Our local newspaper, the Lexington Herald Leader, had two long articles this morning on Dakota Meyer's MOH citation. One questions his medal of honor citation, the other argues that regardless of the citation the medal was deserved. I thought some here might be interested in the story.

quote:

---

WASHINGTON — With Dakota Meyer standing at attention in his dress uniform, sweat glistening on his forehead under the television lights, President Barack Obama extolled the former Marine corporal from Kentucky for the "extraordinary actions" that had earned him the Medal of Honor, the nation's highest award for valor.

Obama told the audience in the White House East Room on Sept. 15 that Meyer had driven into the heart of a savage ambush in eastern Afghanistan against orders. He'd killed insurgents at near-point-blank range, twice leapt from his gun turret to rescue two dozen Afghan soldiers and saved the lives of 13 U.S. service members as he fought to recover the bodies of four comrades, the president said.

But there's a problem with this account: Crucial parts that the Marine Corps publicized and Obama described are untrue, unsubstantiated or exaggerated, according to dozens of military documents McClatchy examined.

Sworn statements by Meyer and others who participated in the battle indicate he didn't save the lives of 13 U.S. service members, leave his vehicle to scoop up 24 Afghans on his first two rescue runs or lead the final push to retrieve the four dead Americans. Moreover, it's unclear from the documents whether Meyer disobeyed orders when he entered the Ganjgal Valley on Sept. 8, 2009.

The statements also offer no proof that the now 23-year-old from Adair County "personally killed at least eight Taliban insurgents," as the account on the Marine Corps Web site says. The driver of Meyer's vehicle attested to seeing "a single enemy go down."

What's most striking is that all this probably was unnecessary. Meyer, the 296th Marine to earn the medal, by all accounts deserved his nomination. At least seven witnesses attested to his performing heroic deeds "in the face of almost certain death."

---

Much more in the article
Descriptions of actions that earned Dakota Meyer his Medal of Honor were embellished, inaccurate

quote:

---

WASHINGTON — Dakota Meyer's commander had good reason to nominate the former Marine Corps corporal for the Medal of Honor, the U.S. military's highest decoration for valor.

At least seven other participants in a battle in eastern Afghanistan backed Lt. Col. Kevin Williams in his decision to recommend the Kentucky native for the honor. They said that as Meyer battled to retrieve the bodies of four American comrades who'd been killed in an ambush, he repeatedly braved intense enemy fire and rescued wounded and frightened Afghan soldiers.

"Cpl. Meyer's efforts during the events of 08 September 2009 ensured the safety and recovery of a multitude of personnel that may have been lost if he had not performed so exceptionally," Marine Capt. Ademola Fabayo attested in a sworn statement five months after the battle. "Cpl. Meyer placed himself in harm's way multiple times."

---

Dakota Meyer was a hero, even if Marine version of events is inconsistent, embellished

The problem with the awards system is that, if you just tell it "as is", the award will typically get downgraded at least two iterations...unless the individual is senior (E8+ or O5+).

What I hate besides the fact that this is embarrassing to the Corps if true is some of the stuff that is and has been happening to Meyer

What's even more disturbing is that the production of this Medal of Honor may have been a direct order to find a Marine eligible because they were going to give one to a living Soldier so they had to balance it out.

It all derived from the opinion that the only way to get a Medal of Honor these days was posthumously. The Joint Chiefs at the behest of Congress wanted to change that.

quote:

---

It all derived from the opinion that the only way to get a Medal of Honor these days was posthumously. The Joint Chiefs at the behest of Congress wanted to change that.

---

Can't say I blame them. Every major war in U.S. History has had CMOH recipients, both living and dead.

Perceptions on a battlefield as to what occurred and what did not occur can vary greatly. I've seen this first hand on several accounts. Its not at all surprising that different individuals will have a different perception as to what took place.

I do not believe it was embellished. This is nothing more than trying to throw erroneous crap out there so that some people will believe it. I would not doubt the lawyers defending the company, he used to work for, are behind this story. The investigations into MOHs are too exetensive to let any of this be overlooked. Let the man be the hero that he is. I am damned proud of him and believe every word of his MOH citation. Hooah...or as they say in the USMC oorah!

[This message has been edited by Aggie 509th (edited 12/16/2011 8:36a).]

I tend to agree with you 509th that this is probably a personal smear campaign.

There was an additional story today in the same paper.

quote:

---

LOUISVILLE, Ky. — President Barack Obama is standing by his award of the Medal of Honor to a Marine in the Afghanistan war despite a published report Thursday charging exaggerations of the battle.

Obama presented the award to Marine Sgt. Dakota Meyer three months ago, calling him the "best of a generation" that joined the military after 9/11. He described the day in 2009 when Meyer braved enemy fire in eastern Afghanistan to save U.S. and Afghan comrades.

McClatchy Newspapers reported that its review of documents turned up numerous "untrue, unsubstantiated or exaggerated" assertions about the firefight. The report by a McClatchy correspondent who was embedded with the military and witnessed the Sept. 8, 2009, battle, based the story on analysis of dozens of military documents, including sworn statements by Meyer and others involved.

The story also said Meyer displayed heroism that day and deserves the award.

Obama spokesman Jay Carney said the president "remains very proud" of Meyer and his "remarkable acts of bravery."

---

quote:

---

The Marines said in a statement they were very disappointed McClatchy published the story. The award investigation process used first-person, eye-witness accounts and supporting documents and that Meyer "rightly deserved the nation's highest military honor," the Marines said.

The Marines acknowledged that the process was not flawless.

"Because of the nature of the events supporting awards for valor, it is normal for minor discrepancies to appear when reviewing the source information and collecting eyewitness statements," it said.

The Marines also acknowledged that the public narrative of Meyer's actions on the battlefield, as it appeared on the Marine Corps website, was his personal account.

---

More at the Lexington Herald Leader

Entire presidential campaigns have been derailed over personal smear campaigns over whether a uniformed service member was worthy of an award or not (Kerry).

I've always held the belief that I wasn't there. I trust the vetting process... it had to go through countless field grade officers and top senior level enlisted persons before ever getting to the POTUS's desk. If I had to guess the combined experience level of the people reviewing this, it is upwards of 250 years! I would have to imagine the the POTUS is going to to rely on the SECY of defense and if he/she state it is worthy, it is worthy.

[This message has been edited by Say Chowdah (edited 12/16/2011 7:02p).]

Unfortunately, this has turned into a tarpit.

You have BAE who hired themselves a gen-u-ine war hero, possibly as a figurehead/show pony, who may have been expected to sit quietly in his "window office" except when they needed that MoH trotted out.
If so, BAE has never met the "stubborn" which is the average marine.

Then, somebody "wrote a check," probably along the lines of "Do it, or you'll never work in this town again!" and has significant trouble making that promise come true.

None of this being helped by a President of differing amounts of popularity. One who comes from a political tradition which occasionally does not bear close examination.

So, rather than the more-usual of late logical error of arguing from the specific to the general; we have a number of general things arguing to the specific.

quote:

---

I trust the vetting process... it had to go through countless field grade officers and top senior level enlisted persons before ever getting to the POTUS's desk.

---

I have two examples that throw a wrench in this logic:

1. The Pat Tillman fiasco

2. The Jessica Lynch fiasco

quote:

---

I have two examples that throw a wrench in this logic:

1. The Pat Tillman fiasco

2. The Jessica Lynch fiasco

---

Point taken! I think these are valid arguments but different. These were white washes from the highest levels. I don't think any amount of vetting was going to change the outcome of these awards so I doubt any actual vetting occurred.

I am not entirely surprised at the story and the allegations. Before Sgt Meyer's name was publicly known and even before he was presented the Navy Cross the JTCOIC had created a visualization of the Ganjgal incident in VBS2 based on the findings of the investigation and none of the controversial claims cited in the story were included in the recreation of the events. That machinema video (which may be downloaded from https://milgaming.army.mil/ for those with a CAC and AKO/DKO) was created in early 2010 and is a somewhat different account than what has been circulated since the award was upgraded to the MoH. Nothing needed to be embellished. Even the barest retelling of the facts substantiates that Meyer is the real deal.

quote:

---

I do not believe it was embellished.

---

I've almost never seen a performance report or an award citation that WASN'T embellished. I'm not saying there is false information on them, but they are written in such a way as to make people look like they walk on water.

Anyone consider the possibility that not all of the truth is releasable? I worked in intel, and it was not uncommon for medal citations to be 100% fabricated because the actual reason for the medal was classified.

quote:

---

Anyone consider the possibility that not all of the truth is releasable? I worked in intel, and it was not uncommon for medal citations to be 100% fabricated because the actual reason for the medal was classified.

---

This is basically the response I received when I asked a family friend about the criticism surrounding the story. I was also assured that Meyer absolutely deserved the MoH.

I can't be too specific at the friend's request, but I trust him enough to vouch for it.

quote:

---

Anyone consider the possibility that not all of the truth is releasable?

---

I think that has more to do with the fact that the situation surrounding the MOH is still under investigation due to the incompetence of the TOC personnel.