gijoe, I think you're being unfair on the RAF leadership. The reason it has taken so long for this medal to be announced is that they have been fighting hard to get Reaper, Cyprus and the Gulf included. There has certainly been initiative in keeping the argument going; the fact that they have lost to the Army is less positive on the brains aspect but I don't think you can fault them for trying. All of the stories I have seen this morning (including the discussion between AM Greg Bagwell and Col Richard Kemp on the Today programme) have been focussing heavily on the need to expand the boundaries of medallic recognition to reflect the nature of modern warfare. Give him his due, Kemp actually sounded like he agreed with the need to do so.
upsdaisy, even the Army do not try to argue that conditions for Reaper crews and aircraft engineers in Cyprus are not 'arduous'. My understanding is that psychological issues and intense working routines (for the former) and the demands of 12-hour shifts for months at a time away from families (for the latter) have been recognised as meeting the 'rigour' criterion for award of an OSM. The argument came down solely to risk. And as I pointed out in my OP, campaign medals have been awarded to recognise arduous service in comparatively low-risk settings before: the WW2 Defence Medal (via the 1-year criterion) being one, the Afghanistan OSM (to those serving in Oman and other such areas) being another.
Having myself done medal-earning time alongside many Army officers in an HQ in Afghanistan, sleeping in well-protected accommodation, getting 3 hot meals a day (on proper plates!) and chatting to family members over Wifi while sipping a fresh coffee, I think it ill behoves the Army senior leadership to be so defensive over OSM and/or GSM08 criteria for Op SHADER. I don't think we have heard the last of this debate...
Last edited by Easy Street; 20th Sep 2017 at 08:44.