Conservative blogger Bryan Fischer (from the American Family Association) has a nit to pick with how we honor our bravest soldiers. The recent ceremony at the White House got him thinking...
This is just the eighth Medal of Honor awarded during our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Sgt. Giunta is the only one who lived long enough to receive his medal in person.
But I have noticed a disturbing trend in the awarding of these medals, which few others seem to have recognized.
We have feminized the Medal of Honor.
According to Bill McGurn of the Wall Street Journal, every Medal of Honor awarded during these two conflicts has been awarded for saving life. Not one has been awarded for inflicting casualties on the enemy. Not one.
He then spins into a tortured argument about how Jesus was really an ass kicker, and concludes with this...
We rightly honor those who give up their lives to save their comrades. It’s about time we started also honoring those who kill bad guys.
If there's a nugget of truth in this, it's that it is obviously easier -- and more politically correct -- to honor those who risk themselves to save another. But when did that become the feminine thing to do?
No apologies are needed. There are a million reasons why it is easier to honor life savers than life takers. The simplicity of the vetting process probably being the largest. Trying to rank our most skilled killers -- cross referenced with a list of those who ONLY took out the baddest of the bad guys (yet another list) -- would not be a fun job.
I'd be reluctant to link to this garbage if the comments (many from vets and soldiers themselves) to his original post weren't just the right kind of medicine for this sick logic. But I also see he's posted two follow-ups where he claims that he's been misinterpreted (by blasphemers, of course) and that he's only seeking to honor those soldiers that successfully "take the hill."