Fraudulent Awards

This document contains the excerpts and citations for fraudulent awards presented for actions during the fratricide. They are taken directly from copies of the originals contained in the published text of the hearing on this incident, conducted before the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, on June 29, 1995. The individuals who wrote and signed the citations for the awards (LTC Daly in the case of the liaison officer and radio operator, and COL Starr in the case of the surgeon) had first hand knowledge of what really transpired on the airfield during the early morning hours of February 27, 1991.

The inaccuracies contained therein are not simple oversights or miscommunications. They are outright lies. It is very difficult to fathom the rationale behind twisting such a tragic event into personal or career gain. A Bronze Star for service throughout all of Desert Storm, or even a Soldier’s Medal for risking one’s life to save another would perhaps be appropriate. However, it is a travesty to cite heroism and valor under enemy fire during what was actually a botched operation in which Americans killed each other … with no enemy present whatsoever. Were these awards payment for silence, or perhaps an attempt to align witnesses towards a certain point of view? Whatever the motives, they do not appear to be honorable

The Bronze Star is divided into two categories: valor and achievement. The award for valor has a small “V” device on the ribbon and medal. It is much more coveted and rare than its counterpart for simple achievement. Of the over 100 Bronze Stars awarded to troopers in the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, only a handful were for valor. Three of those are listed below.

In all fairness, it is possible that the recipients never knew that the awards they received were related to the airfield incident. The narratives for such awards are viewed only by the individuals submitting the awards (Daly and Starr in this case) and the approving officer (Major General Edison Sholes, Deputy Commanding General of the XVIII Airborne Corps). During a subsequent investigation, two recipients stated that they did not know the award was for actions during the fratricide incident.

The liaison officer thought that valor was defined as placing one’s life in danger, as he did when he dismounted LTC Daly’s vehicle in the vicinity of an exploding vehicle. In reality, the valor criteria can only be met during actions against an armed enemy. The officers submitting these awards however, knew of the fraudulent wording contained in the narratives and the impact it would have upon deciding whether the awards were approved. Colonel Starr, in particular, was a Vietnam War veteran with first hand knowledge of the criteria for valor awards. Apparently, glory was valued much more highly than truth, integrity or honor. Everyone was in a headlong rush to receive a career enhancing bauble.

Indeed this seemed to be the case in the regiment throughout the war. Each command and staff meeting was opened with shouts of “When are we gonna get to kill someone?!?” Field grade officers rushed forward to receive Purple Hearts for banging their heads on the insides of their combat vehicles when the drivers applied the brakes a bit too vigorously. There were mad dashes for any type of recognizable objective, such as a bypassed airfield straddling the corps boundary. Everybody wanted to be out in front. Everybody wanted a piece of the action. Everybody wanted to get in some shots. Everybody wanted their precious path to promotion. The days immediately following the cease fire were filled with reams of award paperwork crossing the Iraqi desert to ensure everybody receive their slice of the pie. Unfortunately, Lance Fielder’s piece was stolen from him.

Ironically, the soldiers from 3rd Platoon, I Troop who displayed real valor, in a real fire fight, with a real Iraqi enemy on January 22, 1991 had their recommendations for Bronze Stars with “V” device either downgraded or rejected outright. Incongruously, Colonel Starr received a Bronze Star with “V” device for this very same action. Although highly deserving and meeting all the criteria, Staff Sergeant Baez, Staff Sergeant Ruch, Private First Class O’Con and several others never received the Bronze Star medals for which they were recommended. When I resubmitted these awards to the new 3rd ACR commander, Colonel Robert Ivany, in late 1991, he responded with a form letter stating that the regiment had already used up its allotment of awards for valor … three of which were these fraudulent ones. Colonel Ivany’s refusal to get involved paid great dividends for him. He recently finished a successful tour of duty as Commanding General of the Military District of Washington D.C. Currently a Major General, he stands an excellent chance of advancing to the rank of full General.

Both Colonel Starr’s and Lieutenant Colonel Daly’s awards were revoked immediately after the Senate hearing in 1995. It is my understanding that the three fraudulent awards questioned here were downgraded to Bronze Stars without “V” devices.

Text of Award Citations

The Regimental Surgeon

Following the fratricide incident, the 3rd ACR surgeon, who assisted the wounded Sergeant Napier, was awarded a Bronze Star with “V” Device. According to the support for his award, the surgeon was recognized for “bravery and valor” when he was asked to “perform an emergency medevac mission” while the regiment was “still in contact” and “clearing the sector of enemy.” The mission was conducted during the “early morning hours” when there was “little or no available ambient light due to marginal weather conditions.” He and his crew were able to “successfully locate and extract the wounded.” The surgeon’s actions were in the “best tradition of the service.” When the award was presented, the surgeon was cited for “heroism involving conflict with an armed enemy.”

The Liaison Officer

The second individual was an 82nd Airborne Liaison Officer, a captain, attached to Lt. Colonel Daly’s Bradley during the fratricide incident. He, along with another soldier, dismounted from the Bradley during the incident. According to the support for his award, the Liaison Officer was cited for “exceptionally meritorious heroism in the face of hostile fire” during a regimental attack to seize “Qalib Al Luhays Airfield.” He distinguished himself by “volunteering to dismount and take ‘enemy’ personnel prisoner.” Rushing forward of friendly vehicles, he was responsible for “defusing the situation, restoring order and saving the lives of at least four American soldiers.” When the award was presented, the Liaison Officer was cited for “heroism involving conflict with an armed enemy.”

The award citation, signed by Lieutenant Colonel Daly on March 6, 1991, read:

For exceptionally meritorious heroism in the face of hostile fire during a regimental attack to seize Qalib Al Luhry Airfield in the early hours of 27 FEB 1991. CPT ******* distinguished himself by volunteering to dismount and take enemy personnel prisoner. With reported enemy fire and burning vehicles to his front, CPT ****** dismounted, rushed forward of friendly vehicles to take prisoners. He was responsible for defusing the situation, restoring order, and saving the lives of at least four American soldiers. His actions reflect great credit upon the Regiment of Mounted Riflemen, the 82nd Airborne Division, and the United States Army.

The Radio Operator

The third individual, a sergeant attached to Lt. Colonel Daly’s Bradley during the fratricide incident, dismounted from the Commander’s Bradley during the incident. According to the support for his award, the sergeant was cited for “exceptionally meritorious heroism in the face of hostile fire” during a regimental attack to seize “Qalib Al Luhays Airfield.” The sergeant distinguished himself “by volunteering to dismount and assist in taking enemy prisoners.” Rushing forward of friendly vehicles, he was responsible for “defusing the situation, restoring order and saving the lives of at least four American soldiers.”

Site Footer

Sliding Sidebar

Archives

No archives to show.

Categories

  • No categories

Articles

Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. Officially defined as policies and programs that promote the representation and participation of different groups of individuals. Except it doesn't include white men. It specifically excludes them while silencing them by calling them racist or misogynists if they object. It organizes traits of the rest of the people according to a notional victim status, with those higher up in the hierarchy gaining privilege at the expense of those below. Grifters calling themselves DEI experts and consultants have extracted millions of dollars from business and government offices promoting this divisive traitism. Reducing social cohesion makes people easier to control. Working in a diverse setting increases, rather than decreases, the breakdown of social trust, even within the same socio-economic class.

Men Going Their Own Way. A general philosophy (not a movement) of men focusing on themselves, rather than playing the rigged Western game of engaging with women and losing their assets and children to them through a legal system biased against men. As with all philosophies, there are some elements that are more radical.

Judging, elevating or favorably treating others by physical characteristics, or traits. Replaces racism due to the fact that there is only one race, human.

The overriding view that women are strong and independent, don’t need men, and are more competent and wiser than men. Men are to realize and admit that they are both inferior and toxic.

Giving too much attention and affection, whether through gifts, compliments, or acts of service as a way of seeking validation from someone else.

Instead of accepting responsibility and facing the uncomfortable situation head-on, the deflectors will try to move the focus from themselves, usually by passing the blame onto someone or something else.

Individuals are confronted with two choices, both of which have negative results. The choices are framed to produce an emotional response in the person, forcing them to choose or look bad. The individual will fail, no matter what choice they make. The abuser will use this as leverage to further manipulate the victim by depicting them as weak, flawed or ineffective.

The manipulative process by which individual or collective freedom of choice and action is compromised by agents or agencies that modify or distort perception, motivation, affect, cognition and/or behavioral outcomes. The person being mind controlled is not aware of the influence process, nor of the changes occurring within themselves. They believe they are acting according to their own choices.

A declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc. to frighten and emotionally force a person to do something.

The intentional manipulation of another person’s emotions to induce feelings of guilt. It is a form of emotional blackmail that is often designed to manipulate other people by preying on their emotions and making them feel responsible for something they are not.

Using sarcasm and put-downs to increase fear and self-doubt in the victim. Manipulators use this tactic to make others feel unworthy and therefore defer to them. Manipulators can make one feel ashamed for even daring to challenge them or say no.

Attempting to establish a perceived close bond with someone very quickly to overcome their natural caution and use them for money, resources or work. This is often involves a quick push for friendship or intimacy.

A manipulative tactic where someone portrays themselves as a victim to gain sympathy, attention, or caregiving. The goal is to make the person eliciting pity seem like a victim, which can make it easier to get what they want without being seen as a bad guy. This is because people are naturally inclined to help those they pity.

A woman is simultaneously a victim and empowered, until something happens. Then she chooses which state benefits her the most.

A woman is simultaneously a victim and empowered, until something happens. Then she chooses which state benefits her the most.

A Chad is a stereotypical alpha male. He is depicted as attractive, successful, muscular, cocky and very popular among women. He has a tendency to play the field and will not commit to any woman.

An enabler of a highly narcissistic person or someone with narcissistic personality disorder (NPD). A flying monkey is an agent who acts on their behalf.

Projection involves taking an unacceptable part of oneself, disowning it, and placing it onto someone else. The manipulator describes the victim and paints them in a light that more accurately portrays the attacker himself.

Toxic amnesia is a tactic where the perpetrator pretends to not remember abuse, betrayals, lies, and other hurtful and dysfunctional behaviors they've engaged in. Its a form of gaslighting. Its purpose is to make you doubt your perceptions and memories.

Narcissistic rage can be triggered by various situations, such as criticism, perceived rejection, or being ignored. The reaction is often extreme and disproportionate to the event or comment, as the narcissist's fragile ego struggles to cope with the perceived attack on their self-image.

Triangulation is when a toxic or manipulative person, often a person with strong narcissistic traits, brings a third person into their relationship in order to remain in control. There will be limited or no communication between the two triangulated individuals except through the manipulator. It may appear in different forms, but all are about divide and conquer, or playing people against each other.

The action or practice of lavishing someone with attention or affection, especially in order to influence or manipulate them.

Cognitive dissonance refers to a situation involving conflicting attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors. This produces a feeling of mental discomfort leading to an alteration in one of the attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors to reduce the discomfort and restore balance.

To gaslight someone means to manipulate another person into doubting their own perceptions, experiences or understanding of events. ~ American Psychological Association

Because their sense of self is determined by what others think of them, narcissists use relationships for self-enhancement. Everyone must feed them. In addition, they seek validation and attention in their public and professional life. Other people are used as objects in order to provide their supply. For example, they may need constant compliments or applause, more status and money, or may check their appearance in the mirror several times a day. ~ Psychology Today

Fraud that targets people belonging to a particular community or group, typically that in which someone pretends to be a member of the group in order to gain the trust of others.

Second Attack
Second Attack
First Attack
First Attack
Initial Dispositions
Initial Dispositions
ZSU 23-4
ZSU 23-4 Anti-Aircraft Gun
TOW Missile
TOW Anti-Tank Missile
T55 Tank
T55 Tank
SA7
SA7 Surface to Air Missile
M113
M113 Armored Personnel Carrier (APC)
M48 Tank
M48 Tank
Hawker Hunter
Hawker Hunter Jet
BTR-50
BTR-50 Armored Personnel Carrier
BM21 Stalin Organ
BM21 Stalin Organ
Howitzer
Howitzer
AT7 Anti-Tank Missile
AT7 Anti-Tank Missile
AT3 Sagger Anti-Tank Missile
AT3 Sagger Anti-Tank Missile
120mm Mortar
120mm Mortar
AT4 Anti-Tank Missile
AT4 Anti-Tank Missile

Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.

A religious leader uses valid verses or concepts from the Bible about following and obeying God to generate enthusiasm in people, then misdirects that obedience to himself as a representative of God. The group believes they are following and obeying God, but in reality are obeying the leader.

A fictional, exaggerated version of an opposing viewpoint, especially one that is intentionally created to be easy to dismiss or argue against and to make one's own argument seem stronger. Straw man arguments can be made unintentionally, but most are made on purpose to make the other side seem evil, incompetent, or extremist.

The religious leader distracts members from mentally registering what he is doing.  Screaming praise to God when something he proclaimed does not come to pass.  Acting like a bad thing is really a good thing.  Just keep talking and talking and talking, while ignoring that nothing is happening. It is the same thing politicians have done successfully for years.

The leader calls members flattering adjectives or nouns, like righteous, holy, or saint.  These are often vague and difficult to define, so the member feels the leader’s superior knowledge has recognized something good in them.  Conversely, if the leader later withdraws this praise, the member is eager to toe the line to recover it.

Manipulation of a person or group's emotions in order to make them believe something is factual (or false) in the absence of any evidence. The manipulator tries to draw on the recipient's inward feelings such as fear, pity, or joy with the goal of convincing them that the statements being presented are true or false.

Essentially a black-and-white worldview with the leader as the ultimate moral arbiter. This creates an atmosphere of guilt and shame, where punishment and humiliation are expected. It also sets up an environment wherein members spy and report on one another. Through submission to the guilt-inducing and impossible demand for purity, members lose their moral bearing.

The use of jargon internal to (and only understandable by) the group. Constricting language constricts the person. Capacities for thinking and feeling are significantly reduced. Imagination is no longer a part of life experiences, and the mind atrophies from disuse.

The process whereby the group becomes the ultimate arbiter and all nonbelievers become so-called evil or non-people. If these non-people cannot be recruited, then they can be punished or even killed. This process creates an us-versus-them mentality that breeds fear in followers who learn that life depends on a willingness to obey. This is when individuals merge with the group’s belief.