Gen. Douglas MacArthur As Recipient of the Medal of Honor: Worthy or Not?

Great Debates
1

Few US military leaders polarize quite like Gen. Douglas MacArthur, given his bombastic, preening ego; oft-expressed desire to engage the PRC in war, and his ultimate disgrace from publicly challenging and being sacked by Pres. Truman.

MacArthus is among some 3,461 Americans historically awarded the Medal of Honor, raising this question: Did he deserve it?

The Medal of Honor is “the highest award for valor in action against an enemy force that can be bestowed upon an individual serving in the Armed Services of the United States.” Actually, sources tell us that the Medal’s predecessor–The Badge of Military Merit–“fell into oblivion until 1932, when General Douglas MacArthur, then Army Chief of Staff, pressed for its revival.”

The citation for MacArthur’s Medal of Honor reads: “For conspicuous leadership in preparing the Philippine Islands to resist conquest, for gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty in action against invading Japanese forces, and for the heroic conduct of defensive and offensive operations on the Bataan Peninsula. He mobilized, trained, and led an army which has received world acclaim for its gallant defense against a tremendous superiority of enemy forces in men and arms. His utter disregard of personal danger under heavy fire and aerial bombardment, his calm judgment in each crisis, inspired his troops, galvanized the spirit of resistance of the Filipino people, and confirmed the faith of the American people in their Armed Forces.”

Few would quibbled that MacArthus showed conspicuous leaderhip and helped to liberate the Philippines. That said, did he indeed show “gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty… show heroic conduct on the Bataan Peninsula” … and “show utter disregard of personal danger under heavy fire and aerial bombardment”–especially vis-a-vis the gallantry and intrepidity and heroism exhibited by the countless grunts, Marines, and sailors who served in the same theaters?

How much of his being awarded the Medal of Honor was colored by politics?

2

Dugout Doug?

The very nickname kinda says what I’m getting at.

Sailboat

3

I think MacArthur deserves a Medal of Honor, but for his amphibious landing at Inchon on September 15, 1950, during the Korean War. He had to plan a two-step invasion because of the extreme tides at Inchon, and his troops pulled it off magnificently. He quickly re-captured Seoul and cut off the North Korean supply lines, causing them to retreat from the Pusan perimeter. All in all, one of the most daring and well-executed battle plans in military history.

4

MacArthur’s leadership in the Philippines was less than inspired. In fact, it was terrible.

5

No, he deserved to be cashiered*, not given our highest medal. But America needed heroes, so we tried to manufacture one.

  • He still was taken by surpise with his pants down when the Japs attacked- even though he had been fully informed of Pearl harbor.
6

While I have nothing but respect for MacArthur (my grandfather served under him, and until the day he died would not allow a single bad word to be said about the General in his preence) I don’t think he should have been given the Medal of Honor. For one, he was a awarded enough: five stars on his collar, fame and glory, and, essentially, the Shogunate of Japan. For another, he didn’t do anything above and beyond the call of duty. He was given a job to do - win a war - and he carried it out to the best of his abilities. I don’t believe soldiers should be awarded for doing what was expected of them.

IMHO, medals like the MoH shouldn’t go to generals and their ilk - that’s not what they’re for. They’re for the guys in the front lines, the enlisted men and the junior officers whose main goal is usually just reaching next week on their own two legs. Giving them out to the brass smacks of pandering and ego-stroking, and God knows those bastards don’t need any more of that.

7

Post script:

During WW I, Colonel MacArthur’s bravery in battle “earned him 16 medals, including 7 Silver Stars, 2 Distinguished Service Crosses, and 2 Purple Hearts. He failed, however, to win the highest military award, the Medal of Honor, which he took as a slight by the American Expeditionary Force commander, General John Pershing.”
The above passage calls into question my reference to MacArthur resurrecting the then-defunct Medal of Honor.

8

That proves it - the U.S. military hands out medals like they were M&Ms. Unless he personally breached the Hindenburg Line, there is no way on earth MacArthur (or anyone else) deserves 16 medals.

So sure, give him the Medal of Honor. What the hell.

9

The reason that MacArthur roused Pershing’s ire was that MacArthur was a senior commander who led from the front, spent too much time at the front, and did not command from a distance. That, and Pershing and MacArthur Sr. had a longstanding grudge over Senior’s lack of progression to four star rank.

It is true that senior officers rarely earn the MoH.

One could argue that awarding the MoH to campaign commanders is not appropriate. If MacArthur deserved an MoH for Inchon, then Eisenhower and Patton both got ripped off.

Duty “above and beyond the call” is not exactly definable for general officers, and the basic standard for the MoH has been imminent and repeated risk of physical harm: there’s a good reason that many MoH’s are awarded postumously.

10

More on MacArthur.

11

Although he was considered rather foolhardy, his bravery in combat during that war is beyond doubt. It wasn’t easy to get a Purple heart back then.

12

Actually, the hard ones to get were the DSC and the Silver Star.

The Purple Heart is a bit more complicated an issue, (additional link.

The Purple Heart was originated by George Washington as a Badge of Military Merit, and was not based on enemy injury. After the War of Independence, it ceased to exist.

Generals John J. Pershing, Charles Summerall and Douglas MacArthur all worked on reviving the Badge of Military Merit, but apparently MacArthur included enemy inflicted wounds as one of the things reasonably covered by the award. MacArthur signed the regulation establishing the Purple Heart on the 200th anniversary of the birth of George Washington, in 1932.

Wounds by the enemy were recognised pre-Purple Heart by Wound Ribbons, Medal s and Chevrons. After the establishment of the award, those meeting the requirements were eligible for retroactive award.

The Purple Heart ranks just below the Bronze Star in the Army award heirarchy.

So, all MacArthur had to do in WWI was to be wounded twice by the enemy. The Purple Hearts for WWI were all awarded retroactively.

13

Ever read about Audie Murphy? He deserved every medal he received and probably a couple more.

During the invasion of Italy he received the Bronze Star for (among other things) fighting his way out of an enemy ambush as well as other acts of high esteem.

In 1944 during the invasion of Southen France his battalion was in an ambush. During the firefight Murphy “acquired” a German machine gun and turned it on the Germans, destroying several of their positions in the area.

For this he was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross.

Weeks later he received two Silver Stars for two separate incidents in which he saved his patrols from German ambushes.

He was finally given a commission as an officer after this and was then shot in the hip, earning a Purple Heart.

Shortly after all of this he lead his men in the action which earned him the Medal of Honor:

14

It’s also not true that the military hands out medals like M&Ms.

At various times medals have been given out too readily, but that was absolutely not the practice from second world war on. World War I was a bit of a medal-happy time, and during the Civil War the hierarchy of medals was such that the Medal of Honor was often just given out for any acts of distinction. In retrospect a huge number of ACW Medals of Honor would not have been given out under the standards in place today.

WWII saw a good number of Medals of Honor, but evenstill the total number was still very small compared to the number given out during the Civil War. And most guys that fought in WWII will have a lot of crap to wear because there were many campaigns and such that you could get badges from and there’s the victory medal and etc.

15

Murphy was a hell of a hero. No doubt about it.

But let’s talk MacArthur. From linked accounts, the young MacArthur had balls of brass. He didn’t flinch from incoming artillery. He scoffed at gunfire. He marched into hell’s fury. But across two world wars, receiving the Medal of Honor, 7 Silver Stars, 2 Distinguished Service Crosses, and 2 Purple Hearts still seems A LOT.

And it’s not as though he was surrounded by wusses.

16

Well, I would quibble that in liberating the Philippines, he breaks even, at best, since he showed conspicuous lack of leadership and general dunderheadedness in losing them in the first place.

I’ll have to go pore through my copy of Eagle Againt the Sun, but my recollection off the top of my head is that Spector takes a dim view of Mac’s prowess in WWII.

Specifically, MacArthur’s failure to prepare after warning of Pearl Harbor, and his (or his assistant, Sutherland’s) refusal to permit his bomber chief to launch the B17s until they were caught on the ground and destroyed. MacArthur’s deadly combination of paranoia in pre-positioning the defensive weapons near the invasion sites but keeping the Filipino-American troops in barracks far away (for “control”), so that the Japanese landed and immediately seized most of the (unguarded) weaponry. Later on, Mac’s insistence on using unsuported infantry to assault pillboxes and strongpoints on New Guinea, which was needlessly expensive in human costs. His remaining hundreds of miles behind the front during said period while blithely insisting that his men fight “harder”. His ordering the removal of the names of all other officers under his command from press releases, so that only his own name became associated with gigantic operations conducted by tens of thousands of men and women. His consistent denigration of the courage of Australian troops who fought with great bravery. His unwillingness to coordinate better with the Navy even when it could have saved American lives.

My father served in WWII, but only in Europe…although he was scheduled to be transferred to the Pacific theater for the invasion of Japan when the atomic bombs abruptly ended the war. He had a very jaded opinion of MacArthur, which may have colored my own views.

Sailboat

17

Re: the Philippines, You caught me in a charitable mood.

I’ve read your account of MacArthur’s backlines “leadership” during WW II–and have read similar accounts elsewhere. Question is: How can one reconcile that with the balls of brass accounts of MacArthur from WW I? What happened to the SOB? The accounts from WW I–even from his adversaries–paint him as almost pathologically fearless. Even posers have their limits.

18

Maybe he just grew older, and in the virtual do-nuthin’ undermanned, underfunded, dead-end that was the Army in the age between the 2 wars – remember, he had already retired and had taken up the job of “Marshal” of the “Phillipine Army” before being recalled – lost the spark. He does seem to have been one of those people who are transcententally convinced that they know better than others. You let someone like that grow “rusty” and they’ll make stupid thinking-inside-the-box mistakes, because dammit, it’s their box and they are always right!

The Pacific war, and specially the need to return to the Phillipines and redeem the initial failure, and the chance to put Japan in their place, did revive his thirst for glory, and generals sate that with victories (real and propagandistic), not with individual heroics. Now, by the time he was in Korea, he had swung way back to being an aggressive risk-taker – that led both to daring success at Inchon… and to pissing off the President and getting axed.

19

You’re joking right? Just how would MacAurthur have arranged to get the reinforcements and materiel that would have been required in order to prevent the loss of the Philippines?

20

Must say, what Sailboat describes sounds just characteristic of the way American commanders had been dealing with what passed for “preparedness” leading up to Dec. 1941, so Mac would not be unique or egregious in that regard. Sure, he did not move quickly enough upon learning of PH to change his defensive posture to something more effective – but that we may attribute to ‘rust’, insufficient info, the dammit-I’m-always-right factor, or the hell-we-can’t-come-up-with-a-new-plan-so-fast factor. As Simmons points out, he would hardly have prevented the taking of the PI, though he could have bought some more time.