There is a whole rich vien of controversy that could be mined in discussing awards--how they are awarded, who should rate what, what is their purpose, etc. "Hunter" brings up a good point that , in certain cases, awards could actually drive negative behavior--especially as most of our valued awards are for bravery under fire--and you need someone to be firing at you to earn them.

It seems that every conflict comes with accuastions of award inflation etc. Of course, the "old days" weren't always as pristine as we think and politics have always been involved (55 Medals of Honor awarded for a few days of action at Vera Cruz in 1914. One reason was that this was the first action fought after Congress had reauthorized officers to be awarded the MoH--so this was actually making up for previous actions where the officers did not recieve it. Also, there were very few award options a the time, not the whole hierarchy we have today. But finally, Wilson was "aghast" at the loss of life on both sides in what he thought would be a bloodless affair. A few medals and heros is always good to assauge one's conscience).

I'm not sure if there has been academic or specialty literature on the subject. I have always liked a short appendix in the book "A Bias For Action" by RHS Stolfi, where he discusses the awards for the 7th Panzer Division in France 1940 and Russia 1941. He makes the observation that the German award system was directly related to impact on the outcome of the battle. Since higher officers usually had the broadest impact as individuals, they got most of the awards. Bravery (jumping on a grenade, etc.) was appreciated, but did not merit an award unless that action had a decisive impact on the larger battlefield outcome.
I'm not saying I fully approve of the German approach, as recounted--there is as much opportunity for inflation and negative impact as some US approaches, but it does put into perspective that awards should serve a purpose in improving our performance--either as motivation or recognition of desired performance, or as a morale booster to participants. We should be able to understand that, which could give some better stability and coinsistancy to our awards programs.

What are the requirements for the CIB? I thought you simply had to be in an infantry unit in combat in order to get it. In that case, I thought most infantry units just submitted a list of names of all Soldiers in their organization who served during the deployment, and they all got CIBs. It's an award which dates back decades, and I'd hate to see it go away.

The CAB is a bit of a different matter--I can definitely see the packets for those being as large as the poster describes. There's also varying standards for getting the CAB. Some get it years after their deployment for being on the same FOB as a mortar hit, while others need to prove that they were in an engagement.

I think the CAB was a bit of a silly policy to implement, but once they started giving them away like candy, everyone kind of needed to follow suit in order to keep up. Boss Mongo has a great piece on the CAB at his blog:

http://bossmongo.blogspot.com/2009/05/change-for-worse.html

The Combat Infantry Badge was established by the Army in October 1943 for infantry who had served in combat. There was a memorable Bill Mauldin cartoon about a year later on the ineligibility of combat medics in infantry units to be awarded the badge. To address that omission the Combat Medical Badge was established in January 1945.

The Combat Action Badge was a fairly recent creation in May 2005 (retroacive to September 2001) intended to be awarded to all soldiers who serve in combat, including those who are not eligible for award of the CIB or CMB. It is a recognitation that many personnel in addition to infantrymen and medics serve in combat.

The documentation requirements described by previous posts appear to be an effort to prove that a proposed recipient actually served in combat, in addition to having been assigned to a unit within a combat zone. A search for "Army" and "combat badges" locates an Army website describing these badges.

Here is a overview of America's absurd medals and awards system.

http://www.g2mil.com/awards.htm

Here are snippets:
Today, the awards system is an embarrassment for most American servicemen. End-of-tour and retirement awards are common, with the recipient often required to write his own citation. Many units have quotas for awards they must give out, and headquarters personnel are most likely to be decorated. Officers are more likely to receive awards, especially higher awards. As a result, senior American military officers with no combat experience wear a chest full of medals. This invites ridicule from foreign officers and civilians who secretly mock the "Christmas tree" look, similar to that of pompous dictators. This also produces an enormous paperwork burden.

For example, are seven levels of awards for non-combat achievements needed? Can some awards be combined, like Army, Navy, Air Force, and Joint Achievement Medals could simply become the “Military Achievement Medal”. Is a NATO ribbon and a UN ribbon required in addition to an overseas service ribbon or campaign/expedition ribbons? Can the “combat V device” be eliminated by limiting certain awards, like a Bronze Star for valor and a Commendation Medal for non-combat? How can Service secretaries be prevented from tossing out awards like candy after conflicts. Do most POWs, who did nothing more than surrender, deserve a medal? Do all servicemen deserve the National Defense Ribbon for breathing during a conflict?

I have a proposal, and would like to see the readers' responses.

Remove the connection between awards and promotion.

Prohibit mention of awards in performance evaluations. Prohibit discussion of merit awards on promotion selection boards. Marines have to submit a promotion photo to HQMC prior to the beginning of a board. The uniform is the Service C (short sleeve work uniform). Presently the photo is taken with ribbons. Take the photo without ribbons instead.

I would test this idea on officers first. What do you think?

Commanders should still be able to give awards based on merit. Marines would still get to wear a chest full of medals to the Birthday Ball. For some people pride in a job well done is good, others it's the 1st and 15th, and still others get their motivation from the medals and ribbons. People do what they do for many different reasons.

Merry Christmas.

p.s. Having worked with the Brits I have an appreciation for their approach, i.e. medals only for service/campaigns and heroic action. It's a very healthy approach in my opinion.

Awards in Afghanistan/Iraq are out of control, that's for sure.

One problem is with the non-combat accomplishment awards for officers. I can see junior enlisted needing some recognition for morale purposes. However, the award ceremonies for officers and senior NCOs often seem to be morale-sapping experiences. Why do we keep up with that?

As addressed in that article I linked above:

A hidden problem in the US military is the corruption of the awards process. Napoleon discovered that "little bits of ribbon" motivated his men to fight. Unfortunately, the motivation medals inspire among US military officers is harmful. Commissioned officers have the "special trust and confidence" of the Commander-in-Chief. This is why they rate higher pay, better quarters, and special privileges. Therefore, it is difficult to justify awards to officers for performing duties to the best of their ability. The value of medals for promotion causes petty competition among officers and may allow unqualified officers to advance. A Medal of Honor may allow a brave lieutenant to advance to the rank of colonel despite incompetence, with disastrous results.

Prior to World War II, many career officers never received a single medal, and some officers viewed individual awards for commissioned officers as inappropriate. Even during the years of heavy fighting of World War II, medals were awarded sparingly. Nevertheless, there are numerous accounts of medal abuse from that war. In his book, Foot Soldier, Roscoe Blunt wrote: "For the first time in a long time, I felt a little like a hero, but medals were normally reserved for officers who spent much of their time finding ways to write up citations for each other."

Great discussion overall. For the CIB/CAR, while controversial, an option is to just blanket certain folks for it. If you drive a truck and do it over IED and ambush infested roads for an entire tour and get lucky enough (or maybe you are just that good!) NOT to have been attacked, you should be rewarded.

Why? Because you did your job right and got through with your cargo/troops. At that point because you did your job right and in "combat" conditions--in a declared combat zone--then you should rate a CIB/CAR. In the COIN fight, the coveted CIB/CAR is potentially earned through risky action--unlike OIF I--where it was high intensity combat and most everyone earned it. The problem was later. From a historical perspective, what was the atmosphere like during the later stages of WW II? How about just after VE-Day? Did new troops go around looking for German irregulars to fight?