On July 2, the Army announced authorization for the wear of the Shoulder Sleeve Insignia for Military Operations in Hostile Conditions (SSI-MOHC), commonly known as a combat patch, for soldiers who deployed to 14 countries in Africa and the Middle East between Oct. 7, 2023, and June 24, 2025. In authorizing the combat patch, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George waived the Global War on Terrorism-era requirement that patches only be issued when soldiers concurrently receive Combat Zone Tax Exclusion (CZTE) and Hostile Fire/Imminent Danger Pay (HF/IDP), in place since 2003.
George and Army G-1 Lt. Gen. Brian Eifler are to be commended for both the unprecedented administrative speed and pragmatic adjustments to regulatory criteria, ensuring that soldiers’ service and sacrifice while supporting combat operations were recognized.
While the recognition for soldiers serving in the 14 countries — Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United Arab Emirates and Yemen — is appropriate and well deserved, the Army leadership’s decision to modify regulatory criteria also serves to highlight the gross inequity concerning the Army’s reticence to authorize wear of the combat patch for soldiers supporting GWOT operations within U.S. Africa Command’s HF/IDP countries that are outside of the CZTE areas of Djibouti and Somalia.
RELATED
Over the last two decades, tens of thousands of soldiers have served on the African continent, supporting a variety of 9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) operations in locations concurrently authorized for the award of the GWOT-Expeditionary Medal and receipt of HF/IDP. Five of those soldiers — Sgt. 1st Class Jeremiah Johnson, Staff Sgt. Dustin Wright, Staff Sgt. Bryan Black and Spc. Henry Mayfield Jr. — made the ultimate sacrifice in combat. Yet, neither they nor their colleagues are credited with combat service in their records, nor are they authorized the combat patch. This lack of recognition is even more glaring when we consider that in fall 2005, the secretary of the Army authorized the awarding of campaign streamers to units participating in these operations. In essence, for almost 20 years, the Army has officially recognized the combat service of units while denying recognition to the units’ individual soldiers.
The Army’s combat service recognition disconnect has not gone unnoticed by Congress. Over the last dozen years, members of the House Armed Services Committee, most notably Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., and Rep. Trent Kelly, R-Miss., have approached Army leadership to address the combat patch issue. In each instance, leadership either responded that they would examine their policy or that there were legal and administrative issues preventing authorization. The Army chief of staff’s waiving of regulatory criteria would seem to indicate the administrative and legal issues were not as insurmountable as previously advertised.
The Army G-1’s initial administrative lapse in recognizing the expansion of GWOT operations beyond the two primary theaters within the U.S. Central Command combat zone is somewhat understandable given the latter 2000’s requirements for growing the Army, mobilizing hundreds of thousands of soldiers and deploying them to combat. These GWOT operations commencing under U.S. European Command and CENTCOM and then being absorbed by AFRICOM upon its founding, along with the operations’ often episodic nature at each location with fluctuating HF/IDP entitlements, likely also played a part in soldiers going unrecognized.
The Army’s administrative and operational apparatus has an obligation to continuously evaluate where soldiers are going, what they are doing and the types of benefits and recognition they receive. The Army updated its uniform regulation on four occasions since the commencement of GWOT operations outside the CENTCOM combat zone in 2005. A cursory review reveals 11 instances of the Army authorizing combat patches without a combat zone designation. This includes: El Salvador from 1981 to early 1992, an advise and assist campaign identical in scope and method to the GWOT operations conducted by thousand of soldiers across part of AFRICOM; a 44-minute firefight in the Korean Joint Security Area with no U.S. fatalities and one soldier wounded; and perhaps most interestingly the advice and assist effort in Vietnam prior to its designation as a combat zone, among others. Soldiers who have deployed around the world on GWOT operations while drawing HF/IDP have met the same standards as their predecessors who were authorized combat patches for these operations and conflicts
Considering the above, I call on the Army chief of staff and the Army G-1 to recognize the combat service of soldiers who dutifully and honorably executed operations in support of the GWOT under HF/IPD conditions by authorizing the following:
“Soldiers from all Army components (regular Army, Army National Guard and Army Reserve) who deploy in support of 9/11 AUMF authorized operations, between Sept. 19, 2001, and a date to be determined, and concurrently receive credit towards award of the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal and Hostile Fire/Imminent Danger Pay are authorized to wear the SSI-MOHC.”
The initial administrative neglect in recognizing soldiers conducting smaller GWOT economy of force operations while the main fight was occurring in Afghanistan and Iraq is understandable. Army leadership’s mistaken belief that there were administrative or legal obstacles to authorizing the appropriate recognition is forgivable. After granting last week’s administrative waivers, failure to recognize soldiers who supported the wider GWOT operations is willful disrespect. While honor delayed is honor denied, it is never too late to correct an oversight. Today is that day.
Retired Lt. Col. Robert J. McKenna is a former infantry and Sub-Saharan Africa foreign area officer who served as the senior defense official/defense attache in the Republic of Chad and Central African Republic. He is a veteran of Desert Storm, Operation Enduring Freedom-Trans Sahara and multiple other contingency operations. Commissioned from St. Mary’s University, he holds an MBA from the University of Washington and an MSt from the University of Cambridge.
Read the full article here
