Did the Repugs think they were going to get away with something like that? I blogged on this a little while ago, but this is starting to get on my nerves.
The public is being led or allowed to believe that David Petraeus has a long combat record, and this gives him credibility as a hero. General Petraeus first entered combat in 2003 while commanding the 101st Airborne as a 2-Star general.
And he got a medal - a very special one - and there is no story I can find as to why he got it.
Here is an exciting account of an act of combat heroism which earned a soldier the Bronze Star for Valor. Now there is a really important distinction here which everyone must understand to understand what I am saying:
The Bronze Star on its own is a "meritorious service" medal, for service people who have distinguished themselves in many ways.
But "V for Valor" means that the wearer has shown combat heroism. It is a totally different award. About 45,000 bronze stars have been awarded to service people for meritorious service. Only about 1300 have been awarded the Valor star - thousands fewer even than have been killed.
Casey Sheehan was awarded the Valor star for volunteering with exceptional esprit de corps for the dangerous mission which resulted in his death. Here are the stories of a doctor and an army chef who received the award. David Petraeus wears that same Valor star. He was awarded it by Tommy Franks in 2003, as near as I can figure out.
Closest thing I can figure out is that he was awarded the medal for "taking fire" while in Najaf. That is not, my research suggests, adequate to indicate combat valor - or a lot more soldiers would sport that Valor star. Certainly, simply "taking fire" surrounded by other people in body armor does not compare with the combat heroism that enlisted personnel have demonstrated in order to receive this high honor. If General Petraeus was involved in some specific heroic action, it seems very strange to me that the story is not widely reported.
This article in Slate is one among several which suggest that "medal inflation" is going on for officers serving in Iraq. I don't take away from the service of these individuals. I thank them for their service.
But when a General is used SO politically; and there is something of a scandal going on anyway (the grunt joke is: "to get a medal you have to be an officer or die"); and a General receives credibility because of his medal; and people assume, very possibly incorrectly, that his combat valor compares readily to story after story of enlisted soldiers' heroism - even among his own men - I think that is wrong.
That is an impression which must be corrected.
General Petraeus has been a media darling for years. He has been promoted extremely quickly. But he came into the Iraq theater as a 2-Star general who had never seen combat.
The questions then:
Are medals being awarded unfairly - the officer corps "congratulating" themselves for a failing effort?
Is it unusual for a 2-Star general to be awarded a Bronze Star for Valor in Combat while at that high rank?
Most importantly What was the situation which, in the judgment of his superiors, earned General Petraeus his medal?
All medals are awarded on the basis of an "after-action report". What does that report say? And it darn sure better be the original.