I am fairly sure that the official guidance given on the award of Gallantry decorations does include rough assessments of percentage likelihood of loss of life. Its all contained in a publication called something like 'criterion for the award of medals and decorations' or similar which, many years ago, I had the opportunity to peruse.
And my recollection does indeed include a rough stat of 'a 90% chance of loss of life in the action' as guidance for the VC.
I can't comment directly as to what extent the actions of any members of SF in Afghanistan are worthy of any award 'cos i don't know what they actually did. But assuming the 90% chance to be correct (and I actually read it) then it would seem to at least introduce some question given the absence of any UK fatalities in direct combat in the entire campaign thus far.
And while we are on the subject I am extremely pleased for those who are awarded gallantry decorations on modern operations. In my opinion they do - and should - act as both recognition of the individual and unit actions and also as inspiration to others in the future.
Despite all of the above, however, I can't agree that medals are getting harder to win. Just read some of the citations from WW2 stuff etc and compare them to the more recent ones. Concentrate especially on casualty figures. I think it is clear that there were a great deal more people involved in much more risky situations whose actions went less or unrecognised in the past.
Well done to those who do earn decorations. But JN is right that we should at least question (as I'm sure many of those who arses were on the line would) the possibility that their real purpose (as articulated above) might be being subverted by political intent to influence opinion on the good sense or otherwise of engaging in current or future conflict.
Basically we must be sure that they are being awarded for their real purpose and not being undermined by those who just want to gain a cause some cheap glory publicity with whom no-one can easliy argue.
PP
PS Archie nice to see you still here!
[ 23 January 2002: Message edited by: PoorPongo ]</p>