me, or does military service not fit in with this description at all?

First Draft’s scout_prime skips the serious analysis and posits, “In a neo con world of continuous war I guess this will be necessary to capture the minds of our youth as early as possible. But need I even say this is just sick…”

Wonk engages in what one presumes is levity:

Following closely on the heels of the forthcoming upgrade of the Vietnam Memorial (“frag” your parents with authentic wacky paintball rifle!), the Army is pleased to announce that to pay for its somber, Medal of Honor-shaped national museum at Fort Belvoir, it will have to contract some hucksters to build a theme park.

Writing at HuffPo, Robert Weissman takes it several steps further:

This business of making military combat seem fun and a game — no small thing with dying and wounded soldiers coming back from Iraq, but assisted by the Bush administration’s efforts to block media coverage of the caskets — is no small thing.

Of course, the amusement park is unlikely to mention that one in six soldiers seeing combat in Iraq are coming home with serious mental health problems.

It’s not likely to play up the likelihood of getting injured or killed.

Nor is it likely to depict how military service — especially, but not only, in pursuit of unjust objectives — can be dehumanizing, and lead otherwise good people to commit atrocities. (About which, be sure not to miss Sunday’s Los Angeles Times extraordinary story on declassified Pentagon papers showing that U.S. atrocities went far beyond My Lai.)

And I guess it’s fair to assume the theme park wouldn’t plan to have booths from those who might convey an honest assessment of military service, like Citizen Soldier.

The amusement park, if it does get built, will instead help romanticize war. In our class-riven society, that’s a doubly dangerous thing.

Such romanticization fits right into the schemes of deception used by military recruiters as they target minority, working class and rural kids for military service.

Even aside from the fact that military recruits have more education and come from wealthier social backgrounds than their civilian peers and that black and Hispanic soldiers are disproportionately not serving in the Infantry, this argument is rather illogical.

For one thing, we already have plenty of toys, games, and other amusements that glorify warfare. Haven’t these people heard of G.I. Joe? Or video games? Or John Wayne movies? How about air shows? Or, hell, the Hummer (Note to Wonkette readers: I refer here to the sport-utility vehicle.)?

Moreover, the proposed park would be aimed at visitors to the National Army Museum, to which this would be an adjunct. Presumably, the kind of folks who would be inclined to drive out to Fort Belvoir and visit an Army museum would be, well, interested in the Army. Such a museum would, if like any other similar one I’ve visited, have numerous static displays of tanks, weapons, Jeeps, and the like for visitors. It strikes me as perfectly natural that they would make the visit both more educational and more enjoyable by allowing people (presumably, adults or at least licensed drivers, for safety and liability reasons) to drive some of the vehicles.

Are those complaining about this alleged “glorification” of war concerned about the Blue Angels and Thunderbirds traveling to sporting events and air shows wowing impressionable youngsters with the sexier side of the military? Including, often, allowing kids to crawl around disabled versions of their planes and sit in the cockpit?

For that matter, how about those military bands going around giving free concerts at schools, conventions, and other places where they might give impressionable youngsters the idea that all soldiers ever do is play catchy tunes on the trumpet? Scandalous, I tell you!

Nothing like a little public humiliation for making a false official statement. Out of Whitefish, Montana come the story of a man sentenced to wear a sandwich-board stating “I am a liar. I am not a Marine. I have never served my country.”

A Whitefish man was sentenced Thursday to spend 50 hours wearing a sandwich board with the words, “I am a liar. I am not a Marine. I have never served my country.”

Chief U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy in Missoula also sentenced William Horvath to four months of house arrest for making a false statement.

Horvath, 36, was convicted of making a false statement — a felony.

According to court documents, in 2001 he told a probation officer that he served time in the U.S. Marine Corps. The probation officer was gathering information on Horvath on a prior charge of being a fugitive in possession of firearms or ammunition.

When the officer attempted to verify Horvath’s military service, the Marine Corps stated there was no record of him having served.

Horvath then presented evidence to the probation officer, including photographs and decorations. Representatives of the Marine Corps said Horvath’s uniform was worn improperly, decorations were improperly displayed, and equipment and uniforms in the photos did not fit with the era or were inconsistent with other items in the photos.

A veteran himself, Molloy ordered Horvath to perform 50 hours of community service by marching in front of the U.S. courthouse in Missoula during regular business hours. He must wear a sandwich board with large letters that will read, “I am a liar. I am not a Marine,” on the front. On the back will be: “I have never served my country. I have dishonored veterans of all wars.”

He must also write a letter of apology to the commandant of the Marine Corps, Veterans of Foreign Wars, and American Legion in Kalispell. Similar letters will go to the Missoulian and Daily Inter Lake newspapers, Molloy ordered. Horvath must admit in the letters that he lied repeatedly about serving and being wounded.

Horvath will be on probation for four years.

Molloy also fined Horvath $1,500.

It is important to note here that Hovath was convicted of making a false official statement to a Federal probation officer. Unless the laws have changed in the past year since I researched this, it is not a federal crime to falsely claim in public that you are, or have been, a member of the military. However, falsely claiming that you have been awarded the Medal of Honor is (now) a Federal offense. So is falsely claiming to be a member of the 4H (really, though it could be the Future Farmers of America, don’t remember).