I don't get it either

John at Argghhh!!! brings up something again that I know is stuck in a lot of folk's craw - and puts it short and to the point.

Among our allies in the Long War, the Brits, the Aussies, and the Kiwis all have something in common - they have living recipients of the Victoria Cross, awarded for actions that occured during their participation in the Long War. The Victoria Cross is the Commonwealth equivalent to the Medal of Honor.

The United States has none.
...
I don't believe that the per-soldier exposure to intense combat of our Commonwealth allies is greater than that of our soldiers - with the possible exception of the Kiwis, whose participation has been largely with SAS troops performing SOF missions. Yet they each have managed to have one living recipient, and among them, they have 4 to our 5, and we have a *lot* more soldiers in the fight than they have. I don't believe they have substantially less stringent requirements, either.

The vetting process for the Medal of Honor is extensive, and there is a lot more data there to consider than we see in the distillation of it that is released in the form of the citation. And I know that Holders of the Medal are involved in the process. The irony of the way things seem to be going is that there may not be any living Holders the next time we find ourselves in a big shooting war (not that this one is over yet). But, for example, only 37% of the Medals awarded during the Vietnam era were posthumous awards. For WWII, the figure is 57%. For Korea, the number is 70%. For the Global War on Terror? 100%.

He outlines well a case right now that has puzzlers puzzl'n ... but you need to go to his place to read about it.