Criteria The Joint Meritorious Unit Award is presented in the name of the Secretary of Defense to Joint Activities of the Department of Defense for meritorious achievement or service, superior to that which is... The Joint Meritorious Unit Award is presented in the name of the Secretary of Defense to Joint Activities of the Department of Defense for meritorious achievement or service, superior to that which is normally expected, under one of the following conditions: During action in combat with an armed enemy of the United States, For a declared national emergency or Under extraordinary circumstances that involve the national interest. MoreHide
Criteria The Joint Meritorious Unit Award is presented in the name of the Secretary of Defense to Joint Activities of the Department of Defense for meritorious achievement or service, superior to that which is... The Joint Meritorious Unit Award is presented in the name of the Secretary of Defense to Joint Activities of the Department of Defense for meritorious achievement or service, superior to that which is normally expected, under one of the following conditions: During action in combat with an armed enemy of the United States, For a declared national emergency or Under extraordinary circumstances that involve the national interest. MoreHide
Description
JMUA for HQ US CENTCOM, JUL 2010 - JUL 2012
Other Memories
Concurrently assigned as a 2nd level manager within DIA's AFG-PAK Center of Excellence while serving in a joint service assignment to HQ US Central Command.
Criteria The Meritorious Service Medal may be awarded to members of the Armed Forces who distinguish themselves by outstanding noncombat achievement or by meritorious service to the United States, but not of a... The Meritorious Service Medal may be awarded to members of the Armed Forces who distinguish themselves by outstanding noncombat achievement or by meritorious service to the United States, but not of a degree that would warrant the award of the Legion of Merit. MoreHide
Criteria The Joint Meritorious Unit Award is presented in the name of the Secretary of Defense to Joint Activities of the Department of Defense for meritorious achievement or service, superior to that which is... The Joint Meritorious Unit Award is presented in the name of the Secretary of Defense to Joint Activities of the Department of Defense for meritorious achievement or service, superior to that which is normally expected, under one of the following conditions: During action in combat with an armed enemy of the United States, For a declared national emergency or Under extraordinary circumstances that involve the national interest. MoreHide
Description
JMUA for HQ US CENTCOM, MAR 2008-JUL 2010
Criteria The Meritorious Service Medal may be awarded to members of the Armed Forces who distinguish themselves by outstanding noncombat achievement or by meritorious service to the United States, but not of a... The Meritorious Service Medal may be awarded to members of the Armed Forces who distinguish themselves by outstanding noncombat achievement or by meritorious service to the United States, but not of a degree that would warrant the award of the Legion of Merit. MoreHide
Comments
Meritorious Service as Joint Intelligence Combat Training Center, Exercise Director from 2005-2009
Criteria The Defense Meritorious Service Medal is awarded in the name of the Secretary of Defense to members of the Armed Forces who, while serving in a joint activity, distinguish themselves by noncombat outs... The Defense Meritorious Service Medal is awarded in the name of the Secretary of Defense to members of the Armed Forces who, while serving in a joint activity, distinguish themselves by noncombat outstanding achievement or meritorious service, but not of a degree to warrant award of the Defense Superior Service Medal. MoreHide
Comments
Meritorious Service while serving with MNFI-CIOC in Baghdad Iraq, 2007-2008
Criteria The area of eligibility encompasses all land area of the country of Iraq and the contiguous water area out to 12 nautical miles, and all air spaces above the land area of Iraq and above the contiguous... The area of eligibility encompasses all land area of the country of Iraq and the contiguous water area out to 12 nautical miles, and all air spaces above the land area of Iraq and above the contiguous water area out to 12 nautical miles. To be eligible for the Iraq Campaign Medal, a Service member must be assigned or attahced to a unit participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom in Iraq for 30 consecutive days or for 60 nonconsecutive days or meet one of the following criteria: Be engaged in actual combat against the enemy under circumstances involving grave danger of death or serious bodily injury from enemy action, regardless of the amount of time the individual has served in Iraq; While participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom or on official duties (regardless of the time spent in Iraq) is killed, wounded or injured to the extent that he or she requires medical evacuation from Iraq; or, While participating as a regularly assigned aircrew member flying sorties into, out of, within, or over Iraq in direct support of Operation Iraqi Freedom; each day that one or more sorties are flown in accordance with these criteria shall count as one day towards the 30 consecutive or 60 nonconsecutive day requirement. Service members who qualified for the War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal by reason of service between March 19, 2003 and April 30, 2005 shall remain qualified for that medal. However, any such person may be awarded the Iraq Campaign Medal in lieu of the War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal for that service, at his or her request. In addition, any Army soldier who was authorized the arrowhead device may be awarded the Iraq Campaign Medal with arrowhead device in lieu of the War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal with arrowhead device. No service member shall be entitled to both the War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal and the Iraq Campaign Medal for the same act, achievement, or period of service. Only one award of the Iraq Campaign Medal may be authorized for any individual. The Iraq Campaign Medal may be awarded posthumously to any Service members who loses his or her life while, as a direct result of participating in qualifying operations, without regard to the length of time in the area of eligibility, if otherwise applicable. MoreHide
Comments
Service with Muti-National Forces Iraq in Baghdad 2007-2008
Description In the context of the Iraq War, the surge refers to United States President George W. Bush's 2007 increase in the number of American troops in order to provide security to Baghdad and Al Anbar ProvincIn the context of the Iraq War, the surge refers to United States President George W. Bush's 2007 increase in the number of American troops in order to provide security to Baghdad and Al Anbar Province.
The surge had been developed under the working title "The New Way Forward" and it was announced in January 2007 by Bush during a television speech. Bush ordered the deployment of more than 20,000 soldiers into Iraq, five additional brigades, and sent the majority of them into Baghdad. He also extended the tour of most of the Army troops in country and some of the Marines already in the Anbar Province area. The President described the overall objective as establishing a "...unified, democratic federal Iraq that can govern itself, defend itself, and sustain itself, and is an ally in the War on Terror." The major element of the strategy was a change in focus for the US military "to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security". The President stated that the surge would then provide the time and conditions conducive to reconciliation among political and ethnic factions.
Units deployed
The five U.S. Army brigades committed to Iraq as part of the surge were
2nd Brigade, 82nd Airborne Division (Infantry): 3,447 troops. Deployed to Baghdad, January 2007
4th Brigade, 1st Infantry Division (Infantry): 3,447 troops. Deployed to Baghdad, February 2007
3rd Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division (Heavy): 3,784 troops. Deployed to southern Baghdad Belts, March 2007
4th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division (Stryker): 3,921 troops. Deployed to Diyala province, April 2007
2nd Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division (Heavy): 3,784 troops. Deployed to the southeast of Baghdad, May 2007
This brought the number of U.S. brigades in Iraq from 15 to 20. Additionally, 4,000 Marines in Al Anbar had their 7-month tour extended. These included Marines from the 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit, 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, the 2nd Battalion 4th Marines, the 1st Battalion 6th Marines and the 3rd Battalion, 4th Marines. Most of the 150,000 Army personnel had their 12-month tours extended as well. By July, 2007, the percentage of the mobilized Army deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan was almost 30%; the percentage of the mobilized Marine Corps deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan was 13.5%.[55]
Operations
The plan began with a major operation to secure Baghdad, codenamed Operation Fardh al-Qanoon (Operation Imposing Law), which was launched in February 2007. However, only in mid-June 2007, with the full deployment of the 28,000 additional U.S. troops, could major counter-insurgency efforts get fully under way. Operation Phantom Thunder was launched throughout Iraq on June 16, with a number of subordinate operations targeting insurgents in Diyala province, Anbar province and the southern Baghdad Belts. The additional surge troops also participated in Operation Phantom Strike and Operation Phantom Phoenix, named after the III "Phantom" Corps which was the major U.S. unit in Iraq throughout 2007.
Counterinsurgency strategy
Counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq changed significantly under the command of General Petraeus since the 2007 troop surge began. The newer approach attempted to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people through building relationships, preventing civilian casualties and compromising with and even hiring some former enemies. The new strategy was population-centric in that it focused in protecting the population rather than killing insurgents. In implementing this strategy, Petraeus used experienced gained while commanding the 101st Airborne Division in Mosul in 2003. He also explained these ideas extensively in Field Manual 3-24: Counterinsurgency, which he assisted in the writing of while serving as the Commanding General of Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and the U.S. Army Combined Arms Center (CAC) located there.
Instead of seeing every Iraqi as a potential enemy, the current COIN strategy focuses on building relationships and getting cooperation from the Iraqis against Al Qaeda and minimizing the number of enemies for U.S. forces. The belief is that maintaining a long term presence of troops in a community improves security and allows for relationships and trust to develop between the locals and the U.S. military. Civilian casualties are minimized by carefully measured use of force. This means less bombing and overwhelming firepower, and more soldiers using restraint and even sometimes taking more risk in the process.
Another method of gaining cooperation is by paying locals, including former insurgents, to work as local security forces. Former Sunni insurgents have been hired by the U.S. military to stop cooperating with Al Qaeda and to start fighting against them.
To implement this strategy, troops were concentrated in the Baghdad area (at the time, Baghdad accounted for 50% of all the violence in Iraq).[64] Whereas in the past, Coalition forces isolated themselves from Iraqis by living in large forward operating bases far from population centers,[65] troops during the surge lived among the Iraqis, operating from joint security stations (JSSs) located within Baghdad itself and shared with Iraqi security forces. Coalition units were permanently assigned to a given area so that they could build long-term relationships with the local Iraqi population and security forces.
However, opponents to occupation such as US Army Col. David H. Hackworth (Ret.), asked whether he thought that British soldiers are better at nation-building than the Americans, said "They were very good at lining up local folks to do the job like operating the sewers and turning on the electricity. Far better than us -- we are heavy-handed, and in Iraq we don't understand the people and the culture. Thus we did not immediately employ locals in police and military activities to get them to build and stabilize their nation."
CNN war correspondent Michael Ware, who has reported from Iraq since before the U.S. invasion in 2003 had a similar dim view of occupation saying, "there will be very much mixed reaction in Iraq” to a long-term troop presence, but he added, “what’s the point and will it be worth it?” Mr. Ware contended that occupation could, "ferment further resentment [towards the U.S]."
Results
Security situation
Hostile and Non-Hostile Deaths.
Despite a massive security crackdown in Baghdad associated with the surge in coalition troop strength, the monthly death toll in Iraq rose 15% in March 2007. 1,869 Iraqi civilians were killed and 2,719 were wounded in March, compared to 1,646 killed and 2,701 wounded in February. In March, 165 Iraqi policemen were killed against 131 the previous month, while 44 Iraqi soldiers died compared to 29 in February. US military deaths in March were nearly double those of the Iraqi army, despite Iraqi forces leading the security crackdown in Baghdad. The death toll among insurgent militants fell to 481 in March, compared to 586 killed in February; however, the number of arrests jumped to 5,664 in March against 1,921 in February.
Three months after the start of the surge, troops controlled less than a third of the capital, far short of the initial goal, according to an internal military assessment completed in May 2007. Violence was especially chronic in mixed Shiite-Sunni neighborhoods in western Baghdad. Improvements had not yet been widespread or lasting across Baghdad.
Significant attack trends.
On September 10, 2007, David Petraeus delivered his part of the Report to Congress on the Situation in Iraq. He concluded that "the military objectives of the surge are, in large measure, being met." He cited what he called recent consistent declines in security incidents, which he attributed to recent blows dealt against Al-Qaeda in Iraq during the surge. He added that "we have also disrupted Shia militia extremists, capturing the head and numerous other leaders of the Iranian-supported Special Groups, along with a senior Lebanese Hezbollah operative supporting Iran's activities in Iraq." He argued that Coalition and Iraqi operations had drastically reduced ethno-sectarian violence in the country, though he stated that the gains were not entirely even. He recommended a gradual drawdown of U.S. forces in Iraq with a goal of reaching pre-surge troop levels by July 2008 and stated that further withdraws would be "premature."
Sectarian violence.
While Petraeus credited the surge for the decrease in violence, the decrease also closely corresponded with a cease-fire order given by Iraqi political leader Muqtada al-Sadr on August 29, 2007. Al-Sadr's order, to stand down for six months, was distributed to his loyalists following the deaths of more than 50 Shia Muslim pilgrims during fighting in Karbala the day earlier.
Michael E. O'Hanlon and Jason H. Campbell of the Brookings Institution stated on December 22, 2007 that Iraq’s security environment had reached its best levels since early 2004 and credited Petraeus' strategy for the improvement. CNN stated that month that the monthly death rate for US troops in Iraq had hit its second lowest point during the entire course of the war. Military representatives attributed the successful reduction of violence and casualties directly to the troop surge. At the same time, the Iraqi Ministry of Interior reported similar reductions for civilian deaths.
Iraqi Security Force deaths.
However, on September 6, 2007, a report by an independent military commission headed by General James Jones found that the decrease in violence may have been due to areas being overrun by either Shias or Sunnis. In addition, in August 2007, the International Organization for Migration and the Iraqi Red Crescent Organization indicated that more Iraqis had fled since the troop increase.
On February 16, 2008, Iraqi Defense Minister Abdel Qader Jassim Mohammed told reporters that the surge was "working very well" and that Iraq has a "pressing" need for troops to stay to secure Iraqi borders.[76] He stated that "Results for 2007 prove that– Baghdad is good now".
In June 2008, the U.S. Department of Defense reported that "the security, political and economic trends in Iraq continue to be positive; however, they remain fragile, reversible and uneven."
U.S. troop fatalities in Iraq by month, the orange and blue months being post-troop surge.
In the month of July, 2008, US forces lost only 13 soldiers, the lowest number of casualties sustained by US troops in one month since the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Also, a report by the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, given to Congress in May 2008, and published July 1, stated that the Iraqi government had met 15 of the 18 political benchmarks set out for them.... More
Criteria The Army Commendation Medal is awarded to members of the Armed Forces of the United States who, while serving in any capacity with the Army, distinguish themselves by heroism, outstanding achievement,... The Army Commendation Medal is awarded to members of the Armed Forces of the United States who, while serving in any capacity with the Army, distinguish themselves by heroism, outstanding achievement, or meritorious service. MoreHide
Comments
312th MI BN, 1st INF DIV Wurzburg Germany
Criteria The Meritorious Unit Commendation is awarded to units for exceptionally meritorious conduct in performance of outstanding services for at least six continuous months during a period of military operat... The Meritorious Unit Commendation is awarded to units for exceptionally meritorious conduct in performance of outstanding services for at least six continuous months during a period of military operations against an armed enemy on or after January 1, 1944. MoreHide
Criteria The Overseas Service Ribbon is awarded to all active members of the Army, the Army National Guard, and to Army Reservists who are credited with a normal overseas tour completed since August 1, 1981 (p... The Overseas Service Ribbon is awarded to all active members of the Army, the Army National Guard, and to Army Reservists who are credited with a normal overseas tour completed since August 1, 1981 (provided they have an active Army status on or after August 1, 1981). This ribbon may not be awarded for overseas service recognized by another United States service medal. MoreHide
Description In June 2004, under the auspices of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1546 the Coalition transferred limited sovereignty to a caretaker government, whose first act was to begin the trial of SIn June 2004, under the auspices of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1546 the Coalition transferred limited sovereignty to a caretaker government, whose first act was to begin the trial of Saddam Hussein. The government began the process of moving towards elections, though the insurgency, and the lack of cohesion within the government itself, led to repeated delays.
Militia leader Muqtada al-Sadr used his grass-roots organization and Mahdi Militia of over a thousand armed men to take control of the streets of Baghdad. The CPA soon realized it had lost control and closed down his popular newspaper. This resulted in mass anti-American demonstrations. The CPA then attempted to arrest al-Sadr on murder charges. He defied the American military by taking refuge in the Holy City of Najaf.
Through the months of July and August, a series of skirmishes in and around Najaf culminated with the Imman Ali Mosque itself under siege, only to have a peace deal brokered by al-Sistani in late August. Al-Sadr then declared a national cease fire, and opened negotiations with the American and government forces. His militia was incorporated into the Iraqi security forces and al-Sadr is now a special envoy. This incident was the turning point in the failed American efforts to install Ahmed Chalabi as leader of the interim government. The CPA then put Iyad Allawi in power; ultimately he was only marginally more popular than Chalabi.
The Allawi government, with significant numbers of holdovers from the Coalition Provisional Authority, began to engage in attempts to secure control of the oil infrastructure, the source of Iraq's foreign currency, and control of the major cities of Iraq. The continuing insurgencies, poor state of the Iraqi Army, disorganized condition of police and security forces, as well as the lack of revenue hampered their efforts to assert control. In addition, both former Ba'athist elements and militant Shia groups engaged in sabotage, terrorism, open rebellion, and establishing their own security zones in all or part of a dozen cities. The Allawi government vowed to crush resistance, using U.S. troops, but at the same time negotiated with Muqtada al-Sadr.
Offensives and counteroffensives
Beginning 8 November, American and Iraqi forces invaded the militant stronghold of Fallujah in Operation Phantom Fury, killing and capturing many insurgents. Many rebels were thought to have fled the city before the invasion. U.S.-backed figures put insurgency losses at over 2,000. It was the bloodiest single battle for the U.S. in the war, with 92 Americans dead and several hundred wounded. A video showing the killing of at least one unarmed and wounded man by an American serviceman surfaced, throwing renewed doubt and outrage at the efficiency of the U.S. occupation. The Marine was later cleared of any wrongdoing because the Marines had been warned that the enemy would sometimes feign death and booby-trap bodies as a tactic to lure Marines to their deaths. November was the deadliest month of the occupation for coalition troops, surpassing April.
Another offensive was launched by insurgents during the month of November in Mosul. U.S. forces backed by peshmerga fighters launched a counteroffensive which resulted in the Battle of Mosul (2004). The fighting in Mosul occurred concurrently with the fighting in Fallujah and attributed to the high number of American casualties taken that month.
In December, 14 American soldiers were killed and over a hundred injured when an explosion struck an open-tent mess hall in Mosul, where President Bush had spent Thanksgiving with troops the year before. The explosion is believed to have come from a suicide bomber.
After a review of the military strategy in the end of 2004, then commanding general of the MNF-I, General George W. Casey, Jr. directed the Coalition forces to shift their focus from fighting insurgents to training Iraqis. At the time, the Iraqi insurgency was mainly directed against the occupation and it was believed that if the Coalition would reduce its presence then the insurgency would diminish. Military planners hoped that national elections would change the perception of being under occupation, stabilize the situation and allow the Coalition to reduce its presence.
2005
Iraqi elections and aftermath
Voters in the 2005 Iraqi legislative election
Main article: Iraqi legislative election, January 2005
On 30 January, an election for a government to draft a permanent constitution took place. Although some violence and lack of widespread Sunni Arab participation marred the event, most of the eligible Kurd and Shia populace participated. On 4 February, Paul Wolfowitz announced that 15,000 U.S. troops whose tours of duty had been extended in order to provide election security would be pulled out of Iraq by the next month.[18] February, March and April proved to be relatively peaceful months compared to the carnage of November and January, with insurgent attacks averaging 30 a day from the average 70.
Hopes for a quick end to an insurgency and a withdrawal of U.S. troops were dashed at the advent of May, Iraq's bloodiest month since the invasion of U.S. forces in March and April 2003. Suicide bombers, believed to be mainly disheartened Iraqi Sunni Arabs, Syrians and Saudis, tore through Iraq. Their targets were often Shia gatherings or civilian concentrations mainly of Shias. As a result, over 700 Iraqi civilians died in that month, as well as 79 U.S. soldiers.
A large weapons cache in New Ubaydi is destroyed
During early and mid-May, the U.S. also launched Operation Matador, an assault by around 1,000 Marines in the ungoverned region of western Iraq. Its goal was the closing of suspected insurgent supply routes of volunteers and material from Syria, and with the fight they received their assumption proved correct. Fighters armed with flak jackets (unseen in the insurgency by this time) and sporting sophisticated tactics met the Marines, eventually inflicting 30 U.S. casualties by the operation's end, and suffering 125 casualties themselves.
The Marines succeeded, recapturing the whole region and even fighting insurgents all the way to the Syrian border, where they were forced to stop (Syrian residents living near the border heard the American bombs very clearly during the operation). The vast majority of these armed and trained insurgents quickly dispersed before the U.S. could bring the full force of its firepower on them, as it did in Fallujah.
Announcements and renewed fighting
On 14 August 2005 the Washington Post quoted one anonymous U.S. senior official expressing that "the United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society in which the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges... 'What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground'".
On 22 September 2005, Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, said he had warned the Bush administration that Iraq was hurtling toward disintegration, and that the election planned for December was unlikely to make any difference. U.S. officials immediately made statements rejecting this view.
Constitutional ratification and elections
The National Assembly elected in January had drafted a new constitution to be ratified in a national referendum on 15 October 2005. For ratification, the constitution required a majority of national vote, and could be blocked by a two thirds "no" vote in each of at least three of the 18 governorates. In the actual vote, 79% of the voters voted in favor, and there was a two thirds "no" vote in only two governorates, both predominantly Sunni. The new Constitution of Iraq was ratified and took effect. Sunni turnout was substantially heavier than for the January elections, but insufficient to block ratification.
Elections for a new Iraqi National Assembly were held under the new constitution on 15 December 2005. This election used a proportional system, with approximately 25% of the seats required to be filled by women. After the election, a coalition government was formed under the leadership of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, with Jalal Talabani as president.... More
Criteria The Bronze Star Medal may be awarded to individuals who, while serving in any capacity with the Armed Forces of the United States in a combat theater, distinguish themselves by heroism, outstanding ac... The Bronze Star Medal may be awarded to individuals who, while serving in any capacity with the Armed Forces of the United States in a combat theater, distinguish themselves by heroism, outstanding achievement, or by meritorious service not involving aerial flight. MoreHide
Comments
Meritorious Service during OIF II in Tikrit Iraq.
Criteria Individuals authorized the award of this medal must have been deployed abroad for service in the Global War on Terrorism operations on or after September 11, 2001, and to a future date to be determine... Individuals authorized the award of this medal must have been deployed abroad for service in the Global War on Terrorism operations on or after September 11, 2001, and to a future date to be determined MoreHide
Description On 20 June 1998 the NATO-led Stabilization Force in Bosnia-Herzegovina transitioned to a slightly smaller follow-on force. Simultaneously, Operation Joint Guard ended and Operation Joint Forge began. On 20 June 1998 the NATO-led Stabilization Force in Bosnia-Herzegovina transitioned to a slightly smaller follow-on force. Simultaneously, Operation Joint Guard ended and Operation Joint Forge began. The United States agreed to provide a force of approximately 6,900 US Service members to help maintain the military force in Bosnia-Herzegovina. This force, a component of the NATO Stabilization Force (SFOR), remained designated Task Force Eagle. The first US SFOR contingent in support of Operation Joint Forge was led by the 1st Cavalry Division, America's First Team, from Fort Hood, Texas. The reduced size Task Force Eagle had a mission to maintain a capable military force in Bosnia-Herzegovina. No timetable or timeline for the duration of Operation Joint Forge was initially determined. The mission would be assessed periodically and the force size would be adjusted, as circumstances required. The decision was finally made in 2004 to end Operation Joint Forge and inactivate SFOR, with continuing support in Bosnia and Herzegovina to be carried out by a force led by the European Union. The US Task Force Eagle was officially inactivated on 24 November 2004 and on 2 December 2004, the SFOR mission ended and the EUFOR mission was inaugurated.
On 1 June 1997, the Headquarters, 16th Air Expeditionary Wing was designated and activated at Aviano Air Base, Italy. The 16th Air Expeditionary Wing provided direction, control, support, administrative control, and uniform code of military justice authority for more than 1,300 United States Air Force personnel stationed throughout Europe in support of Operation Joint Guard and then Operation Joint Forge. These units, located in Istres, France; Rimini and San Vito, Italy; Tuzla and Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina; Zagreb, Croatia; Taszar, Hungary, and Rhein Main, Germany comprised the lion's share of the USAF contingent of NATO's Stabilization Force (SFOR). Since its inception, 16th Air Expeditionary Wing worked a number of high-profile initiatives in support of the SFOR mission. These included the relocation of KC-135 operations from Pisa, Italy to Istres, France; the installation of air navigation aid equipment at Tuzla, Air Base, Bosnia-Herzegovina to support Russian and SFOR partner air operations; quality-of life-improvements for U-2 crews and support personnel at Istres France, and the holiday visit of President Bill Clinton to the Operation Joint Forge area of responsibility.
Under a plan approved in 2001 by General Eric K. Shinseki, Chief of Staff of the Army, the US Army programmed selected active and reserve forces for service in Bosnia and Kosovo through May 2005. This was a prudent measure taken to provide predictability for soldiers and units to ensure they were given adequate time to train for the Balkans mission. The rotation plan would also provide better linkages between the active and reserve forces, mitigate the effects of high operational tempo, and better sustain the Army's overall levels of readiness for contingency operations. Under the plan, units from the active Army and reserve component would support the SFOR mission in Bosnia or the Kosovo Force (KFOR) for 6-month periods. All units for the planned SFOR rotations 9 through 16 would be drawn from active Army divisions, Army National Guard divisions, the Army Reserve, and a mix of active/reserve units. The Army set a historical precedent when it designated the 49th Armored Division, Texas Army National Guard, as the headquarters for active and reserve forces conducting the SFOR mission between March and October 2000.
On 2 December 2003, SFOR confirmed that due to the improved security situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina that it would reduce to a deterrent force of approximately 7,000 multinational soldiers by June 2004. SFOR considered how to adjust the operation further, including its possible termination by the end of 2004 and a transition possibly to a new NATO military liaison and advisory mission (with NATO Headquarters in Sarajevo) and to a new European Union mission. In response, Multinational Brigade (North) also transformed its future force structure to meet the requirements of the new deterrent force. Planning for that force structure was conducted by the existing MNB(N) headquarters to help them prepare to execute the deterrent force mission when the 34th Infantry Division transferred authority to the 38th Infantry Division in April 2004.
At the Istanbul Summit in June 2004, NATO Heads of State and Government agreed that in light of the improved security situation in the country SFOR could be concluded at the end of that year. A ceremony in Sarajevo on 2 December 2004 marked the conclusion of the NATO-led SFOR mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the beginning of the European Union's follow-on mission EUFOR. The NATO-led SFOR was brought to a successful conclusion almost exactly 9 years since NATO deployed forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina in what was the Alliance's first peacekeeping operation. The end to Operation Joint Forge in 2004 also meant that the US Army's planned SFOR-16 rotation would not occur, making the SFOR-15 rotation, led by the 38th Infantry Division (Mechanized) (Indiana Army National Guard), the last deployment in support of SFOR.
The European Union subsequently deployed its own mission, EUFOR, to take on key security tasks in the country. EUFOR derived its mandate from a new UN Security Council resolution and had an initial strength of 7,000 that was equal in size to SFOR. The EUFOR mission was supported by NATO under the so-called 'Berlin Plus' arrangements that provide the framework for NATO-EU cooperation.
The successful termination of SFOR did not spell the end of NATO's engagement in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Alliance retained a military headquarters in Bosnia and Herzegovina, but the nature of NATO's engagement was very different. The NATO Headquarters, which was headed by a one-star US general with a staff of around 150, was to focus on defense reform in the country, as well as counter-terrorism, apprehending war-crimes suspects, and intelligence-gathering.
Criteria The National Defense Service Medal is awarded for honorable active service as a member of the Armed Forces during the Korean War, Vietnam War, the war against Iraq in the Persian Gulf, and for service... The National Defense Service Medal is awarded for honorable active service as a member of the Armed Forces during the Korean War, Vietnam War, the war against Iraq in the Persian Gulf, and for service during the current War on Terrorism. In addition, all members of the National Guard and Reserve who were part of the Selected Reserve in good standing between August 2, 1990, to November 30, 1995, are eligible for the National Defense Service Medal. In the case of Navy personnel, Midshipment attending the Naval Academy during the qualifying periods are eligible for this award, and Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps (NROTC) Midshipmen ae only eligible if they participated in a summer cruise that was in an area which qualified for a campaign medal. MoreHide
Criteria The Kosovo Campaign Medal is awarded to Service members who were bona fide members of a unit participating in, or be engaged indirect support of, the operation for 30 consecutive days in the area of o... The Kosovo Campaign Medal is awarded to Service members who were bona fide members of a unit participating in, or be engaged indirect support of, the operation for 30 consecutive days in the area of operations or for 60 non-consecutive days provided this support involves entering the area of operations or meets one of the following criteria: Be engaged in actual combat, or duty that is equally as hazardous as combat duty, during the operation with armed opposition, regardless of time in the area of operations; While participating in the operation, regardless of time, is wounded or injured and requires medical evacuation from the area of operations; While participating as a regularly assigned aircrew member flying sorties into, out of, within, or over the area of operations in direct support of the military operations. MoreHide
On 10 June 1999, the UN Security Council adopted a detailed resolution that outlined the civil administration and peacekeeping responsibilities in Kosovo and paved the way for peaceful settlement of t
On 10 June 1999, the UN Security Council adopted a detailed resolution that outlined the civil administration and peacekeeping responsibilities in Kosovo and paved the way for peaceful settlement of the conflict and the safe return home of hundreds of thousands of Kosovo Albanian refugees and displaced persons. The resolution was passed under Chapter VII of the UN Charter which allowed the security forces to carry weapons to protect themselves and use force in carrying out the resolution's directives. The resolution "authorizes member states and relevant international organizations to establish the international security presence in Kosovo" as set out in the military agreement between NATO and the FRY. That peacekeeping operation was meant to enforce the cease-fire, demilitarize the KLA and other Kosovo Albanian groups, and establish a secure environment for the return of the refugees.
The force had a unified NATO chain of command under the political direction of the North Atlantic Council in consultation with non-NATO force contributors. The NATO countries were united that in the absence of the NATO Joint Guardian force at the core of any international security presence in Kosovo, the refugees would not return and the other NATO objectives would not be met. A NATO force at the core of an international security presence was regarded as the magnet to attract the refugees back. In the absence of a NATO force with American participation, it was the view of the US Government that it was unrealistic to think the Kosovar Albanians would disarm the KLA, something of great interest to Russia. The US believed that if NATO forces deployed, the rationale for the Kosovar Liberation Army having an armed force to protect itself against Serbs would disappear. The Rambouillet envisaged something like 2,500 Serb military and 2,500 police for a year, though with the commencement of Operation Allied Force NATO required all of those forces going, in views of the probability that the Kosovar Albanians would not come home to a situation where those same forces remain at their posts. NATO envisaged the standing up of thousands of Kosovar Albanian police, including possibly people from the KLA, who would be trained by the international community and could serve police functions.
NATO did not contemplate a partition of Kosovo. It had been unofficially suggested that one possible solution was a de facto partition of Kosovo whereby the Russians would patrol the north, the mineral-rich areas, and NATO would patrol the south.
Before Allied Force began operating, NATO had plans to put in a peacekeeping force of 28,000 people. Of that, 4,000 people would have been Americans. By mid-May 1999 NATO had reassessed its Op Plan for the Joint Guardian mission to see to what degree they would need reinforcement beyond the level that was originally foreseen for the KFOR [Kosovo force] international security presence in Kosovo. NATO had 16,000 troops deployed in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia trained for their mission as well as dealing with the enormous refugee inflow. Certain reinforcements from the UK and from Germany were arrived as of mid-May.
The NATO pre-deployment in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia was conducted to be in a position to move very quickly into Kosovo to set up an initial military command structure and an initial infrastructure to get the basic functions going. The goal was not only for other NATO troops to come in quickly but also for the transition authority and for the humanitarian relief organizations, which in the very early stages would need a great deal of military back-up, to establish themselves by the time the NATO core element was on the ground in Kosovo.
On 10 June 1999, the UN Security Council adopted a detailed resolution that outlined the civil administration and peacekeeping responsibilities in Kosovo and paved the way for peaceful settlement of t
On 10 June 1999, the UN Security Council adopted a detailed resolution that outlined the civil administration and peacekeeping responsibilities in Kosovo and paved the way for peaceful settlement of the conflict and the safe return home of hundreds of thousands of Kosovo Albanian refugees and displaced persons. The resolution was passed under Chapter VII of the UN Charter which allowed the security forces to carry weapons to protect themselves and use force in carrying out the resolution's directives. The resolution "authorizes member states and relevant international organizations to establish the international security presence in Kosovo" as set out in the military agreement between NATO and the FRY. That peacekeeping operation was meant to enforce the cease-fire, demilitarize the KLA and other Kosovo Albanian groups, and establish a secure environment for the return of the refugees.
The force had a unified NATO chain of command under the political direction of the North Atlantic Council in consultation with non-NATO force contributors. The NATO countries were united that in the absence of the NATO Joint Guardian force at the core of any international security presence in Kosovo, the refugees would not return and the other NATO objectives would not be met. A NATO force at the core of an international security presence was regarded as the magnet to attract the refugees back. In the absence of a NATO force with American participation, it was the view of the US Government that it was unrealistic to think the Kosovar Albanians would disarm the KLA, something of great interest to Russia. The US believed that if NATO forces deployed, the rationale for the Kosovar Liberation Army having an armed force to protect itself against Serbs would disappear. The Rambouillet envisaged something like 2,500 Serb military and 2,500 police for a year, though with the commencement of Operation Allied Force NATO required all of those forces going, in views of the probability that the Kosovar Albanians would not come home to a situation where those same forces remain at their posts. NATO envisaged the standing up of thousands of Kosovar Albanian police, including possibly people from the KLA, who would be trained by the international community and could serve police functions.
NATO did not contemplate a partition of Kosovo. It had been unofficially suggested that one possible solution was a de facto partition of Kosovo whereby the Russians would patrol the north, the mineral-rich areas, and NATO would patrol the south.
Before Allied Force began operating, NATO had plans to put in a peacekeeping force of 28,000 people. Of that, 4,000 people would have been Americans. By mid-May 1999 NATO had reassessed its Op Plan for the Joint Guardian mission to see to what degree they would need reinforcement beyond the level that was originally foreseen for the KFOR [Kosovo force] international security presence in Kosovo. NATO had 16,000 troops deployed in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia trained for their mission as well as dealing with the enormous refugee inflow. Certain reinforcements from the UK and from Germany were arrived as of mid-May.
The NATO pre-deployment in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia was conducted to be in a position to move very quickly into Kosovo to set up an initial military command structure and an initial infrastructure to get the basic functions going. The goal was not only for other NATO troops to come in quickly but also for the transition authority and for the humanitarian relief organizations, which in the very early stages would need a great deal of military back-up, to establish themselves by the time the NATO core element was on the ground in Kosovo.
Criteria The Army Commendation Medal is awarded to members of the Armed Forces of the United States who, while serving in any capacity with the Army, distinguish themselves by heroism, outstanding achievement,... The Army Commendation Medal is awarded to members of the Armed Forces of the United States who, while serving in any capacity with the Army, distinguish themselves by heroism, outstanding achievement, or meritorious service. MoreHide
Criteria The Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal is awarded to members of the Armed Forces who, after July 1, 1958, participate in specified United States operations or those in direct support of the United Natio... The Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal is awarded to members of the Armed Forces who, after July 1, 1958, participate in specified United States operations or those in direct support of the United Nations or friendly foreign nations MoreHide
Criteria The Army Achievement Medal may be awarded to members of the Armed Forces below the rank of colonel who, while serving in any capacity with the Army in a noncombat area, distinguish themselves by outst... The Army Achievement Medal may be awarded to members of the Armed Forces below the rank of colonel who, while serving in any capacity with the Army in a noncombat area, distinguish themselves by outstanding achievement or meritorious service, but not of a nature that would warrant the award of an Army Commendation Medal. MoreHide
Criteria Thirty days continuous or accumulated service in direct support of NATO operations, on land, at sea or in the air spaces of the Former Yugoslavia, Albania, the Former Republic of Macedonia, and the Ad... Thirty days continuous or accumulated service in direct support of NATO operations, on land, at sea or in the air spaces of the Former Yugoslavia, Albania, the Former Republic of Macedonia, and the Adriatic Sea (the theatre of operations) commencing 1 July 1992 and ending 31 December 2002; or
Ninety days continuous or accumulated service commencing 1 July 1992 and ending 31 December 2002, in the territories of Italy, Greece, Hungary and Austria, in direct support of the NATO operations in the Former Yugoslavia (the adjacent area) MoreHide
Criteria The Army Commendation Medal is awarded to members of the Armed Forces of the United States who, while serving in any capacity with the Army, distinguish themselves by heroism, outstanding achievement,... The Army Commendation Medal is awarded to members of the Armed Forces of the United States who, while serving in any capacity with the Army, distinguish themselves by heroism, outstanding achievement, or meritorious service. MoreHide
Criteria The Army Commendation Medal is awarded to members of the Armed Forces of the United States who, while serving in any capacity with the Army, distinguish themselves by heroism, outstanding achievement,... The Army Commendation Medal is awarded to members of the Armed Forces of the United States who, while serving in any capacity with the Army, distinguish themselves by heroism, outstanding achievement, or meritorious service. MoreHide
Comments
1-101 AVN RGT, 101 ABN DIV, FT Campbell KY
Criteria The Army Achievement Medal may be awarded to members of the Armed Forces below the rank of colonel who, while serving in any capacity with the Army in a noncombat area, distinguish themselves by outst... The Army Achievement Medal may be awarded to members of the Armed Forces below the rank of colonel who, while serving in any capacity with the Army in a noncombat area, distinguish themselves by outstanding achievement or meritorious service, but not of a nature that would warrant the award of an Army Commendation Medal. MoreHide
Comments
1-101 AVN RGT, 101 ABN DIV FT Campbell KY
Criteria The Army Good Conduct Medal is awarded on a selective basis to enlisted members of the Army who distinguish themselves by exemplary behavior, efficiency and fidelity during a specified period of conti... The Army Good Conduct Medal is awarded on a selective basis to enlisted members of the Army who distinguish themselves by exemplary behavior, efficiency and fidelity during a specified period of continuous enlisted active service (normally three years in peacetime). MoreHide
Criteria The Army Good Conduct Medal is awarded on a selective basis to enlisted members of the Army who distinguish themselves by exemplary behavior, efficiency and fidelity during a specified period of conti... The Army Good Conduct Medal is awarded on a selective basis to enlisted members of the Army who distinguish themselves by exemplary behavior, efficiency and fidelity during a specified period of continuous enlisted active service (normally three years in peacetime). MoreHide
Criteria The NCO Professional Development Ribbon is awarded to all enlisted members of the Army to include the Reserve Components (Army National Guard and Army Reserve), for successful completion of designated... The NCO Professional Development Ribbon is awarded to all enlisted members of the Army to include the Reserve Components (Army National Guard and Army Reserve), for successful completion of designated NCO professional development courses. MoreHide
Description
Completion of PLDC 1994, FT Campbell KY; BNCOC 1996, FT Huachuca AZ
Criteria This medal is awarded to members of the Armed Forces of the United States who have been assigned, attached, or mobilized to units operating in the area of eligibility for thirty consecutive or for six... This medal is awarded to members of the Armed Forces of the United States who have been assigned, attached, or mobilized to units operating in the area of eligibility for thirty consecutive or for sixty non-consecutive days, or who meet the following criteria: Be engaged in combat during an armed engagement, regardless of the time in the area of elibility; Is wounded or injured in the line of duty and requires medical evacuation from the area of eligibility; While participating as a regularly assigned aircrew member flying sorties into, out of, or within the area of eligibility in direct support of military operations. Each day that one or more sorties are flown in accordance with these criteria shall count as one day toward the 30 or 60 day requirement; Personnel who serve in operations and exercises conducted in the area of eligibility are considered for the award as long as the basic time criteria are met. Due to the extensive time period for KDSM eligibility, the non-consecutive service period for eligibility remains cumulative throughout the entire period. The Area of eligibility encompasses all land area of the Republic of Korea, and the continuous water out to 12 nautical miles, and all air spaces above the land and water areas. MoreHide
Criteria The Army Achievement Medal may be awarded to members of the Armed Forces below the rank of colonel who, while serving in any capacity with the Army in a noncombat area, distinguish themselves by outst... The Army Achievement Medal may be awarded to members of the Armed Forces below the rank of colonel who, while serving in any capacity with the Army in a noncombat area, distinguish themselves by outstanding achievement or meritorious service, but not of a nature that would warrant the award of an Army Commendation Medal. MoreHide
Comments
1991-1992 2/72 AR BN, 2ID Camp Casey Korea
Criteria The Overseas Service Ribbon is awarded to all active members of the Army, the Army National Guard, and to Army Reservists who are credited with a normal overseas tour completed since August 1, 1981 (p... The Overseas Service Ribbon is awarded to all active members of the Army, the Army National Guard, and to Army Reservists who are credited with a normal overseas tour completed since August 1, 1981 (provided they have an active Army status on or after August 1, 1981). This ribbon may not be awarded for overseas service recognized by another United States service medal. MoreHide
Criteria The National Defense Service Medal is awarded for honorable active service as a member of the Armed Forces during the Korean War, Vietnam War, the war against Iraq in the Persian Gulf, and for service... The National Defense Service Medal is awarded for honorable active service as a member of the Armed Forces during the Korean War, Vietnam War, the war against Iraq in the Persian Gulf, and for service during the current War on Terrorism. In addition, all members of the National Guard and Reserve who were part of the Selected Reserve in good standing between August 2, 1990, to November 30, 1995, are eligible for the National Defense Service Medal. In the case of Navy personnel, Midshipment attending the Naval Academy during the qualifying periods are eligible for this award, and Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps (NROTC) Midshipmen ae only eligible if they participated in a summer cruise that was in an area which qualified for a campaign medal. MoreHide
Criteria The Army Service Ribbon is awarded to members of the Regular Army, National Guard, or Army Reserve for successful completion of initial entry training. In the case of personnel who receive a Military ... The Army Service Ribbon is awarded to members of the Regular Army, National Guard, or Army Reserve for successful completion of initial entry training. In the case of personnel who receive a Military Occupational Specialty identifier based on civilian or other-service acquired skills, the ribbon is awarded upon honorable completion of four months active service. Only one award of this ribbon is authorized, even if an individual completes both officer and enlisted initial entry training. MoreHide
Concurrently assigned as a 2nd level manager within DIA's AFG-PAK Center of Excellence while serving in a joint service assignment to HQ US Central Command.