The Department of Defense is considering a new award for our troops in Afghanistan: the “Courageous Restraint Award”. When I read this on the Marine Corps Times, I couldn’t believe that there would be a medal awarded for holding fire. But yup, it’s true:

U.S. troops in Afghanistan could soon be awarded a medal for not doing something, a precedent-setting award that would be given for “courageous restraint” for holding fire to save civilian lives.

The proposal is now circulating in the Kabul headquarters of the International Security Assistance Force, a command spokesman confirmed Tuesday.

“The idea is consistent with our approach,” explained Air Force Lt. Col. Tadd Sholtis. “Our young men and women display remarkable courage every day, including situations where they refrain from using lethal force, even at risk to themselves, in order to prevent possible harm to civilians. In some situations our forces face in Afghanistan, that restraint is an act of discipline and courage not much different than those seen in combat actions.”

Soldiers are often recognized for non-combat achievement with decorations such as their service’s commendation medal. But most of the highest U.S. military decorations are for valor in combat. A medal to recognize a conscious effort to avoid a combat action would be unique.

We already have non-combat achievement awards. Marines, for example, get the Navy Commendation Medal. Adding a specific medal for refusing to fire is ridiculous and absolutely could send the wrong message. The VFW agrees:

A spokesman for the 2.2 million-member Veterans of Foreign Wars, the nation’s largest group of combat veterans, thinks the award would cause confusion among the ranks and send a bad signal.

“The self-protections built into the rules of engagement are clear, and the decision to return fire must be made instantly based on training and the threat,” said Joe Davis, a spokesman for the Veterans of Foreign Wars. “The enemy already hides among noncombatants, and targets them, too. The creation of such an award will only embolden their actions and put more American and noncombatant lives in jeopardy. Let’s not rush to create something that no one wants to present posthumously.”

We already have rules of engagement to tell troops when they can fire and when they can’t. Their training embeds that into them. And frankly, the fact that this award is even being considered worries me. We’re getting a softer, gentler military every day it seems. We have the greatest military in the world, but what does it matter if their hands are tied and they’re rewarded for inaction? There’s a reason that the highest awards are for valour and courage. The military’s primary job is to kill people and destroy things. It’s not a diplomatic or peacekeeping organization. Yet here we are, encouraging them to do the exact opposite of what they are basically supposed to be doing. It’s ludicrous.

This is also a massive propaganda victory for Al Qaeda and the Taliban. They already use human shields because they know we avoid killing civilians. If they know that troops are now being rewarded for not firing on civilians, how long will it take for Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters to use more civilians as human shields? We are also currently fighting an enemy unlike any we’ve ever fought before. They don’t wear uniforms, they don’t engage in structured combat. We can’t be encouraging our troops to second-guess themselves in order to potentially save civilian lives, because guess what? The enemy combatants all look exactly like the innocent civilians. Our troops need to make that judgement call. They shouldn’t be encouraged to hold their fire, even at potential risk to themselves, because all that will do is lead to the deaths of more of the best among us. If instituted, this will turn into one of the most posthumously awarded medals, I’ve no doubt.

The other thing that bothers me about this is the idea that holding fire is somehow courageous. What takes courage and valour is engaging in combat. That’s why combat action medals are the most prestigious.

With the Obama administration, we apparently don’t need a military of finely trained killing machines, feared and respected around the world. We need a military that’s more like the UN, absolutely useless and unable to stomach the realities of war.

Cross-posted at Stop the ACLU.