|
GG,
There's no doubt that there are units that don't follow the standard or intent of awards, and the rank example you gave is something that has always PO'd me. I was a BN S-1, and my Commander had a rank rule for PCS awards - E-7 & above got MSMs (by exception ARCOM), E-5/6 got ARCOMs, and E-4 and below got AAMs. I don't have an issue per se with those carrying more responsibility being rewarded with more, but denying E-4s (as an example) who performed far above their rank/required responsibility an ARCOM simply because they were an E-4 never made sense. So, just as this peacetime example existed, I can fully believe your ODS example.
One thing about the Slate example that gets me is that their benchmark is off IMO. Should we measure against KIA? Should the armor company that led the charge on the final Baghdad thunder run not receive any BSMs for his company, not to mention the drive through Iraq? My guess is that he had zero KIA during his OIF time thanks to the Abrams, but his company certainly demonstrated heroism during the thunder runs and in holding the Republican Palace grounds. Or should the platoon or company that prevents extensive strife in Mosul through smart engagement with the locals not receive the BSM (for meritorious achievement)? So, I'm not sure that it portrays an accurate picture of the scope of the award (and I like your linkage to unit awards as another potential cause for diverging #s).
One last thing that is interesting to note is that the BSM was awarded to all CIB and EFMB recipients of WWII. Given the #s of CIBs, EFMBs, and CABs that have been awarded, my guess is that this exceeds the number of BSMs awarded as well.
__________________
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3
|