By What Shall We Judge, Outcome or Intent?

Did you serve.

 

Deleted.

 

It's a CONGRESSIONAL Medal of Honor...
It's their call to make

 

You are way over-analyzing this from the armchair. What you described certainly never matched what operations were like in my years of military service. "Orders" range from brilliant to destructive. They also range from "loose guidance" to "life or death" directives. Only on TV and Movies do they get all wrapped up about the "blind obedience" concerns. At the end of the day, you are responsible for your actions. That's the basic view of the vast majority of situations I was in both up and down the Chain of Command.

You can also view this situation as the "orders" he received could be interpreted as he had no requirement to risk himself, not that he must blindly stay put. There are so many unspoken factors in what is stated and what is communicated. Often the two are very different.

 

Two of his superior officers were severely reprimanded. He did the RIGHT thing.
Even the military sometimes gets things right.

 

Intent is a very difficult thing to judge.

 

Not for me... on the battlefield, we do not leave our comrades out there to die. And if we know they are wounded, we run to help bring them to cover... while I don't know if you have been under fire... I do know about it myself. And of men that never had another day...

This Marine did what a Marine should do after they have been properly trained and believe they can make their adapted mission successful. He is exactly the kind of man to get such recognition.

 

I am also curious AirportKid, did you serve? The awardee of the CMoH you are referring to is a Marine not a Soldier big difference.

 

I too feel that the OP's analysis is simplistic.

"No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy"
(Attributed to many)

Intent/plan --> (real-world changing conditions) --> Outcome/Unintended Results

What is prized most in troops and officers alike is the intelligence and flexibility to
evaluate and quickly react to changes in a situation both good and bad.

Rarely if ever can what happened in a skirmish be determined after the fact.
The larger the action the less the liklyhood.

Murphy's Law of Combat

 

Has to be both.

 

Did their actions put others at risk? Would bailing out have done so? They both elected to stay.

 

The OP is also missing another point: An award like this is about more than just the recipient. This is a Congressional award, and sometimes (often) Congress does something to make a statement. Issuing this award is a statement from Congress that they support the bravery and sacrifices made by members of our armed forces and their families. Not many of these are given to living persons, but the value of the statement is amplified if the public gets to see a flesh and blood person standing there being honored.

We can sit here on the sidelines and debate the merits of the recipient, but the fact is that this young man was nominated by his superiors and selected by Congress. To be considered, you have to do something remarkable. To actually win, the stars have to align: action, witnesses, nomination, and politics.

Tom

 

This article gives a bit more perspective on what really happened:
Medal of Honor recipient saved 36 lives during battle


His decision to defy orders and go in was, IMO, the correct decision. It's a situation where, as he said "I don't think there was ever a question in my mind if I was going to die, it was just when", there really is no order to go in - it's a volunteer assignment. In this case, he put himself at risk in order to provide support and save the lives of his fellow Americans (and Afghan allies). he didn't put anyone else at risk. He didn't risk anything other than himself.

When we ask our military to put themselves in harm's way, they have to do so knowing full well that there is backup and support should they end up in a situation beyond their control. We can't just abandon them. Especially when 6 hours after the conflict started there were still men pinned down. That's more than enough time to send in all the help we can muster for them to get them out of there. The fact that their superiors said no to the simple request of risking their own lives to save their teammates is, in my mind, almost criminal.

 

Murphy was an optimist.

 

One of the many things that (still) separate the United States from a lot of countries that end in "-stan" is the fact that we have a professional, voluntary, civilian controlled armed service.
We in the military swear an oath before GOD (or make like affirmation, for the non-theists) to support and defend the Constitution, and to obey the lawful orders of the POTUS, and those appointed by him (or her.)
LAWFUL orders.
OK...so the sniveling, bed wetting attorneys are always reminding us that the law is like a piece of string. Fixed at both ends, and kind of loose in the middle so that which side of the string you're standing on can (and does) often change WRT YOUR situation, THE situation, or many other variables. Fine.
So...
Which side of the string was our Marine standing on when he and SSGT Rodriguez-Chavez (who drove the HMMWV, and was in charge of the evolution by rank and title) rescued their embattled comrades?
I'm sure that some sea-lawyers out there have their opinions, but for me the answer is pretty clear. Rodriguez-Chavez was awarded the Navy Cross. Meyer was awarded "The Medal."
Both of these awards followed a nomination and investigatory process, which means that a number of military professionals and civilian functionaries picked over such verifiable information as is available following a combat action, and reached a consensus.
They seem to be satisfied that both of these Marines did the right thing.
I'm satisfied that both of these Marines did the right thing.
I'm pretty sure that the 36 people that were rescued and the family members of those that were recovered by this action would concur both with the empaneled experts and with my very unworthy assessment.
Still.....
We are a civilian controlled military.
All volunteer.
One of the things that we agree to when we swear or affirm is that there is a vetting process for after-action procedures, whether they be awards or disciplinary action, and that we're judged by those we serve---whether or not those persons have themselves served.
That system is working....rather well, if you ask me.

If APK wants to opine that SGT Meyer did the wrong thing, he is very well within his right to do so....whether or not he wears a CAR (Combat Action Ribbon) or has even served.
People in the US (still) have a GOD given, Constitutionally protected right to be wrong.

My opinion? (FWIW)
I'll be honored to render my best very sharpest salute to SGT Meyer if I ever see him and I happen to be in uniform. Contrary to popular belief, there is no written law or regulation that requires hand salutes for CMoH holders. In fact...by the letter of the law, such honors may be "illegal" by the strictest interpretation of the uniform regulations.
It's done by tradition, and more importantly because it's the right thing to do, and it upholds the highest traditions of the military service.
Just like never, EVER abandoning your comrades when you have the means to render assistance---especially if they're nice person-deep in trouble!!

JMHO....

 

I happen to think that this young Marine is well deserving of the honor - his actions were the embodiment of what the award is for.

As to whether we should judge outcome or intent, you do have to weigh both but you have to realize that it is straightforward enough to quantify the outcome, but getting a handle on the intent is a whole different story. You can infer what the intent of an action was, but in many cases that is as far as you can get.