Defensive Carry banner

Petraeus' 'ribbon creep'

4K views 27 replies 23 participants last post by  goldshellback 
#1 ·
I'm sorry, but this loser obviously never wore the uniform of any US Military service and thus doesn't even qualify to shine the shoes of General Petraeus!

Petraeus' 'ribbon creep'
A uniform full of medals and decorations clashes with his message.
By Matthew DeBord

April 9, 2008

Gen. David H. Petraeus may be as impressive a military professional as the United States has developed in recent years, but he could use some strategic advice on how to manage his sartorial PR. Witness his congressional testimony on the state of the war in Iraq. There he sits in elaborate Army regalia, four stars glistening on each shoulder, nine rows of colorful ribbons on his left breast, and various other medallions, brooches and patches scattered across the rest of the available real estate on his uniform. He even wears his name tag, a lone and incongruous hunk of cheap plastic in a region of pristine gilt, just in case the politicians aren't sure who he is.

That's a lot of martial bling, especially for an officer who hadn't seen combat until five years ago. Unfortunately, brazen preening and "ribbon creep" among the Army's modern-day upper crust have trumped the time-honored military virtues of humility, duty and personal reserve.

Think about any of the generals you've seen in recent years -- Norman Schwarzkopf, Barry McCaffrey, Wesley Clark (all now retired) and others -- and the image you'll conjure no doubt includes a chest full of shimmering decorations. In Petraeus' case, most of them don't represent actual military action as much as they do the general's devotion to the institution of the U.S. Army and vice versa. According to an annotated photograph produced by the Times of London last year, the majority of ribbons on Petraeus' impressive "rack" were earned for various flavors of distinguished service. As brave as he may be and as meritorious in general, is all that ostentation the best way to present the situation in Iraq to an increasingly war-skeptical public?

Of course, Petraeus' goal is not just to make simple, soldierly arguments before Congress -- it is to dazzle, at least initially, with the blazing imagery of rank. What, after all, are mere Brooks Brothers suits on the members of Congress in the face of a fighting man's laurels? Some of the showiness can be attributed to regulations: The official uniform of the Army is to be worn in a very specific manner, and the brass have an obligation to live up to their billing by showing plenty of ... well, brass. On the other hand, if you're wearing four stars, you surely have some say when it comes to matters of peacockery.

Medals and decorations have a long history with a slightly cynical tinge. This goes back to their inception, during the Napoleonic era, when the strategic genius from Corsica discovered that baubles handed out to the combatants helped ensure loyalty and ferociousness. "With a handful of ribbons, I can conquer all of Europe," he said. In more contemporary times, decorations have suffered a fraught reputation among the rank and file: nice to get but awkward to display if the memories associated with them are of violence, loss and the ineptness of commanders. There have been isolated incidents of Iraq war veterans returning their medals, and, of course, Vietnam War vets were better acquainted with this kind of protest.

The greatest military leaders, in the age of organized national armies, have often conspicuously modified the official requirements of the uniform, even in the most public of settings. Ulysses S. Grant accepted Robert E. Lee's sword while outfitted in disheveled Union blue and muddy boots. Douglas MacArthur presided over the signing of the Japanese Instrument of Surrender on the deck of the battleship Missouri without donning so much as a necktie with his khakis. George Patton wasflamboyant, in his jodhpurs and riding boots, but he backed it up in battle after battle. His legend derived equally from brilliant tactics and an outrageous wardrobe.

Perhaps the best example, however -- and one that Petraeus and his cadre should look to for inspiration -- was set by two of the most politically savvy generals America has produced: Dwight Eisenhower and George Marshall. In photographs following World War II, with Ike fresh from rescuing Western civilization while Marshall was working to rebuild it, both men appear victorious, yet somber, cognizant of the challenges met and the challenges ahead. Eisenhower wears a single row of ribbons, Marshall three.

When you've saved the world and managed the lives and deaths of millions, it obviously compels a certain level of modesty about showcasing your accomplishments, however monumental. Apparently when you're trying to explain why your war-fighting achievements are "fragile" and why the conflict you're running in a hot, dusty faraway place might never be won, it does not.

Memo to Petraeus: When you're making the case for more patriotic gore, go easy on the glitter.

Matthew DeBord is a writer in Los Angeles.
 
#3 ·
Obviously, the writer is intimidated by someone who actually does something.

Its a common trait in sheeple. It bothers them when they are reminded that the world is not a soft,comfortable place and they often bleat loudly...because they can without fear of being eaten by better men than themselves.
 
#5 ·
There he sits in elaborate Army regalia, four stars glistening on each shoulder, nine rows of colorful ribbons on his left breast, and various other medallions, brooches and patches scattered across the rest of the available real estate on his uniform. He even wears his name tag, a lone and incongruous hunk of cheap plastic in a region of pristine gilt, just in case the politicians aren't sure who he is
.

[SARCASM] OH MY GOD!! A General obeying uniform regulations. What is the world coming too?? [/SARCASM]

The writer is a jerk.
 
#9 ·
I agree with both.

Having served for six years, three seperate campaigns in the M.E. and an "action" in east Africa, I think I can safely comment.

The General was entirely correct to wear his "bling", as the author put it. Doing otherwise would have been the military equivalent of showing up before Congress in jeans and a T-shirt. Full dress uniform is composed of Dress Blues/Whites, medals and Warfare designations on the left side and ribbons with no corresponding medal on the right. I was Navy, Army is probably different.

Now about "ribbon creep". Seen it happen. After 9/11 I re-enlisted in the Naval Reserve. There were a lot of Chiefs and officers running around with an aweful lot of hardware on their chest. A few I'd served with before and knew it was a recent addition. A lot of them didn't wear the new decorations unless required by regulation. They called them cheap and administrative.
 
#15 ·
Now about "ribbon creep". Seen it happen. After 9/11 I re-enlisted in the Naval Reserve. There were a lot of Chiefs and officers running around with an aweful lot of hardware on their chest. A few I'd served with before and knew it was a recent addition. A lot of them didn't wear the new decorations unless required by regulation. They called them cheap and administrative.
It goes back further than 9/11. A couple years before I retired (1985) the Army came out with a bunch of ribbons, I think I actually "added" a whole row! I can't even remember what they all were but they were for things like finishing a service school, getting out of basic, being sent overseas........ In other words doing my job.

Never agreed with it, but regulation says............ :yup:

(I do recall being out at Andrews AFB on a detail one day and seeing a mid-level Army NCO by the fence. He was wearing one ribbon, and you knew he just had to have more..... It was baby blue with little stars. No one called him on it!)
 
#11 · (Edited)
Dick Cavett had some opinions of his own about the uniform. (I didn't even know he was still alive). It's over on Michelle Malkin's blog. Ah, the left coast. Gotta love 'em...or not.:mad:
Also, I've noticed that a lot of these articles online don't have a comment section anymore. Maybe it's a good thing they don't. I wouldn't get ANY work done!
 
#12 ·
yeah he was dressed for work on the hill... or anywhere else Class "A" uniform is required

when one wears the Army Class "A" the personal awards and decorations go on the left and unit citations go on the right

stuff on the right may change from unit to unit as well - I earned a Joint Meritorious Unit Award (goes on the right chest) if I served with the 82d ABN (or some other unit with illustrious past) while serving in that unit - I would wear the Presidential Unit Citations (etc) that that unit had earned in the past - (as well as my JMUA)

when departing that unit I would cease to wear the PUC (etc) unless I was there when it was earned...(then it would be mine)
 
#13 ·
Yet another example of a left-wing nut-job inventing things to complain about. I'd be very surprised, these days, to see a 4-star with less than 8 or 9 rows of ribbons.

Those who have never worn the uniform are so quick to find fault with those that do.
 
#14 ·
Well, what do you expect coming out of California nowadays??
 
#17 ·
Sometimes this forum can be so boring...

As I look out in the backyard, one of my dogs just 'pooped' back by the shed, and now I find out that Matthew DeBord is a writer in Los Angeles...neither means much to me...but the situations ARE somewhat similar...:hand1: Oh well, life goes on...:image035:

Next topic please?
 
#20 ·
It would seem that a writer in LA could find all kinds of stuff to write about without attacking an Army General . Some suggestions:

1. City council and police chiefs support of illegal aliens.
2. The rampant gang problem.
3. A violent crime rate that rivals that of Somalia.

The writer most likely is suffering from a very bad case of penis envy: The General has one and the writer does not.
 
#21 ·
Ribbon regs

I believe the Navy allows you to wear only your top 3; I'd love that policy.

True, but not when wearing "Full Dress" uniform. Dress Blues or Whites is the "cracker jack" uniform and is acceptable with the three highest decorations. Full Dress Blues/Whites requires all decorations earned, and medals, to boot. Decorations not having a corresponding medal are worn as ribbons on the right side. Warfare designations are to be worn at all times (S.S., A.W., S.W., SEAL, U.D.T., etc).

The Navy doesn't have any command-wide awards/decorations. Everything is personal, although an award can be given to everyone in a command. Example, I got a Meritorious Unit Citation, as did everyone else in the command. Nobody assigned to the command later got to wear one, we all took ours with us permenantly.
 
#22 ·
"It was baby blue with little stars. No one called him on it"

if its the one im immidiatly thought of i wouldn't dare. seeing as that ribbon normaly goes only to the greatest butt kickers of all. and if their breathing while wearing it i'd say let them do as they want.
 
#25 ·
Yup, baby blue with stars and still walking, that guy can pretty much do as they want.

These days you get two ribbons before you even deploy anywhere, in the Corps at least.
 
#26 · (Edited)
Screw that hippie! Gen Petraeus did a great job in front of Congress and Senate comittees, but he had to find something... anything to attack.

I wore every ribbon/medal I rated, not because of regs... because I RATED. Every one was due to my actions be it personal or unit. Although, there were a few chuckles in the ranks when I got my good conduct metal.:35:

The Army did seem to give em out a lot back then (late '80's early '90's), I bought a kid going home for 'post boot camp leave' a burger at the airport and he had a full row.

Semper Fi

rhino, who hates hippies.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top