Various parts of the American media have discussed the perceived problem of medal

inflation; most frequently since the start of the War on Terror in 2001 including
articles in the Huffington Post (Dorian De Wind), Newsweek (Evan Thomas) and the
NBC News (Michael Moran).[2][3][4] It has also been discussed in a 2006 book by
Paul Robinson and a 2016 work by Michael P. Kreuzer.[5][6] Earlier treatments of
the subject include a 1979 book (Crisis in Command) discussing the situation in the
Vietnam War and a 1996 article in the New York Times.[7][5] The question discussed
frequently is whether the medals are deserved or being awarded at too high a rate,
leading to "devaluation" of the award.[3][7]

Historically the US armed forces have relied heavily upon individual commanding
officers to apply for and approve medals, leading to significant variability in the
criteria required for each award.[6] One critic, Colonel Jack Jacobs, who received
the Medal of Honor in Vietnam said, in 2004: "it's an age old problem with the Army
and Air Force, too. The authority to approve awards is at a very low level, and
that has a tendency to increase their frequency. Plus, there's always a political
motive, or component, to giving out awards, to keep morale high and create a
positive story for the home front".[3] A counterpoint is that in the modern US
military a serviceman's medals serve as his "resum�" indicating his career
achievements, rather than serving to show only the most valorous or meritorious
service.[7]

Early history
The United States Army, perhaps conscious of the founding fathers' democratic
principles, was sparing with its medals. Some distinguished generals including the
Civil War leaders Ulysses S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman wore few if any
medals on their uniform.[7] Indeed, the US Army had no medal to recognise valor on
the battlefield until the Civil War when the Medal of Honor was introduced.[4] The
Medal of Honor was the only such medal until the US involvement in the First World
War when a number of other medals were introduced.[4] Controversy over the number
of medals issued dates back to at least the Second World War. During the early US
involvement in North Africa two US generals visited the front and issued 60 Legion
of Merit medals. These medals criteria should have limited them only to very senior
officers and the majority of the 60 issued were outside of the criteria. US
President Franklin D. Roosevelt disapproved of this action but did not veto the
awards.[3] The Second World War as a whole saw a significant increase in the number
of medals issued to individual servicemen.[7]

Later 20th century

General Colin Powell stated that his award of the Legion of Merit was devalued by
medal inflation during the Vietnam War
A large number of service awards (for "time served") were introduced following the
Second World War, which increased the number of medals servicemen could expect to
receive.[4] The Vietnam War brought about the use of military bravery medals as a
means of raising force morale.[5] Historians Richard A. Gabriel and Paul L. Savage
state that "medal packages" were common in which an officer received a set of
medals merely for holding a certain rank or appointment; leading to a reduction in
the perceived value of these medals.[5] Later, US General Colin Powell described
the practice saying that:

the Legion of Merit I received? It might have meant more to me in a war where
medals were not awarded so indiscriminately. I remember once, as division G-3,
attending a battalion change-of-command ceremony at one

War on Terror

Retired Colonel David Hackworth was critical of medal inflation he perceived during
the War on Terror
The conquest of Iraq in 2003 drew complaints from some that the number of medals
awarded was out of proportion with the danger experienced by the troops and that
bravery awards were more likely to be issued to officers than enlisted personnel.
[5] Of the 26 Silver Stars awarded for the 2003 capture of Baghdad 4 were awarded
to colonels, 11 to captains and just 11 to NCOs, none went to privates; of the 104
Bronze Stars with valor device, 32 were awarded to officers and 72 to other ranks
(only 4 of whom were privates) and of the 274 plain Bronze Stars 149 went to
officers, 133 to NCOs and just 3 to privates. The Purple Heart, which is awarded
automatically for being wounded and so perhaps is more reflective of the danger
individual soldiers experience was awarded 88 times, only 10 times to officers, 36
to NCOs and 42 to privates.[5]

The US Air Force came in for criticism for the number of medals awarded during the
invasion: some 69,000 medals were handed out, significantly more than the army (who
awarded 40,000) despite that fact that army personnel were, in general, posted to
more dangerous locations. The ratio of bronze stars awarded per fatality in the US
Air Force was 91:1 and in the army 27:1.[5] The US Marine Corps took active steps
to limit the number of medals awarded during the invasion and was praised by some
at the time for having "kept the inflation in check"; it awarded just three bronze
stars per fatality suffered.[5][3] Some critics noted that the air force awards, on
average, twice the number of medals per service member that the US Navy does.[7]

A noted critic of medal inflation, Colonel David Hackworth was particularly

critical of the air force for awarding the Distinguished Flying Cross to a pilot
for a mission which missed its target in Baghdad and killed 16 civilians. He
compared this to what would have been needed to receive the medal in the Second
World War: "in World War II, when I saw a Distinguished Flying Cross, that meant
the guy had made 25 or 30 missions over dangerous places like Hamburg or Berlin.
Those places sometimes had 50 percent casualty rates. Now, they give medals out to
guys who fly bombers invisible to radar whose bombs miss Saddam and kill civilians
in a restaurant. It's an outrage".[6] There were in fact a relatively large number
of Distinguished Flying Crosses awarded for the invasion: between its establishment
in 1927 and 2002 only 3,300 of the medals had been awarded but between March 2002
and February 2004 463 were approved.[3]

Once the war settled down into the counter-insurgency phase the number of medals
awarded decreased significantly. Up until 2009 the rate of Medals of Honor awarded
was just 0.1 per 100,000 service members, significantly under the ratio in the
Korean War (2.3) and the Second World War (2.9). The reasons cited for this were
that the technological development of warfare had reduced the number of face-to-
face engagements with the enemy; that the shift by the insurgents towards
improvised explosive devices, mortars and sniper attacks away from standard
infantry tactics had also reduced the number of traditional engagements and that
the awards system had been made more rigorous.[2]