Last week, Sir Donald MacLean, former President of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Association died. The Brighton bomb, intended to kill Margaret Thatcher and her Cabinet, was planted in Donald and Muriel’s bathroom and Muriel was one of the seven who died. It took a week to do so from the severe injuries she sustained.  Some of the men who plotted and carried out that attack walk the streets today because often we weren’t robust enough in those days. A few are even in Government, mostly due to overly restrictive rules on engagement for our troops. Any Shoot To Kill policy against terrorists should have been official and overt. Fighting terrorism isn’t for nice fluffy people.  Luckily the concept of Crown Immunity still protects our troops from, for example, any application of the Humans Rights Act on the battlefield. However, officers are already being trained to make decisions with the HRA in mind and if lives haven’t already been lost specifically because of that then they soon will be.
  We know that soldiers die whenever politicians and generals put a higher premium on keeping “civilians killed” stories out of the newspapers than they do on keeping troops alive.

So, in a classic example of good old fashioned stupidity, the US have moved on to the next level of getting their own soldiers killed with medals for “Courageous Restraint”:

U.S. troops in Afghanistan could soon be awarded a medal for not doing something, a precedent-setting award that would be given for “courageous restraint” for holding fire to save civilian lives.

The proposal is now circulating in the Kabul headquarters of the International Security Assistance Force, a command spokesman confirmed Tuesday.

“The idea is consistent with our approach,” explained Air Force Lt. Col. Tadd Sholtis. “Our young men and women display remarkable courage every day, including situations where they refrain from using lethal force, even at risk to themselves, in order to prevent possible harm to civilians. In some situations our forces face in Afghanistan, that restraint is an act of discipline and courage not much different than those seen in combat actions.”

Soldiers are often recognized for non-combat achievement with decorations such as their service’s commendation medal. But most of the highest U.S. military decorations are for valor in combat. A medal to recognize a conscious effort to avoid a combat action would be unique.

Please, find someone for the article who thinks this is a daft idea.

…A spokesman for the 2.2 million-member Veterans of Foreign Wars, the nation’s largest group of combat veterans, thinks the award would cause confusion among the ranks and send a bad signal.

Confusion? Bad signal? Okay; weak response but it’ll have to do.

“The self-protections built into the rules of engagement are clear, and the decision to return fire must be made instantly based on training and the threat,” said Joe Davis, a spokesman for the Veterans of Foreign Wars. “The enemy already hides among noncombatants, and targets them, too. The creation of such an award will only embolden their actions and put more American and noncombatant lives in jeopardy. Let’s not rush to create something that no one wants to present posthumously.”

The whole concept is a steaming pile of ridiculous nonsense. If you want to get yourself killed then use a revolver and a glass of whisky, but auditioning for one of these medals will get your whole squad killed; and that is a greater crime than any.