If you mean just war medals in general it depends on the context. If you get a medal say as a Union soldier during the Civil War for successfully repeling a Confederate assault that’s inherently a good thing to have done, but war is messy so yes it involves killing unfortunately.
Getting injured as an allied soldier on D-Day is a good reason to get a medal.
Getting a medal while fighting to defend Ukraine from it’s invasion is also good.
When people are fighting for a just cause its okay to be rewarded for their service.
Being decorated by any of the opposing nations in these conflicts would ultimately by bad. Even if the actions by the soldier was the same.
But worst of all being given a medal for a massacre of women and children is just indefensible
Admittedly, if you want to come at it from an absolutely pacifist worldview about giving people medals for killing, I can’t disagree or refute that stance.
I find this upsetting because of “this decision is final, this is settled”.
He is presenting himself as way more significant than he is, either because of complete lack of self-awareness, or preemptive defensiveness against inevitable criticism he can’t handle, or overcompensating for inability to cope they are on the losing side.
Neither has any semblance of EQ, emotional maturity or humility. These aren’t the kinds of people who would rule in a fair, meritocratic system.
If you mean just war medals in general it depends on the context. If you get a medal say as a Union soldier during the Civil War for successfully repeling a Confederate assault that’s inherently a good thing to have done, but war is messy so yes it involves killing unfortunately.
Getting injured as an allied soldier on D-Day is a good reason to get a medal.
Getting a medal while fighting to defend Ukraine from it’s invasion is also good.
When people are fighting for a just cause its okay to be rewarded for their service.
Being decorated by any of the opposing nations in these conflicts would ultimately by bad. Even if the actions by the soldier was the same.
But worst of all being given a medal for a massacre of women and children is just indefensible
Admittedly, if you want to come at it from an absolutely pacifist worldview about giving people medals for killing, I can’t disagree or refute that stance.
Thank you for sharing. My question was more about the tweet. I got the feeling people found this upsetting for a different reason than I do.
Maybe I am missing that he reversed a decision?
Gotcha, basically back at some time in the past 20 soldiers were awarded medals for their actions.
At the end of 2024, under the Biden administration, the DoD opened a panel to assess if these medals should be rescinded.
That panel reached a decision in 2025 on the matter, and decided not to revoke. This was very likely influenced by Hegseth.
https://southdakotasearchlight.com/2024/07/24/defense-secretary-orders-review-of-wounded-knee-massacre-medals/
https://southdakotasearchlight.com/2025/09/26/medals-awarded-for-wounded-knee-massacre-wont-be-rescinded-hegseth-announces/
Ooooooh, thank you. That makes a lot more sense.
I find this upsetting because of “this decision is final, this is settled”.
He is presenting himself as way more significant than he is, either because of complete lack of self-awareness, or preemptive defensiveness against inevitable criticism he can’t handle, or overcompensating for inability to cope they are on the losing side.
Neither has any semblance of EQ, emotional maturity or humility. These aren’t the kinds of people who would rule in a fair, meritocratic system.