[Andrew Stephens]

One of our (the UK's) more low brow newspapers is running a campaign to give British soldiers killed in Iraq or Afghanistan medals as a mark of their courage and sacrifice.

Now I'm certainly not disputing the average soldiers bravery, or debating the pros or cons of our involvement in each region. What I was thinking is this

Is a soldier who dies in the course of his (or her) duty more worthy of recognition than their fellow soldiers?

Certainly individual acts of extreme bravery are already recognised with medals but many soldiers fall victim to essentially randon acts of violence such as IED's or snipers. This makes it essentially a lottery. I would assume that each and every soldier is aware of the risks involved in active deployment and while some make a spur of the moment decision to charge that machine gun (or not) other fall victim (or not) to chance.

So, should those that are killed (or injured) be recognised above those who don't? Or does this in some way belittle the soldiers who serve without being killed or injured but are accepting exactl the same risks?

I would add that I'm really not sure which way to think on this. Emotionally I can see that loosing your life is big thing and maybe should be recognised, but in what way? While intellectually I'm not so sure.

[Chuckit]

If dying for your country doesn't deserve a medal, I don't know what does.

[Full-Auto]

Why wouldn't you give a medal to your fallen soldiers? Of course it warrants recognition. What a crazy question...

[Andrew Stephens]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

If dying for your country doesn't deserve a medal, I don't know what does.

But is dying for your country any more deserved than being prepared to die for your country? That's what I'm trying to work out.

[Andrew Stephens]

Originally Posted by Full-Auto 

Why wouldn't you give a medal to your fallen soldiers? Of course it warrants recognition. What a crazy question...

Soldiers have always got medals for participating in campaigns. Soldiers have always got medals for risking their lives (or loosing their lives) in acts of conspicuous gallantry. Both of these I have no problem with. However in all previous wars soldiers that have died in the course of combat have recieved no special recognition above and beyond their colleagues

Apart from the US military (I think) which seeems unusual in giving a medal specifically for being wounded in combat)

Specifically this newspaper led campaign seems more like a ploy to buy newspaper sales by trading on the sentimentality of the public in these times. Which feels pretty f**king cynical to me.

Hence the confusion. Maybe the end result is right but for the qwrong reasons. Or maybe the end result is wrong too?

[Dakar the Fourth]

These soldiers gave the ultimate sacrifice, so yeah, I think they deserve it.

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by Andrew Stephens 

But is dying for your country any more deserved than being prepared to die for your country? That's what I'm trying to work out.

Being prepared to pay the ultimate price does not equate paying the ultimate price. Thy gave the ultimate by sacrificing their lives how can that be view as equal to serving and being prepared. Also you cannot fully prepare to die. Yes its on your mind but really how can you prepare for that

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Andrew Stephens 

But is dying for your country any more deserved than being prepared to die for your country? That's what I'm trying to work out.

You're trying to apply logic to emotion. If we were purely logical beings who acted based purely on empirically derived checklists, we wouldn't be giving medals at all, because all they do is consume planetary resources. But people like to receive recognition for what they gave, and giving your life is a bigger sacrifice (not necessarily more noble, perhaps, but you are definitely giving more) than giving your willingness.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

You're trying to apply logic to emotion. If we were purely logical beings who acted based purely on empirically derived checklists, we wouldn't be giving medals at all, because all they do is consume planetary resources. But people like to receive recognition for what they gave, and giving your life is a bigger sacrifice (not necessarily more noble, perhaps, but you are definitely giving more) than giving your willingness.

I agree wholeheartedly.

[red rocket]

It seems to me that your question is based on the premise that all soldiers should be awarded medals. Medals are supposed to be for acts of extraordinary heroism, if you start handing them out just for snuffing it, you’re devaluing the whole concept.

Let’s face it, this sort of thing is just another example of the government seeding the public memespace with propaganda glorifying soldiering in order to get more stupid kids to join up to die in its misguided wars of aggression adventure game.

[Andrew Stephens]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

It seems to me that your question is based on the premise that all soldiers should be awarded medals. Medals are supposed to be for acts of extraordinary heroism, if you start handing them out just for snuffing it, you’re devaluing the whole concept.

Let’s face it, this sort of thing is just another example of the government seeding the public memespace with propaganda glorifying soldiering in order to get more stupid kids to join up to die in its misguided wars of aggression adventure game.

A bit harshley put but somewhat accurate. Dying in the course of active service is part of soldiering. I would think that most soldiers are fully aware of this and accept it with typical forces black humour and get on with the job.

In this case I don't think it's a government plan to help glorify sacrifice but a fleet street ploy to use public sentimentality towards soldiers to raise newspaper sales. Which is just as bad.

[OreoCookie]

I agree. You shouldn't handle this matter solely on an emotional basis: medals are for extraordinary acts of courage -- and not all soldiers who died did so while doing something courageous. If all soldiers who died in action get a `medal,' then those who have really earned a medal are made all the less special.

Also, if you really want to give them medals, why stop at soldiers? Why not automatically give medals to police men or fire fighters who have died in action? They are serving their country, too, they put their lives on the line just like soldiers?

[Atheist]

The medal isn't for the person that died. It's for the friends and family. It's help them justify the loss. I presume many police/fire departments award the family some sort of remembrance in the form of a plaque or memorial.

[OreoCookie]

Soldiers that have been killed in action are also awarded certain ceremonies (e. g. a soldier's burial), i. e. there are such rituals in place already. A medal is superfluous and should be reserved to those who have died a hero's death.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

The medal isn't for the person that died. It's for the friends and family. It's help them justify the loss. I presume many police/fire departments award the family some sort of remembrance in the form of a plaque or memorial.

It is not to "justify" their loss. It is to honor their sacrifice.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I agree. You shouldn't handle this matter solely on an emotional basis: medals are for extraordinary acts of courage -- and not all soldiers who died did so while doing something courageous. If all soldiers who died in action get a `medal,' then those who have really earned a medal are made all the less special.

Also, if you really want to give them medals, why stop at soldiers? Why not automatically give medals to police men or fire fighters who have died in action? They are serving their country, too, they put their lives on the line just like soldiers?

First you say this shouldn't be handled on an emotional basis, but then your argument is that somebody will be "made less special," which is itself an appeal to emotion.

As I said, medals are an emotion-based reward system. Doing acts of extraordinary courage is one thing that might be rewarded, and indeed there are certain medals for that. Other medals are for acts that are particularly valuable (even if they aren't aren't very dangerous) or that have an extraordinarily dear price for the soldier. These are all things that deserve our gratitude. I don't see why thanking one group of people means we can't thank the others.

[OreoCookie]

Any award is a reward and in this case, I don't think you will find many soldiers risking their lives just to get an award as a reward. So you're right, medals have a large emotional component. But that's not all of it, it's based on merit. Something which is taken into consideration when you are due for promotion.

People shouldn't get medals for `just being there,' and I'm not saying we should take something away from them. It's like giving children prizes for `participating.' (I guess you know what I mean, the `nobody loses' mentality.)

Why aren't the proper rites for dead soldiers sufficient?

[Chuckit]

Even rites and a medal are not really thanks enough. It isn't for "just being there," it's for dying for their country. Dead. Gone. They've given all they could possibly give. Is giving everything that not enough?

And like I said, we're talking about different medals here. I don't think anybody who's gotten a medal for dying is going to be given preferential treatment for a promotion.

[OreoCookie]

Dead people are rarely promoted.
Nothing brings back the dead, not a shinier medal or a better ceremony. But in my opinion you're really taking away from those who have done more than `died for their country.'

You can't make these decisions purely on emotional grounds, even if there is a strong emotional component. Nothing will bring back a human being (a son or a daughter, a brother, a father), but I still don't see the necessity to change the current rituals concerning soldiers who have been killed in action.