The Pentagon's newest military honor, symbolized by a two-inch bronze medallion, has sparked fierce debate over the nation's growing corps of drone pilots and cyberwarriors and how to commend their service, which happens far from an actual battlefield.

The Distinguished Warfare Medal, approved by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta last month, is the military's first new combat-related medal in nearly 70 years. It is intended to recognize extraordinary contributions to combat operations by a service member from afar and will rank as the eighth highest individual award behind the Medal of Honor.

But placement of the new medal in ahead of the Bronze Star and Purple Heart, which are given for valor in the line of fire, has created significant stir.

Critics have panned it as the "Chair-borne Medal," "the Nintendo Medal," "Distant Warfare Medal" and "the Purple Buttocks," alluding to fact that computer-based warriors do their work from a chair, among other names.

Top veterans groups and a rare bipartisan alliance on Capitol Hill are intensely lobbying the Pentagon and President Obama to downgrade the award.

"We are supportive of recognizing and rewarding such extraordinary service, but in the absence of the service member exposing him or herself to imminent mortal danger, we cannot support the DWM taking precedence above the Bronze Star and Purple Heart," a bipartisan group of 48 lawmakers wrote new Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel on Monday.

"Possibility of death or grievous bodily harm" are key factors that should elevate recipients of those awards above others who didn't face those risks, the group wrote.

The letter was penned by 34 Republicans and 14 Democrats, including Republican Reps. Joe Wilson of South Carolina and Darrell Isa of California and Democratic Reps. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois and Susan Davis of California.

Officials with the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars said they have already been pressing the administration to downgrade the award, saying that bestowing a higher-ranked medal to service members who fought from "behind a desk" is disrespectful to those serving in harm's way.

So far the administration has shown no sign of backing down.

Last month, in one of his final public events before retiring, Secretary Panetta hailed creation of the new medal as a reflection of an evolution in modern warfare and of the growing importance of the drones and cyberwarfare strategies.

"The medal provides distinct, department-wide recognition for the extraordinary achievements that directly impact on combat operations, but that do not involve acts of valor or physical risk that combat entails," Panetta said.

"I've always felt - having seen the great work that they do, day in and day out - that those who performed in an outstanding manner should be recognized," he said. "Unfortunately, medals that they otherwise might be eligible for simply did not recognize that kind of contribution."

A White House official declined to comment on the criticism. Obama, who has significantly increased drone warfare during his administration, on Tuesday awarded two purple hearts to wounded service members at Walter Reed military medical center in Washington.

I don't understand how anyone thought it makes sense to put this medal above those who are awarded to individuals who are abroad and exposed to significant danger daily.

I don't understand how anyone thought it makes sense to award this medal in the first place.

The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS FUCKING COUNTRY?

Just another effect of the Participation Ribbon society we are a part of.

Good nomination, FF
I know you didn't see any combat, but how do you think the guys in the barracks are reacting to this? What would be your reaction if you were still in the Army?

This is the first step in changing the mainstream perception of the concept of drone warfare. They're trying to portray the operators and missions as significantly more patriotic than they are. It's part of the developing cult of personality that they're trying to create regarding these drones. Remember, this administration has absolutely fallen in love with these drones, and, not coincidently, they're appearing in and over our cities now. Given the recent Holder commentary that generated very negative reviews, it does not surprise this consipracy theorist that they're trying to put these operators on a level higher than the post 9-11 firefighter or cop (which is largely overblown in this humble man's opinion).

they're conditioning you. Or trying to.

This is the first step in changing the mainstream perception of the concept of drone warfare. They're trying to portray the operators and missions as significantly more patriotic than they are. It's part of the developing cult of personality that they're trying to create regarding these drones. Remember, this administration has absolutely fallen in love with these drones, and, not coincidently, they're appearing in and over our cities now. Given the recent Holder commentary that generated very negative reviews, it does not surprise this consipracy theorist that they're trying to put these operators on a level higher than the post 9-11 firefighter or cop (which is largely overblown in this humble man's opinion).

they're conditioning you. Or trying to.