New Wider Service Medal might annoy some but it’s a great idea – and this is why

26th March 2024 at 10:40am

Defence and security blogger @PinstripedLine says the introduction of the Wider Service Medal is good news, even though it will likely raise some eyebrows.

The UK is introducing a Wider Service Medal (WSM) to recognise military personnel who have deployed on operations that, while not necessarily experiencing significant “risk and rigour”, have spent significant periods of time away from home, working in highly challenging circumstances in the service of their nation.

This is a highly positive move and one guaranteed to both please and annoy lots of people in equal measure!

Traditionally the UK has been rather parsimonious in its approach to issuing medals.

The main groupings are State Honours (for example the MBE), long service awards, issued for various lengths of service (usually 15 years) as well as Jubilee medals.

There are campaign medals such as the Iraq or Afghanistan Medal, or the General Service Medal, (usually awarded with a theatre/operation-specific clasp), which covers campaigning in specific theatres, such as the Northern Ireland Medal, awarded when people participated in campaigns, conflicts or operations for a specific length of time (eg 30 days for Op Telic).

Finally, there are gallantry awards, such as the Victoria Cross, awarded for acts of extreme bravery and leadership.

Risk and Rigour

The test applied for many years for a campaign medal has been whether a level of “risk and rigour” existed on the deployment. Was it a hostile environment, were individuals at risk and subjected to unusual pressures beyond the normal pattern of service life?

British policy has traditionally erred to not awarding medals for routine operations or deployments.

This meant that people deployed to locations like the Falkland Islands garrison for six months or training exercises have not qualified for any form of medallic recognition.

While this is generally seen as a reasonable line to take, where things have become more challenging is when the deployments are in the space where they are not benign, but equally conflict has not broken out.

For example, for many years the Royal Navy has deployed escort ships and mine warfare vessels to the Gulf to participate in Operation Kipion – designed to provide maritime security to the region ranging from supporting merchant vessels to ensuring that any mines laid by hostile forces can quickly be found, identified, and destroyed.

This is extremely important work and would be critical in the event of conflict.

The operating conditions in the Gulf are challenging, particularly in the summer, where crews are at sea on minehunters dating back to the early 1980s and designed for operations in the North Sea.

There can be challenging interactions with Iranian forces trying to intimidate and interdict UK vessels, particularly when transiting the Strait of Hormuz, and the potential for incidents to quickly escalate, which can make for a high-stress operating environment.

For years Royal Navy personnel have rotated on multi-month deployments through Bahrain to crew these ships and supporting facilities, spending four to six months away from home. Many sailors have done these tours several times over, but without any form of medallic recognition.

Potential for Risk

The case for the Wider Service Medal (WSM) is built on examples like that of Op Kipion, where British service personnel spend months deployed on operations that are complex and have the potential for risk, but where they are not in actual harm’s way.

In awarding the WSM, the MOD is recognising that many of its people are being asked to operate in these difficult circumstances, doing their job “for real” but not necessarily being shot at.

It recognises that many people will have deployed into environments where the operational environment imposed significant constraints on people’s lifestyles, that the potential for risk existed and where they were a long way from home working in difficult and demanding conditions.

These deployments have also imposed personal strain on both the individuals and the families they leave behind.

There are very positive reasons to award this medal to people.

Firstly, by creating a new class of medal, it does not undermine the case for campaign medals that rightly recognise the most demanding of operations the military can participate in.

What it instead does is capture those that fall short of the “risk and rigour” criteria that would apply for the award of the GSM with clasp. This is helpful in recognising commitment, but also preserving the integrity of the wider campaign medals.

It will almost certainly be positively received by many personnel who have spent months, and in some cases years, deployed on operations that have involved significant effort and commitment.

Redressing the Balance

Unlike many nations, the UK awards relatively few medals for operational service, and with the rapid decline in numbers of personnel who’ve deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, medal-earning opportunities have been extremely limited.

The introduction of the WSM will provide a chance to redress this balance.

It may also be a small but significant retention-positive gesture, as knowing that spending time from home will help count towards qualifying for a medal may help encourage people to stay, rather than see a forthcoming deployment as a reason to leave.

It is also encouraging to see the UK take a more positive approach to recognition.

For too long there has arguably been an attitude that doing the job is reward enough, ignoring that for many people who serve, the award of a medal means a great deal.

It is a visible recognition of commitment and service and acknowledges that people have done their job for real.

The Armed Forces possess an invisible hierarchy which places significant emphasis on medals as a means of establishing a pecking order among peers.

There is no doubt that someone without a medal, or “only” Jubilee medals is seen as less credible than someone with multiple campaign medals, no matter how professionally experienced they may be in their field.

Introduction of the WSM helps visibly remind others that just because you haven’t deployed on an OSM-earning operation, that doesn’t mean that you haven’t “done stuff”.

Are We Going All American?

Doubtless some will complain that the introduction of the WSM means “we’re going all American now”.

This is a complaint that seems to have been going since at least the 1990s and seems to reflect a misunderstanding of how the US awards medals.

Unlike the UK, the US military have a series of ribbons awarded for completion of everything from basic training to service abroad. They are not medals, rather they are effectively the equivalent of wearing your CV on your uniform.

The UK has never followed a similar policy, and there are no plans to do so. US medal policy is similarly restrictive and while US personnel may have some medals they rarely have as many as people believe.

The UK is not “going American” and this opposition seems to owe more to a personal dislike that people’s service is being recognised.

Whether this is borne of general (and misguided) belief that somehow it is getting easier to get medals, or a dislike that some, but not all, are being recognised is not clear.

The idea that medals are easier to earn does not hold up to any scrutiny – the requirements to get a medal awarded remain strict, and if anything, the military are keen to keep the threshold for qualifying high.

The fact that the WSM will require 180 days accrued service on an operation (not including R&R) indicates anyone earning it will have been deployed several times.

The Hard Way

This is a medal earned the hard way, through repeated deployments, not by ending up deployed to a base inside a joint operating area during a conflict for unrelated reasons to the operation, as has allegedly happened in the past – for example Cyprus during the 1991 Gulf War.

There is undoubtedly some jealousy too on the part of those who oppose this, particularly if their own campaigns for a National Defence Medal or Cold War medal have foundered.

The UK does not issue a medal simply for service, the assumption being that you either need to have done something or stayed around long enough to earn one.

This is understandably an issue for those who served during the Cold War, often in surprisingly intense operations or with the daily stress of preparing for the contingency of going to war at very short notice.

But it is also fair – the idea of trying to retrospectively issue an award for this period would be an enormous administrative burden and take many years to do, and proving eligibility may be challenging.

It is also likely that there will be some serving personnel who feel “seen off” by the award of a medal whose qualifying dates will be after they served on these operations, or who fall short on the number of days service required to claim it.

There will always be some people who just miss out, and short of issuing medals to anyone with minimal service this will always be the case.

Overall, this decision seems a good one, that will properly recognise people’s hard work, help provide a retention-positive incentive to deploy, but also ensure that the threshold for medallic recognition remains reasonably high.

People will not suddenly be flush with medals, nor will it devalue campaign and gallantry medals – it is a small gesture to recognise a big commitment, and one that makes complete sense.