NationStates Jolt Archive

All you NS US military historians and those who serve in the US military (thank you, by the way), what do you think of this story?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080918/ap_on_re_us/death_by_grenade

A Marine sergeant singled out by President Bush for throwing his body on a grenade to save his comrades in Iraq will receive the prestigious Navy Cross rather than the nation's highest military award, military officials said.

The family of Sgt. Rafael Peralta, who was posthumously nominated for the nation's highest military honor, told the North County Times of Escondido, Calif., they were disappointed he was not receiving the Medal of Honor.

"I don't understand why if the president has been talking about him," his mother, Rosa Peralta, told the newspaper, which was the first to report the bestowing of the Navy Cross.

Rosa Peralta said she was informed during a meeting with Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Richard Natonski that a committee could not agree on awarding the Medal of Honor to her son, who Marine Corps officials say was first wounded by friendly fire. She said the general mentioned the friendly fire aspect as part of her son's death during the discussion.

Marine Corps spokesman Mike Alvarez confirmed the meeting, saying only that it was a personal briefing between Natonski and Rosa Peralta to inform her that the secretary of the Navy would award the Navy Cross posthumously for extraordinary heroism.

The Navy Cross is the second highest honor for combat heroism a Marine can receive.

The secretary of the Navy's public affairs office in Washington, D.C., did not immediately return an after-hours telephone call Wednesday seeking comment.

Headquarters Marine Corps spokesman Maj. David Nevers told The Associated Press that the Navy Cross for Peralta "is not bestowed lightly."

Nevers said only 23 sailors and Marines out of the thousands who have served in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan have received the Navy Cross.

"The awarding of a medals of valor is a methodical process and carefully conducted to ensure the sacrifice and service of our Marines and sailors is appropriately honored," he said.

Peralta was shot several times in the face and body during a house-to-house search in Fallujah on Nov. 15, 2004, during some of the fiercest fighting of the war.

According to a report by a Marine combat photographer who witnessed the act, Peralta lay wounded on the floor of a house and grabbed a grenade that had been lobbed by an insurgent. He absorbed the blast with his body, dying instantly.

In 2005, Natonski, then-commanding general of the 1st Marine Division, ordered an investigation to determine the source of a bullet fragment recovered from Peralta's body.

"Following multiple and exhaustive reviews, the evidence supports the finding that Peralta was likely hit by 'friendly fire,'" the Marine Corps said Wednesday in a press release. "This finding had no bearing on the decision to award the Navy Cross medal."

Bush cited Peralta's heroism in a Memorial Day speech in 2005, saying the Marine "understood that America faces dangerous enemies, and he knew the sacrifices required to defeat them."

Peralta, who was assigned to Hawaii's 1st Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment, moved to San Diego from Tijuana as a teenager. He was 25.

I'd like to know what you think, but the bolded part is what's puzzling me. If the friendly fire had no bearing on the decision, as the USMC said, then why was it mentioned at all, let alone mentioned prominently?

Heard of it earlier. It's hard to say without first-hand evidence what exactly happened.

As for the reasoning, while throwing yourself on a grenade after already have been wounded might be less of a sacrifice than otherwise, it also implies the readiness to continue fighting despite the wound.
I don't see much reason for denial of an award in this... but then, again, the honor of the highest award is in part in its exclusivity, and the Navy Cross is a very high honor too. I don't know enough of this to make judgments in place of those who do.

Heard of it earlier. It's hard to say without first-hand evidence what exactly happened.

As for the reasoning, while throwing yourself on a grenade after already have been wounded might be less of a sacrifice than otherwise, it also implies the readiness to continue fighting despite the wound.
I don't see much reason for denial of an award in this... but then, again, the honor of the highest award is in part in its exclusivity, and the Navy Cross is a very high honor too. I don't know enough of this to make judgments in place of those who do.

Oh, I get that there are more details than we'll likely know for a long time. I was just curious as to anyone else's thoughts on it. Thank you.

I'm having problems understanding why the fuss. A posthumas medal is a medal is a medal, innit?

medals are (though this is a Brit) hard to get as it is, for a nations highest award their will be a ridicules restriction on what it has to involve which is probabaly the best answer I can think of

though I'm sure just throwing/kicking the grenade would of sufficed :p

Well? A posthumous medal really doesn't do the marine much. They make strange rulings all the time.

For example, Major Dick Winters(though he wasn't a Major at the time) led a dozen guys against a German fixed gun emplacement which had 4 guns pounding the D-Day landings. They destroyed all four guns and killed many of the gun crews. They also found maps showing every gun position in the area.

This action is still taught today as how to attack a fixed position.

He was nominated for the Medal of honor but couldn't get it because there was a ruling there could only be one medal per regiment.

These hispanics...This guy threw himself over the grenade in the hope of surviving and continue leeching american taxpayers' money with a medal and a large pension for medical assistance. Perhaps he thought that after being hit by his own incompetence, (or his comrades' incompetence) the best way to "sacrifice" himself was to blow himself up trying to earn a large sum of money for his family. Good thing his plan didn't work.

He died in action. I think those are awarded the purple heart, right?

I'm having problems understanding why the fuss. A posthumas medal is a medal is a medal, innit?

It depends, as a Medal of Honor receipient all his children would automatically be eligible for entry into a Service Academy without regard to quotas, if they so choose. That may or may not be a big deal to someone.

If you look at the criteria for eligibility on each of these medals, a Medal Of Honor definitely has a higher standard than the Navy Cross. The Medal of Honor requires that servicemember "...distinguishes himself or herself conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his or her life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in action against an enemy of the United States." And the Navy/Marine Corps Cross 'simply' requires that the hero "...distinguishes himself/ herself by extraordinary heroism not justifying the award of the Medal of Honor."

I suspect that many Medal of Honor requests are downgraded to Navy/Marine Crosses to maintain the exclusivity of the Medal of Honor. If you look back at the awards for the Medal of Honor, it's a pretty small club.

If you look at the criteria for eligibility on each of these medals, a Medal Of Honor definitely has a higher standard than the Navy Cross. The Medal of Honor requires that servicemember "...distinguishes himself or herself conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his or her life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in action against an enemy of the United States." And the Navy/Marine Corps Cross 'simply' requires that the hero "...distinguishes himself/ herself by extraordinary heroism not justifying the award of the Medal of Honor."

I suspect that many Medal of Honor requests are downgraded to Navy/Marine Crosses to maintain the exclusivity of the Medal of Honor. If you look back at the awards for the Medal of Honor, it's a pretty small club.

During the Civil War (American) Medals of Honor were awarded to men for re-enlisting. Notably, the men of an entire regiment, the 27th Maine, were awarded this Medal for extending their enlistment (864 medals for this one regiment). For this reason, during the Civil War the Medal was referred to, by both sides, as "the tin star." In 1917, these medals were rescinded, but this just shows that, at times, it's not that exclusive.

I suspect that many Medal of Honor requests are downgraded to Navy/Marine Crosses to maintain the exclusivity of the Medal of Honor.

More than likely.

Terrible (but typical) to see human bravery at its finest being performed as part of one its more stupid outings. Not that the lad was thinking of anything other than his mates at the time....

I don't know the criteria for awarding the Medal of Honor, but I do know that, when awarding medals, the military vets the potential recipient exhaustively. When my daughter was given the JSAM (Joint Services Achievement Medal, everyone who worked with her was questioned about her suitability for the medal. Her commanding officers, her co-workers, and those she commanded all had input. There had to be near unanimity before it was given. I imagine the criteria for the Medal of Honor would be significantly more stringent.

The story simply doesn't add up. Was it friendly fire or did the soldier heroically save his comrades from death or injury by taking the full force of a grenade lobbed by an enemy.
Sounds like the governement giving away a medal to cover another stuff up to me.
Meanwhile no medal is going to bring Sgt Peralta back to life.
Lest we forget......

More than likely.

Terrible (but typical) to see human bravery at its finest being performed as part of one its more stupid outings. Not that the lad was thinking of anything other than his mates at the time....
I've read a lot of these citations. They're all very moving. Most are just plain amazing. This young man displayed no less selflessness and heroism than did many Medal of Honor recipients.

I'm sure you're right about his thoughts. In close combat, you depend on your comrades. Very little else matters.

Friendly fire? Or revenge?

I like Aelosia's theory best though.

Her commanding officers, her co-workers, and those she commanded all had input. There had to be near unanimity before it was given. I imagine the criteria for the Medal of Honor would be significantly more stringent.
Yes, that's the thing. JSAM isn't a big deal, and still gets screening. MoH is a bigger deal. So the eligibility might depend on service record.


The story simply doesn't add up. Was it friendly fire or did the soldier heroically save his comrades from death or injury by taking the full force of a grenade lobbed by an enemy.
He was wounded by FF, and then, wounded, threw himself at the grenade.

During the Civil War (American) Medals of Honor were awarded to men for re-enlisting. Notably, the men of an entire regiment, the 27th Maine, were awarded this Medal for extending their enlistment (864 medals for this one regiment). For this reason, during the Civil War the Medal was referred to, by both sides, as "the tin star." In 1917, these medals were rescinded, but this just shows that, at times, it's not that exclusive.

I very seriously doubt that story and would like to see the source for it. For more information on the Congressional Medal of Honor, the recipients, and/or read the citations, go here http://www.cmohs.org/recipients.htm

I very seriously doubt that story and would like to see the source for it. For more information on the Congressional Medal of Honor, the recipients, and/or read the citations, go here http://www.cmohs.org/recipients.htm

Here (http://www.homeofheroes.com/moh/corrections/27th_alpha.html) are the names of all 864 men.

See also (http://civilwarhistory.wordpress.com/2008/03/11/the-medal-of-honor-in-the-civil-war/)

Unfortunately, there were some cases where the medal was awarded to persons who did not necessarily deserve the medal. For instance, Medals of Honor were awarded to the entire 27th Maine Infantry Regiment just for re-enlisting (all 864 men). In addition, medals were awarded to the men who served as Lincoln’s funeral guard, as well as civilians. Eventually, this wrong was corrected when an Army review board, led by Nelson Miles, met in 1916 to review all Army Medal of Honor cases. The board ultimately rescinded the medals awarded to the 27th Maine and the Lincoln funeral guards, as well as Dr. Mary Edwards Walker, the only woman to receive it (her award was reinstated by Jimmy Carter).

These hispanics...This guy threw himself over the grenade in the hope of surviving and continue leeching american taxpayers' money with a medal and a large pension for medical assistance. Perhaps he thought that after being hit by his own incompetence, (or his comrades' incompetence) the best way to "sacrifice" himself was to blow himself up trying to earn a large sum of money for his family. Good thing his plan didn't work.

He died in action. I think those are awarded the purple heart, right?

Actually, his family did get a fair sum of money. In 5 years in the military I'd never once seen anyone who didn't opt to enroll in SGLI for the maximum benefits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SGLI

Oh, and Purple Hearts are awarded for being injured (not necessarily killed) in combat. One can have multiple Purple Hearts for multiple incidents of being injured by enemy fire.

Well? A posthumous medal really doesn't do the marine much. They make strange rulings all the time.

For example, Major Dick Winters(though he wasn't a Major at the time) led a dozen guys against a German fixed gun emplacement which had 4 guns pounding the D-Day landings. They destroyed all four guns and killed many of the gun crews. They also found maps showing every gun position in the area.

This action is still taught today as how to attack a fixed position.

He was nominated for the Medal of honor but couldn't get it because there was a ruling there could only be one medal per regiment.

As was dramatized in Band of Brothers. Incredible feat, that.

Yes, that's the thing. JSAM isn't a big deal, and still gets screening. MoH is a bigger deal. So the eligibility might depend on service record.

Makes sense. The higher the honor, the more vetting happens.

He was wounded by FF, and then, wounded, threw himself at the grenade.

You make it sound like that's no sacrifice. The article doesn't say how the soldier was wounded. Does it matter where the fire came from? If so, where's that written as part of the MoH's criteria, and why?

If nothing else, handing out too many Medals of Honor makes them not worth as much. If everyone gets them, it wouldn't be as prestigious.

Dying from friendly fire isn't really heroic.

Dying from friendly fire isn't really heroic.

Does it really matter where the bullet that gets you comes from?

Does it really matter where the bullet that gets you comes from?

It absolutely does.

Dying from friendly fire isn't really heroic.

If that were how he died, I would agree. Sad and tragic would be more like it.

Maybe it was based on how important his sacrifice was to the outcome of the battle.

iirc, at least originally (not sure now) the Victoria Cross could only be awarded in situations where the actions played a major part. eg. taking a hill which is then retaken by the enemy straight afterwards would invalidate any claim to a VC, no matter how brave the soldier acted.

In this case, perhaps the authorities took into consideration how much effect his selfless sacrifice had on the outcome of the battle, and whether it was entirely necessary. Maybe they decided that, had he not thrown himself onto the grenade, the final outcome would still have been the same or that no soldiers would have been injured severely anyway.

I'm sure you're right about his thoughts. In close combat, you depend on your comrades. Very little else matters.

So its said.

Here seems to be the explanation for the slightly lesser award......
Although the military citation states that Peralta deliberately reached out and absorbed the grenade, medical evidence was unclear as to whether that was possible because of his mortal head wound, said Maj. David Nevers, a Marine Corps spokesman.

"There was conflicting evidence in this case as to whether he could have performed his final act given the nature of his injuries," Nevers said. "Some believe he did so; others say it is unlikely."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/18/AR2008091803820_2.html?hpid=moreheadlines&sid=ST2008091803946&s_pos=

You make it sound like that's no sacrifice. The article doesn't say how the soldier was wounded.
I'm not trying to make any point in that post, just quickly answered the question "was it FF or grenade?" - it was both.

As for what the article says:
According to witness accounts, Peralta lay mortally wounded on the floor of a house and grabbed a grenade lobbed by fleeing insurgents. His body absorbed the blast and he died immediately.
[...]
The report found sufficient evidence existed to believe that Peralta was probably shot by a fellow Marine and that a gunshot wound to the head and injuries to the head from a grenade caused his death.


Does it matter where the fire came from? If so, where's that written as part of the MoH's criteria, and why?
Yes, it's specifically written in the criteria that the Medal of Honor is only to be awarded for "risk of one's life above and beyond the call of duty" in action against an enemy. While this was action against an enemy, friendly fire is generally regarded as a "no" area (I didn't make the rules). Here the situation is in a gray area.

The requirements for the Medal of Honor are more than self-sacrifice, it has to be extraordinary, and, generally, not in a gray area.

Does it really matter where the bullet that gets you comes from?

An old vet of two wars once told me "Don't worry about the bullet with your name on it, because no matter what you do, it will find you. The one you have to worry about is the one that says 'To Whom It May Concern', because they don't care who they get."

Man, Medal of Honor sucks. The WW2 setting has wore out and i wonder how long they will keep it alive?

as I recall the last guy to get the medal of honor for throwing himself on a grenade was in the Korean war. And he got it because he survived the first grenade and then proceeded to throw himself on a second grenade 30 minutes later.

Awards are awards. More then likely he was only put in for a navy cross when there was some cross branch rivalry going on. In most cases it has to do with making sure that the services are all represented in accordance with the percentage of participants in any given conflict.

Man, Medal of Honor sucks. The WW2 setting has wore out and i wonder how long they will keep it alive?

By combining the franchise with Wolfenstein, so it might be undead, forever...

Maybe it was based on how important his sacrifice was to the outcome of the battle.

iirc, at least originally (not sure now) the Victoria Cross could only be awarded in situations where the actions played a major part. eg. taking a hill which is then retaken by the enemy straight afterwards would invalidate any claim to a VC, no matter how brave the soldier acted.

In this case, perhaps the authorities took into consideration how much effect his selfless sacrifice had on the outcome of the battle, and whether it was entirely necessary. Maybe they decided that, had he not thrown himself onto the grenade, the final outcome would still have been the same or that no soldiers would have been injured severely anyway.

Reasonably put. Thank you.

So its said.

Here seems to be the explanation for the slightly lesser award......

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/18/AR2008091803820_2.html?hpid=moreheadlines&sid=ST2008091803946&s_pos=

And thank you, too.

I'm not trying to make any point in that post, just quickly answered the question "was it FF or grenade?" - it was both.

Yes, it's specifically written in the criteria that the Medal of Honor is only to be awarded for "risk of one's life above and beyond the call of duty" in action against an enemy. While this was action against an enemy, friendly fire is generally regarded as a "no" area (I didn't make the rules). Here the situation is in a gray area.

The requirements for the Medal of Honor are more than self-sacrifice, it has to be extraordinary, and, generally, not in a gray area.

You didn't really answer my question. Friendly fire can happen "in action against the enemy". Can you show me specifically where you got your "no area" with regard to friendly fire? Of course you didn't make the rules, but can you show me where they are -- where you got your interpretation of them?

You didn't really answer my question. Friendly fire can happen "in action against the enemy". Can you show me specifically where you got your "no area" with regard to friendly fire? Of course you didn't make the rules, but can you show me where they are -- where you got your interpretation of them?
I didn't interpret anything. I don't make the rules, I don't interpret them, I have no say in who gets the medal, and I don't want to judge it on my own instead of those who do. It's just how, from all I've heard, it happens, there's reluctance in awarding it for friendly/uncertain fire.

The rules themselves are so brief it's not interpretation, but practice, which governs the actual requirements awarding the Medal.


The Medal of Honor is awarded by the President in the name of Congress to members of the naval service, who distinguish themselves conspiciously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty

(1) while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States;
(2) while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force; or
(3) while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.

There must be no margin of doubt or possibility of error in awarding this honor. To justify the decoration, the individual's service must clearly be rendered conspicuous above their comrades by an act so outstanding that it clearly distinguishes their gallantry beyond the call of duty from lesser forms of bravery; and it must be the type of deed which if not done would not subject the individual to any justified criticism. The deed must be without detriment to the mission of the command or to the command to which attached.

I didn't interpret anything. I don't make the rules, I don't interpret them, I have no say in who gets the medal, and I don't want to judge it on my own instead of those who do. It's just how, from all I've heard, it happens, there's reluctance in awarding it for friendly/uncertain fire.

The rules themselves are so brief it's not interpretation, but practice, which governs the actual requirements awarding the Medal.

Fair enough. I was just wondering where "from all I've heard" came from. Heard where, from whom?

Fair enough. I was just wondering where "from all I've heard" came from. Heard where, from whom?
Just hearsay, basically. Mostly people who take more interest in learning about war heroes, and people who know people who know people (hearsay) who are involved in the process. Not much for reliability, but it's quite consistent.

While there have been instances for awarding the Medal in incidents involving friendly fire, these AFAIK were in some different circumstances, and questioned.
I think the reason for this reluctance is that the military doesn't want to glorify and give publicity to its mistakes, which friendly fire is.