I like @PaulHoeffer’s focus on leadership. I would probably add to #4 “Learn about leadership training programs in Scouting. Discuss how demonstrating leadership in Scouting impacts the success of troop and patrol events.” That ties the idea of leadership development back into Scouting, and possibly gets some scouts more interested in (or at least creates more awareness of) advanced leadership training like NYLT and NAYLE.
I would also add something to @PaulHoeffer’s #5 along the lines of “The accomplishments need not be limited to combat actions, but could include peacetime deployments such as humanitarian aid missions.” I think that might get scouts thinking about the different types of missions the military undertakes beyond combat operations.
ETA: A lot of @WilliamC’s @PaulHoeffer’s suggested requirements overlap. I would probably add in the discussion of the Guard and Reserves to @PaulHoeffer’s #1.
@DonovanMcNeil, you’re thinking of reorganizing @PaulHoeffer’s #2 to fall last?
I like @Qwazse’s suggestions regarding the history aspects. Maybe those would fit well with @PaulHoeffer’s #3, either expanding #3 into a series of sub-requirements, or “renumbering” the subsequent requirements.
At the risk of sounding flippant about a real problem, while I think that learning to recognize and avoid UO can be an important life skill, I’m not sure that it (in and of itself) brings a lot to the topic of Military History.
I’m not sure I can get behind the idea of delving into some of the more grotesque events (war crimes, civilian casualties) and aftereffects (UO, landmines) of military action as part of a merit badge. While both real and important to learn about, I think that it might be too mature a subject matter for younger scouts to deal with in any meaningful way.
I do like the general idea of scouts looking at military actions and considering the ethical impacts of them, however. It’s a difficult subject, to be sure, even for adults. That said, I think that starting the thought process earlier about what exactly we ask the men and women in the armed services to do on our behalf, and the reasons for which we ask them to take these actions leads to a population much better able to understand the impacts of military action. I’m not quite sure how to phrase that as a requirement, though, without it coming off as either an endorsement or an indictment of military action.