More than just "shame on them" for the headquarters pukes who apparently felt it necessary to embellish the story. They should be made accountable and suffer a severe penalty (like reduction in grade and transfer out of the air conditioned cubicles at HQMC). What they have done will cause great damage. First, to Sgt Myers himself, whose exploits under fire can stand on their own merits and didn't need some REMF a--hole to jazz up. Second, to the Marine Corps itself, whose image for absolute honesty and integrity is bound to suffer from this.

If you read the article carefully, you'd see that very early on, the reporter writes that SGT Meyer and CPT Swenson deserve the Medal of Honor and that they're both heroes for what they did in the battle, even if the 'pumped-up' version put out by the Marine Corps PAO is indeed exaggerated. The whole point of the article is that the if the Marine Corps did embellish the details of the battle, they did it needlessly (because the true actions of Swenson and Meyer were heroic and MOH-worthy regardless) because of political pressure from the top of the USMC leadership to award a MOH to a living Marine before the war ends.

Yes, that's the whole point. The headquarters types didn't have to do what the Army did for Jessica Lynch. Now the fact that they described things that didn't happen, etc., will be on the Internet forever, and it's an unnecessary distraction from the fact that those folks did heroic things under enemy fire. If headquarters had just remembered the core USMC values of Integrity and Honesty, this would never have happened.

Nobody challenges the award of the medal of honour to former sergeant Meyer. The challenge is to the flack liars who seem to have muddied the water in this matter, and for that reason I differ strongly from JPWREL's expression of disgust that a McClatchy reporter looked into the story and come up with written records whose authenticity and intent seem beyond doubt.

Excellent work.

The point, I respectfully suggest to JPWREL and others of like mind, is this: can we trust what the military present as truth publicly and often? We should be able to. We couldn't from Vietnam, we haven't been able to in particular from the USMC in Afghanistan, and we haven't been able to from Iraq in either Gulf War, Grenada, Panama, and doubtless some other places that don't immediately come to mind.

Generations of flacks in unform have been telling the nation that things are being run better than they really are, and better than real results are being achieved. No such lying flack ever seems to be punished for this dishonorable practice, and no flag officers seem able to stamp it out.

One officer complicit in this stuff went on to become the commander in Afghanistan, many will recall, and there learned that his earlier habits of inappropriate communication were not a good career move.

The officer who took a Washington Post reporter to an expense-account lunch a few years ago, seems likely, however to flower despite his disgraceful lie in that pleasant location about the closing stages of young Jessica Lynch's military career. Part of the Pentagon later discovered that early press releases from the Jessica the wildcat wing of the building had been false. Testifying before Congress, Miss Lynch later said: "I am still confused as to why they chose to lie and tried to make me a legend when the real heroics of my fellow soldiers that day were, in fact, legendary... [T]he bottom line is the American people are capable of determining their own ideals of heroes and they don't need to be told elaborate tales."

Here's why, Jessica: it's evidently standard operating procedure. And as we see again in this week's microfuss about the Meyer medal of honor, the military would really prefer that we believe fictions rather than the truth. That Bullmoosian practice can't be good for the country.

The Military Myth That Will Not Die: I see that Wikipedia still claims the collection of Private Lynch from hospital was a POW rescue. No it wasn't. It was collecting an injured person from a civilian hospital where she was receiving (US Army doctors later disclosed) world-class care for her injuries.

I am glad it did not take long for you to get back to you typical "the gov't and military lies about everything" mantra.
Here ya go dude,
One, the Marines are notoriously harsh about awards, one reporter who does not understand what happens on a battlefield does not change this. It is obvious the "Mc" is limited in his ability to understand what happens in a fire fight but that is usually the status quo when it comes to reporters.
Two, yeah, Lynch was a rescue, you keep reading all that good stuff on "Conspircacy.net" or "conspircay.com" or whatever it is you get your info from buddy, it only goes to how little you know and how unrealistic you are.
Three, the military is pretty honest with how it gets word out, the thing that constantly gets forgotten is that the first report from a contact is never correct. It is usually a reason why you see cops come out with conflicting stories after shootings too, initial reports are rarely correct and then once the story changes idiots cry "cover up" or "conspiracy". Unfortunately leadership often fails in controlling how quickly the demand is for that info and in a rush to get word out screws it up, happens all the time.
Fourth, since Vietnam? Dude, again, do some more history and then actually read and take into context what happens not what your 'mind' thinks happened.

KUNINO, I don’t mind taking flack for my views expressed on Tom’s site. After all unlike some who comment here I don’t imagine I have cornered the market on insight and factuality. However, since I made no comment on this particular subject ‘Questions About a USMC Medal of Honor’ I would like to know what the hell you are talking about saying I believe this or that?

Incidentally, I don’t put the military on a pedestal so that I may worship them. However, I have deep admiration for those that serve honorably, loyally and risk everything. While wallowing deep in your cynicism you may scoff at that which is your privilege. But I have flesh and blood right at the very tip of the spear point and know what all consuming effort is in the name of honor and duty.

Good day.

It seems ironic that this discussion is in the shadow of a claim from former USMC colonel Hammes suggesting that what the corps keeps plugging for is often stuff that -- in his opinion -- it shouldn't have and isn't being entirely honest about.

My point, exactly.

Neither ERIC_STRATTONIII nor JPWREL has done anything to disprove the point of my post above, but both seem to stick up for the right of the military to mislead the nation freely.

JPWREL believes I have unleashed flak (oops, not flack) at him. I haven't, or at anybody else at spear's point. My argument has been with smoothies writing untruthful things to get what they want out of America. McClatchy seems to have uncovered a particularly unpleasant example of it. And it's good for us that they did.

ERIC_STRATTONIII stands up for his superior ability to get at the truth, starting out by getting my name wrong. As usual, his insults are lavish and facts presented in refutation non-existent. He accuses me of getting my information from some damn website I've never heard of and suggests that I should read history more often. I've got my facts from Ms Lynch as reported in the news and, in some part, as she addressed congress in open session. Congress believes her testimony and expressed profound mistrust for what sundry military flacks presented as their truth. Made up mainly from "I don't recall" and other such things, it seems.

Well, let's recall the initial untruths about this young woman we all were offered in April 2003 through the naive Washington Post. Apart from fighting like a wildcat, she supposedly suffered the misfortunes of being raped and stabbed by Iraqi soldiers and later, in hospital, being slapped around by some nasty military interrogator. None of these claims were true.

We were told that she was rescued after a running gunfight at Nasariya General Hospital, starting in the grounds outside the hospital and while under fire from Iraqi forces from sundry points. Also not true, and proven false when Western visitors arrived at the hospital a few days after the "rescue": there were no bullet scars in the walls of the hospital complex. Strange gunfight. Civilian doctors and nurses say they were handcuffed while the "rescuers" swarmed the hospital and access to private Lynch was not obstructed in any way. The military agree that this was so.

Hospital officials had released Ms Lynch two days earlier and tried to return her to the American invasion force. Unfortunately, the ambulance carrying her toward the American line, displaying white flags, was fired on by GIs, and the terrified ambulance driver and the terrified Ms Lynch turned tail and the girl was carried back to her hospital bed. Back at the American front line, the story was presented to a horrified world an event in which evil "fedayeen" had tried to attack the invaders by coming, armed, to battle in an ambulance flying white flags. This official military lie strengthens the Nasariyah account.

Who lied? Well, almost certainly not Ms Lynch. Almost certainly not the medical staff of Nasariyah General Hospital. Almost certainly yes, several Pentagon flacks who joined in to support the original lie breathed into the ear of the Post reporter. We have a pretty clear idea of whom that might have been: Jim Wilkinson, in April 2003 happy to announce himself to all askers as a Central Command spokesman. When evidence started to pour in that the "rescue" was a fabrication, Mr Wilkinson returned to the fray by waving the Stars and Stripes, thus: "I've not talked to one soldier, sailor, airman or Marine who is not personally insulted by these false charges … . "The fact remains that our troops took fire from many buildings around the [hospital] compound, and they rescued this girl."

Mr Wilkinson seems one of those bullshit smoothie flacks I've written about before -- in this case, the likely expense-account provider of the original nonsense to the Post.

Those of a religious bent could find themselves listening for the cock's crow when reading his post-mortem claims and comments in the Lynch matter.

His post-Lynch career is the sort of thing my granny never told me. Sure enough, he was a liar. Sure enough, he was caught out. And the punishment meted out to him was that he was taken away from the hot zone at the Pentagon rewarded by White House appointment as Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Communications. Not punishment enough? This proud Republican and Naval reserve officer (rank unknown) was savagely appointed thereafter – according to him – to serve as Chief of Staff for U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson, serving as Paulson’s senior strategist and counselor, and working on matters of financial policy and crisis management. Before Treasury, Wilkinson served as Senior Advisor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and in The White House as Deputy National Security Advisor for Communications with Rice. So there, granny: lying pays. He is now a senior director of the Brunswick Group, provider of corporate PR to those with deep pockets and who do not necessarily seek unvarnished truth. Contact detail: email jwilkinson@brunswickgroup.com, telephone 214 459 8181

Mr Wilkinson had served as general Tommy R. Franks' principal spokesman (or as he puts it, director of the general’s strategic communications). The general seems to have thought his participation in the Lynch matter indecent, and mentions it in his autobiography.

The history that ERIC_STRATTONIII pines for is freely available and evidently has looked at none of it. One key document: the congressional report titled Misleading Information from the Battlefield: The Tillman and Lynch Episodes states that, "As the Committee investigated the Tillman and Lynch cases, it encountered a striking lack of recollection. In Private Lynch’s case, Jim Wilkinson ... told the Committee he did not know where the false information originated or who disseminated it. Of course, in 2003, it was his job to know exactly that. He seems not to have looked into it, or else, not to recall having tried to do so.

Lynch never said she wasn't rescued, the guys on that op obviously staged it and had friendliest fire at them, right Kunino?
Tillman? Read his books and comments by his brothers, nothing to do with a conspiracy. His brothers have been on interviews and one gave us direct debriefs.
Dude, the sites are not real, try and think through things and how they are aimed.
You keep believing that garbage and then I don't have to work that hard at framing you in a manner befitting a tin foil hat, I just can't let to many crazy statements go though. Those types of things annoy me after a bit. The "truth is out there" you simply refuse to believe it because it doesn't go well whatever narrative you have going on.

You have a very promising second career in politics. Don't squander your abilities!

I would have expected you to nominate the position of honorary Gen. Charles Campbell, former commander of U.S. Army Forces Command, for ESIII.

Presented with facts from Defense, Wikipedia, Best Defense and other respectable sources, ESIII continues to comport himself in the style of that famed military official, who recently proclaimed himself to GSF and other grieving Wanat parents as pride in one of his personal attributes: he's an excellent judge of character. Same with ESIII, who rather than examine the facts of messages he doesn't like, offers his judgment of the character and capabilities of the messenger. On no factual basis whatsoever. Instead, he clings to outright lies about Ms Lynch the Iraq veteran.

In April 2003, Defense produced that "rescue" videotape claiming there had been a gunfight at and Iraqi hospital and then-private Lynch had been rescued from it, punctured with gunshot and knife wounds. Three months later, an internal Pentagon report dismissed this account as garbage. Certainly, private Lynch had suffered no gunshot or knife wounds. She had not been raped, as claimed elsewhere at the time; or slapped around. There had been no gunfight at the hospital. She did not greet the soldiers and marines (why a combined force for such a tiny Op? Flacks know) as rescuers from a hostile nation. Her words are on record.

Later, Ms Lynch struck a deal with some damn reporter to write a book about her experience. The book claims that in captivity (with a broken thigh, remember), private Lynch had been raped. "That's not true," Ms Lynch says she told this ignoble rat, who replied that it was staying in the book because it showed what happens to female soldiers. Under the terms of the book contract he was able to overrule her, and the truth. (Accepting that female US soldiers are, on occasion, raped, guess who rapes them? Not the nation's military enemies.)

This unfortunate young lady it seems is to remain the butt of people who have their own private agendas to push and there's little reason to believe ESIII will be the last. I see the military, caught out in their official pumped-up lie about the Gunfight at Nasiriyah General Hospital, now claim they really had a gunfight somewhere else, to draw the military guards away from the hospital and enable a peaceable "rescue". A moment's thought prompts one to ask: well, if that's true, then why the original lie about having the gunfight at the hospital?

Let's not forget that this string is about official lying about matters of military honor and was started as such by Mr Ricks. We can expect that practice to continue for so long as the liars get away with it. Liar-in-chief in the Jessica Lynch affair, mentioned above, shows us that noisy lying can produce golden benefits. A glowing beacon to those who want to follow. As also will be the unfortunate submission of ESIII and others who say that if the military says something, it must most certainly be unquestionably true -- even when they know little about what the military has said. That's okay. They don't need to understand it.

You offer nothing to support your current or past arguments that Lynch was not rescued or that Tillman's case was a conspiracy. If you had any experience with the military outside of this blog then you would know as I and many others have stated in the past that initial reports are rarely right. Dude, in short you use every chance you get to post about some new conspiracy either by the military or the gov't or both. You attempt to link the fact that initial reports were wrong on both and that use as that as "evidence" that there was some sort of conspiracy. Look, I try not engage you to much because you rarely make good arguments, post anything factual or even stay on the topic but I despise conspiracy theories, they are the cover by which the paranoid and weak minded use to shield their views. Bring up some facts? Well, then you are part of the conspiracy or a useful idiot. Use logic? Well, then you are part of the conspiracy or a useful idiot. The Towers, Tillman, Abu Ghraib, Lynch, Abbottabad, etc..etc..the list goes on and I have heard them all, on some of these no matter who brings up facts to argue against the point the people who buy into won't change, so I just write them off after a while although it doesseem help my investment in aluminum.
Look, you have little to no credibility in your posts and that is why most do not take you that seriously but I just can't let bullshit get by for to long, only hurts the discussion and adds to the constant paranoia in people, why you and so many others believe in that stuff so much is a mystery to me. Heck, look at this topic, instead of being reasoned or basing your posts on the entire picture you jump right in and go to the "big lie", down below there is a great counter-argument to the report made on Meyers story being embellished. Yet, it escapes you and people with that type of mindset and only does dis-honor to people like Meyers. What is it that gets you folks to buy into all that stuff? Perhaps too many movies that push the idea? Perhaps just a total ignorance of how the military or gov't works? I just don't know but whatever it is that pushes that mindset is it needs to stop. I know some get a little ticked when I get a bit bellicose on certain things but I just can't tolerate it for to long. But hey, don't feel picked on, there are worse folks on here but they are so nuts that a counter post would be futile.

Let me dare to expand on your Father's comment. He's right, but it's very complicated. First, there are the few medals given to men while engaged in classified activities - usually outside the borders of South Vietnam. They deserved their medals, but the wording in the citation places the action within South Vietnam and may be a complete work of fiction.

Then there are the medals that were given owing to the position you held. So, if you were a company commander in the 101st, you got a Silver Star. As one Captain told me, his Silver Star citation was bullshit, but he did not get a medal for crawling out under the withering fire of an ambush to drag his wounded RTO to comparative safety. He felt that he was insane to have done it and we agreed that medals are usually awarded to the temporarily insane. I assume that other positions in other units may have resulted in similar awards, but I don't know that to be true. I do know that West Pointers were rotated out of company level positions after 6 months and got their awards and staff experience - if they made it back.

Of course, most awards for medals were earned. Occasionally, an award was used to cover-up a violation of orders or regulations - but, still an heroic act. It was either that or court martial.

Lastly, there were unearned awards which were either demanded by superiors or handed out in a cavalier fashion. There is no way of knowing how many Purple Hearts were received for a bloody nose. If somebody received an ARCOM w/V device; it usually means he pissed somebody off and wasn't awarded the Bronze Star he deserved.

But it is not proper for us to doubt any valor medal or Purple Heart. We weren't there, we don't know the witnesses who recommended the award, and we don't know the policies in place in the unit at the time. Like your Father, the soldiers served honorably and made it back - that's what counts. When a veteran meets another veteran; he or she knows/senses what the other has been through. A lot is said without words - it's in the eyes and the handshake.

Sir,

Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments and explanation. More so, thank you for your service. All the very best.

Regards,
Carter Ford

Ditto. Add to this the Korean War of which we have spoken before. Every Marine who fought his way out of the Chosin encirclement had a harder time than almost every man in Afghanistan. Of course, dead is dead. But FOX Company holding off at least a regiment time and again at -40F is hard to imagine. They stacked frozen enemy bodies in front of their position for cover - and that wasn't their only stand to permit the safe passage of fellow Marines. As they say, comparisons are odious. In his small world, SGT Meyer faced the same demons for 6 hours. He had resolved to die in the attempt as had those Marines flanking the road from Chosin to the sea. They were all fighting for their brother Marines and that's a common thread that spans all these wars. But, every heroic act is not noticed, written up, or rewarded. And sometimes, everyone is making the same heroic stand and it might be wrong or impossible to single out one person.

Or as Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz said it simply and best: "On Iwo Island, uncommon valor was a common virtue." Amen.

Totally agree, had two Iwo Jima Vets visit me at Bethesda and as usual they did the "you guys have it harder", I almost spit up! ha! I started laughing and reminded them that I knew what was what and that we did not have it that bad, they both eventually conceded it and then I think in an attempt to not make me feel totally inadequate reminded me that they did not really have ROEs, I laughed again things might have been simple back then but talk about non-stop nose to nose fighting! Sheesh! Just living through a battle like that is amazing to me, one was a Corpsman and they both went onto fight to the end of the war, modest and yet incredible guys.

I downloaded "The Pacific" while I was in Manila but didn't get a chance to watch it until last night. Bad move. I watched beginning at 2200 until I noticed it was 0530 and half an hour until I had to awaken my boys to get them ready for school. I liked "Band of Brothers" but I swear "Pacific" breaks my heart, and not just because I was a Marine.

I sure do agree with the near-universal dismay felt on this blog for the rampant corruption of the awards system that must have started during the Vietnam War and continues unabated until today. Sergeant Meyer and Captain Swenson both surely deserve the MOH. However, the antics of cynical officers and NCOs scrambling for a bit of metal and cloth disgusts me no end.

How I wish I could nowadays look at the awards on someone's chest and know beyond a doubt that they are well-deserved. The system has made me a skeptic. Perhaps in an alternate universe we do things like the British: VC, MC, MM, MID and campaign medals, full stop.

Right on, ESIII. I've always hesitated to say it for fear of being flamed, but many of today's soldiers who deployed to the Middle East do a lot of whining, and the media eggs them on. But our fathers and grandfathers who fought in WW2, Korea, and Vietnam really saw war! Right up close and personal against the bad guys, who were not rag-tag irregulars. In WW2, Korea, and Vietnam, the bad guys had artillery, and even in Korea and VN they had armor. That was the major league! When I watch Band of Brothers or Pacific, I can only gasp and marvel at what our parents and grandparents did. They were amazing! If our entire country could recapture some of that spirit of dedication and sacrifice, maybe we can stop ourselves from going down the tubes. Semper Fi!

Man, I did the same thing, had to stop before the last one when they went home, swear I did not get choked up though ;)

FG42, it's true, a few groups have done the tempo those guys did but about 99% have not and that war was just 'balls to the wall"

Ironic you mention the Brits, Bass was about to be recommended for the VC since he was with the SBS at the time, pretty sure politics got involved again and he actually did get knighted and is titled, no kidding.

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

It is just wiki but it gives a background on it and the USMC went DEEP into this case saying he could not have taken the grenade under him the way it was said he did in the witness statements. Guy was the classic All-American Story too. There is some other stuff too, mostly political but the guy is just the classic story you read about in the books of history or at least should read about it.

Oh, I fully agree. I remember wincing at the sight of Basilone (I believe it was Basilone) trying to lift up a hot HMG with his bare hands and getting horrific burns, an image that sticks in my mind to this day.

Good points and true. As for Slab, that is true and while I know many on here would say that is an overstatement those who know him would say it is an understatement. Right now the Creek is lucky to have the combo of him and the other "ski", hope that kind of leadership continues after them.

The movie Courage Under Fire tells the story best. There's a Rashomon quality to what constitutes the truth. Many stories, many viewpoints. But when the organization, USMC, twists that truth to make things look EVEN snazzier that's wrong. Meyer deserved the award, I think without question, but his team screwed him over in an attempt to make things look even better.

LTC Nat Sterling says at the end of the movie, something to the effect that "CPT Walden's story deserves the truth, and I am going to make sure the truth is known. We have to get this right." This situation is sadly too close to the movie story for comfort.

Good movie, bad life story.

As for Meyer's haircut, he was a civilian at the time of the award. Haircut would have been nice or appropriate, but given that he had the White House wait to talk to him, and he asked for a beer with the President - and got it - he probably is thinking F.U. to USMC Uniform Regulation Whatever. When you wear the MoH, even a slightly tarnished one, you get that benefit. At least in my book.

Do you really think it was intentional? It sounds more like a rush to get the story out by them and the investigation by the reporter getting into the minutiae. I've just seen the Marines be crazy tight about awards in the past and that tends to color my view.

Sometimes you just can't rush. There's three living MoH awardees from this GWOT series of wars. 3!

Behooves those putting things together to make sure they are right. No matter whether it was intentional or not, some things you just can't screw up. I'll allow that this is pretty small potatoes in the annals of this decade of war, but we want our heroes to be genuine. Don't screw it up.

Here is the thing though, I think the USMC did get it right and that it was the reporter who did not get it right. The Yon report and RVNs argument against it seems pretty realistic as to what happened and why the reporter saw things the way he did.

Y'all are probably right - but I will say this about my individual experience:

I've seen more EM's get valor awards than officers (excluding one awarded the Soldier's Medal for driving a burning fuel truck away from a US Military barracks); in fact, besides myself (ARCOM w/ V for a really bad day) I know only 7 others personally (ARCOM V x3 and BSM V x4) and another 7 or 8 in my BDE that I know of, but do not know personally... and that's across 3 tours in some of the especially fun places in Iraq. Every one of those cases (in my opinion) were justified and in a couple of cases I felt that the officer probably deserved a higher award.

Contrast that with 17 Valor awards I've seen awarded personally and plenty that I've heard of to EM's. With one exception - those that I saw awarded were justified and the one that wasn't, the kid never wore - I still don't know why he got that award that day.

I can't speak to the entire military system, but my guess is that given the general nature of mankind we tend to remember "better" or more clearly those cases which led to someone getting an award they didn't deserve because it offends us more.

I have mixed emotions - but so much in the military can be unfair, awards, promotions, assignments, badges, etc. etc. All awards are not created equal. But we all know that and you know what? It means we ask questions, we get a sense for the stories behind what folks wear and we adjust the way we view them based on what they say.

But that's my experience - and my experience is far from definitive and most definitly not authoritative. But it strikes me that a more stringent reg would result in us having a similar conversation about Soldier "X" not getting the award he deserved, and we'd be equally irritated with that - so ask yourselves which is the "better" thing to be irritated about.

There is another variable introduced by the nature of the conflict in Afghanistan. Most actions are small unit actions involving platoons and below in isolated actions. Ignoring the unknowns of unit culture and service culture, you end up with awards being recommended by EM and NCO's with varying degrees of proficiency in writing-out what happened. SGT Sal Giunta's MOH exemplifies such an isolated action. There was also an SF Team that was almost completely overrun - they were the only witnesses (there were medals for two extraordinary acts.) These days, it's rare than an entire company structure is engaged in one single action where numerous personnel witness uncommon courage. Wanat was a platoon action with the Company Commander present. There were 3 Marine advisors there who stood their ground while most of their ANA advisees melted away (not all.) Anybody heard whether those Marines got medals for their lonely stand as they became enveloped?

Except for special units in RVN, I cannot think of similar circumstances there or in Korea or in WWII. Lastly, there is probably a relationship between in-country op tempo and the units which take the time to recommend their troops for valor awards. Unless the act cannot possibly be ignored, the chain of command probably doesn't write people up. This is all my conjecture, but the environment is different.

Guys....just a comment on the stinginess of the USMC. In my opinion, having seen the mentality behind the system, the "problem" is that the Marine Corps does not believe that you should get a medal if you were just doing what you were paid to do. If you did an outstanding job as clerk-typist, you don't get a BSM at the end of your tour, because you were just doing your job -- after all, you were paid to be an outstanding clerk-typist. That attitude carries into the combat arms world too. A squad leader who did a brilliant job leading an assault on a fortified position, doesn't get a BSM or SS because....you know why. And so it goes. It usually takes a real case of self-sacrifice to get the attention of higher headquarters. Of course I am exaggerating a bit to make a point. Many Marines do get the medals they deserve....but many don't, for the reason that I'm pointing out. The USMC is different in this way, compared to the other services. Maybe it's a bit of the same mentality that frowns on having the uniform festooned with colorful bits of ribbon and shiny metal pins.