Tuesday, July 4, 2006 11:49 a.m. EDT
GI Awarded Rare Medal of Honor in Iraq

In the early days of the Iraq war, on the last day of his life, Army Sgt. 1st Class Paul R. Smith showed valor that no U.S. soldier has matched in Iraq.

Smith's men came under attack as they mopped up after the capture of Baghdad's airport. The sergeant braved hostile fire to evacuate three wounded soldiers and single-handedly killed dozens of enemy soldiers before being killed himself as he covered the evacuation of other wounded Americans.

Smith posthumously became the first soldier in the Iraq war awarded the Medal of Honor, America's highest military award, given in recognition of extreme valor in combat. More than three years later, Smith remains the only service member to receive the honor for action in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

That the U.S. military's top honor has become so rare is a sign of how warfare has changed.

Far fewer soldiers are fighting in Iraq than fought in World War II or Vietnam, wars in which hundreds of the medals were awarded. Also, fewer soldiers are involved in the kinds of sustained fire from massive enemy forces that their fathers and grandfathers faced.

Instead, the attacks are often fast and deadly, like the blast of a roadside bomb.

Smith's was an exception.

It was April 4, 2003. A company of Iraqi Republican Guards attacked Smith and other soldiers as they built holding areas for prisoners of war.

Smith's medal citation said he organized a two-platoon defensive wall, braved hostile fire to attack with hand grenades and anti-tank weapons and evacuated three wounded soldiers from their disabled armored personnel carrier. Still under fire, he mounted a damaged armored personnel carrier and fired its .50 caliber machine gun into the Iraqi ranks.

In helping defeat the Iraqi attack, Smith killed as many as 50 Iraqis and allowed the extraction of numerous wounded soldiers before being killed himself, the citation said.

In the circumstances of modern warfare, such self-sacrifice for a soldier's unit occurs less frequently, said Malham M. Wakin, a retired Air Force brigadier general and professor emeritus of military ethics at the U.S. Air Force Academy. "It's not 'Stand up and fight,' company against company, battalion against battalion," Wakin said.

"Opportunities for heroism are very different in this kind of fight, where it's an unexpected explosion that knocks you out of your jeep or tank."

The difference certainly is not the quality of the individual, Wakin said. "I think we've got guys out there who really have a strong heart and really care about their troops," he said.

The Iraq war has lasted 38 months. The United States was in World War II for 44 months and in the first 38 months of that war, 347 soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines were awarded the Medal of Honor.

But that was a war in which millions of soldiers saw combat around the globe. By the end of 1942, one year after war was declared, 5.4 million Americans were in uniform.

http://tinyurl.com/jv9c2

Dems say they support the troops. Let's hear your good words for this hero.

----------

I am not a "Dem."

Nor do I "support the troops" either....because I do not support their mission.

I dont support criminality....no matter how much it is encouraged by the government.

You do not support the troops because you do not support their mission? The troops are criminality? There is some faulty logic in there.

I wouldn't say that the Iraq War is exactly rightous nor justified. That doesn't mean I don't support the troops. I am very much opposed to the Iraq war. But I most certainly support our troops; and not just because my brother is a Marine. Our troops are for the defense of our great nation and our Constitution. They have given up many of their freedoms so that they can serve to protect those freedoms for others. It is therefore ever so evident that it would be wrong to not support our troops and to turn a blind eye on their sacrifices. This administration does not support our troops when they exploit them for profit gain. This administration does not support our troops when they send them into harms way unecessarily and not as a last resort. This administration does not support our troops when they use them as an arm of corporate imperialism.

It is true that there have been troops which broke the law and have massacred and raped innocent people. And at least the ones you hear about on television are ones that are convicted for their crimes. But our troops are victims, not the guilty. They have joined up for a college education and a chance to defend their country and constitution. They were unrightfully sent into an unjustified war. They fight for the survival of their fellow soldiers. They are stuck in the middle of this horrible war. The truely guilty are of the high command, and the political leadership who have sent them into harms way. They are the true criminals and the ones behind this war; not the troops who are just serving their country.

There have been thousands of troops which have refused to partake in such an unjustified war. Many have seeked refuge in such places as Canada, but some still linger in the United States. But you don't hear about this; because this war is supposed to be "on the side of the troops".

Your brother is there so I sympathize with your love for your brother.

I do not doubt that your brother is an honorable man who believes that he is fighting for America.....and for freedom..

But I am under no such delusion.

---------------

Please thank your brother for me for his service. I agree the war should be fought differently. In my opinion what we need to do is put the hammer down. The only problem is the liberals will die of a heart attack and we can't have that on our conscience.

What are the terrorists fighting for?

Israel, Oil, Defense Contracts

Really? So the terrrorists are hired by George Bush? Wow. I didn't know that. Thanks for the info. That clears everything up.

Actually I think that the terrorists hire him.

I thought the American people hired George Bush. Are the American people terrorists?