In his column, "Why It's Wrong to Equate Military Service With Heroism," Lt. Col. William J. Astore discusses all the technical, logical and semantic reasons why our fighting men and women should not be collectively called "heroes."
I am one of those misguided, clueless people who, when writing about our military men and women slugging it out in Iraq and Afghanistan, engaged in combat, just trying not to get killed or maimed by an IED, or just driving a truck with supplies across the desert, instinctively and invariably refers to them as "heroes."
Let me explain why.
When I refer to our fighting men and women as "heroes," I do that out of general, across-the-board respect and admiration for them, and out of deep gratitude for the sacrifices they make for our country.
I know darn well that not everyone of them fits Col. Astore's definition of "hero": "someone who behaves selflessly, usually at considerable personal risk and sacrifice, to comfort or empower others and to make the world a better place," albeit so many of our military come very close to doing so.
But why nitpick, why be stingy when it comes to praising our military?
Those few whom Astore would call "real heroes" will still be singled out, recognized, honored and "celebrated" with the appropriate military awards and decorations designed and reserved for just such acts of valor and heroism. I do not believe the "real heroes" would begrudge their brothers and sisters in arms from being referred to as "heroes."
I guess I could refer to our fighting men and women as "our brave ones," or "our dedicated ones," but the nitpickers would then claim that not all our military are brave or dedicated.
However, when we are told that we should refrain from calling our troops heroes because such a creation of a "league" or "legion" of heroes ensures that "that the brutalizing aspects and effects of war will be played down," or that "we blind ourselves to evidence of destructive, sometimes atrocious, behavior," I believe that we are beyond nitpicking.
The writer uses as an example atrocities that may have been committed in Gardez, Afghanistan, and claims that such atrocities "produce cognitive dissonance in the minds of many Americans, who simply can't imagine their 'heroes' killing innocents and then covering up the evidence. How much easier it is to see the acts of violence of our troops as necessary, admirable, even noble."
I consider this an affront to the intelligence and, worse, to the moral compass of the American people.
Yes, there are those very few bad actors in the military who would rape, murder, commit atrocities. But, believe me, calling the other 99.9 percent of our troops heroes will definitely not produce "cognitive dissonance" in the minds of Americans, nor will it result in Americans calling acts of violence of our troops "necessary, admirable, even noble."
However, what I find even more troubling is citing the "overuse" by certain Germans of "Helden" (heroes) during World War I to "ennoble German militarism," as being germane to the discussion of our American heroes. I know that Hitler and his ilk also called the Nazi troops during World War II, including those involved in the Holocaust, "Helden."
So what? What does that have to do with American troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, unless one would want to compare those wars -- as much as one may disagree with them -- to the Nazi atrocities?
I totally oppose the Iraq war. I have written frequently and strongly about my opposition.
And yet, I still call those men and women fighting that war heroes-and I will continue to do so.
Astore is correct that "[I]n rejecting blanket 'hero' labels today, we would not be insulting our troops." That is because our troops "collectively" cannot be insulted. Just as calling them heroes does not cheapen true acts of heroism, nor does it justify, humanize or glorify war. Governments and politicians who take us into war might justify and glorify wars, not the troops who fight and die in them.
Let me conclude with a hypothetical question. Given the choice of collectively calling our troops heroes, because of those few "real heroes," and collectively calling our troops murderers and criminal because of those few bad apples, which one would you go for?
Believe me that some have actually opted for the latter choice.
Forgive me if I continue to opt for the first choice, at the risk of erring--technically, logically and semantically--on the side of our troops.
I thank Col. Astore for his service. In my eyes he is a hero, too.
1. It is flattery to reward those kids who are being used, who are being maimed for objectives that only some oil company CEO knows. Why are we there?
2. It disarms criticism of the troops on moral grounds.
It is morally wrong to join the Marines and shot people in an aggressive war of occupation. That's your job, shooting people?
3. It covers up the real reason they signed up to be "heros". Those kids can't have a life working in the private sector. If they want their family to have insurance they have to join the military, etc. Don't you think they would rather work back here in the US?
As we all know, there is great disparity in the variety of jobs within the US Armed Forces, but even the job description itself is not entitled to a carte blanche hero label. Actions are what distinguish heroes from the pack. Showing courage in the face of adversity and self-sacrifice. You just can't say that every servicemember, just by signing a piece of paper, is a hero.
Ask someone the person served with if they are a hero because they are the ones who can bestow that label. I was in an Infantry unit in Iraq, but I wasn't a hero. To put me in the same category as others who have jumped on grenades or saved Iraqi children from certain death is ridiculous, not needed and waters down the true meaning of the word hero.
This is a subject I've given a lot of thought to since 9/11. I'm a New Yorker and was in Manhattan that day, and in the wake of the attacks the word "hero" was thrown around town so loosely that it began to lose all meaning to me. Thinking about it, it occurred to me that perhaps the only real heroes, in a technical sense, were the passengers who got that plan to crash on an empty field instead of into a high-density target. They saved lives.
Would you consider every NY cop and firefighter who ran into the buildings when everyone else was running away to be heroes? They didn't save anyone's life and they didn't change the outcome of the event in any way, yet they surely acted in a heroic spirit and paid for it with their lives. They are routinely referred to as heroes, but would a military officer say they were heroes in the strictest sense of the word?
-----------
Consider again the words of Madison:
"A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people. "
The idea is that governments use their armies to produce the enemies, then scare the people with cries that the barbarians are at the gates, and then claim that war is necessary to put down the barbarians. With all this, needless to say, comes increased governmental power over the people.
-----------
-----------
In their minds, the military bedrock of a free society lay not in an enormous standing army but rather in the concept of the citizen-soldier — the person in ordinary life in civil society who is well-armed and well-trained in the use of weapons and who is always ready in times of deepest peril to come to the aid of his country — but only to defend against invasion and not to go overseas to wage wars of aggression or wars of “liberation.” As John Quincy Adams put it in his July 4, 1821, address to Congress, America “does not go abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.”
-----------
Say, has Vietnam invaded America, yet?
Actually, the military acts at the request, and direction of, your elected government. So, it is all those "progressive" and "conservative" elected officials you love so much who are the enforcers and strong arms of the global corporations. Which means, in essence, that you and I are the enforcers and strong arms of the global corporations.
Why? Because we absolutely insist in voting for the same people, election after election, thinking that our man or woman is the right one for the job.
It doesn't matter if your intent is to "serve" your country or not, the road to hell is paved by good intentions. The fact is that in this day and age the military is nothing but a tool of oligarchs and imperialists.
I suggest reading General Smedley Butler's "War is a Racket".
Per the quotes above and below about the political goals served by stirring up constant foreign wars is to extract money from and reduce the freedom of the American populace ... and thus being an American soldier right now is being a stitch in the sole of the general issue boot on the American People's neck.
And what is it now, an 8 trillion dollar boot? Or are we up to 9 trillion?
The only standing military we should have at the federal level is a navy and it should restrict itself to protecting our shipping interests - not be a tool for exerting political pressure on foreign countries. A naval vessel dedicated to anti-pirate operations would be an example of honorable military service.
Such a navy would only need vessels that cost a lot less than the aircraft carriers we are currently running because it just needs to fight other ships, not bombard inland towns and cities.
Cause there is a legitimate need for stuff like this:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30178013/
Unfortunately, despite it's Orwellian name, The Department of Defense has nothing to do with defense. You are right that a legitimate national defense force could theoretically exist that would be honorable to serve in, but unfortunately it does not exist today. To join the military of today is to knowingly (or unknowingly in the case of many of the ignorant people who join) pick up a gun and do the will of oligarchs and imperialists in order to maintain global US hegemony. It is indeed unfortunate that there is no way for citizens to join governmental organizations, on any level, that serve to honorably protect and defend the country and the public.
But I would hardly characterize all those who enlist as undereducated, misinformed, or even misguided.
I would consider someone who tries to change the world through blog posting as misguided, though.
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0409a.asp
------
Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people.... [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and ... degeneracy of manners and of morals.... No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
------
Unfortunately rewarding mediocrity is not likely to be productive.
We don't draft anymore. Draftees were victims. Absolutely.
They weren't forced to sign up for college money or to feed their families. There were other options. Of those options they selected fighting for money.
Before signing on the dotted line I wanted to know what they had to offer in terms of college money for what service. Then I said I'd think about it. While I was researching I found out something very important.
The National Guard does not, in point of fact, restrict itself to guarding. I thought it was the good unit of the military, the one that dedicated itself to defending our country. But it can and does get deployed to blow crap up overseas for no good reason.
I would have happily signed up to defend my country from aggression in return for college money.
No way in heck was I going to sign up to run around the world bullying nearly defenseless people. I could be a soldier, but not a mercenary.
This posed question reveals not the brightest thinking. We don't have to make that choice. Some are heros, some are villains. Collectively they are neither.
We owe a debt of gratitude to many fellow Americans such as teachers, firemen, the police, and the soldiers; but hero worship is too much.
Keep a healthy perspective seems to be the right message here.
Our mission in Afghanistan was to capture or kill Bin-Laden and top al-Qaeda leaders in the wake of 9/11. Sadly, the administration diverted focus and resources (for political expediency, profit, to placate pro-Israeli and corporate interests), and disrupted the military's efforts, when they had those targets cornered.
The mission in Iraq was mismanaged and ruled by corrupt, political and cynical posturing rather than expediency, prudence and effectiveness.
It seems as though the politics and special interests want us to be in endless global warfare, rather than attaining true security and safety for this country and its citizens.
Unfortunately, the military are paying the price with their blood, lives, careers while enduring the hazards of battle, fatigue (9 years and multiple deployments) with little benefit as their families suffer.
It's appalling that military personnel are investigated-prosecuted for following orders given them by contractors or political leaders, when those making the decisions get free passes: Blackwater, Abu-Ghraib, Guantanamo, etc. Those who gave the orders are not only cowards, but traitors, since they jeopardized our military and nation.
That is, essentially, money since we don't provide education for free to anyone able to absorb it.
And they have done the opposite of defend us for some time. Running around blowing other people's stuff up invites retaliation.
The mission in Iraq was mismanaged and ruled by corrupt, political and cynical posturing rather than expediency, prudence and effectiveness.
-----
Even worse, the mission in Iraq was completely unnecessary.
It was prosecuted for political reasons and cynical posturing based on trumped up and blatantly falsified evidence. We even tortured people to force "confessions" from them enabling us to do what those corrupt politicians wanted to do anyway. Weapons of Mass Destruction Indeed.
They. Lied. To. You.
And to every serviceman and woman. Tasty tasty lies about how you were awesome wunderkinds fighting black and unspeakable evil. Just do what they tell you and you're a hero! Greeted as Liberators too! Pay no attention to the child laying dead on the road after the last exchange of gunfire!
A standing army is a terrible terrible temptation to put before corrupt and cynical politicians. It makes it so easy to do the wrong thing. When you have the best hammer in the world everything starts looking like a nail. Negotiation? Diplomacy? Nah, lets just rattle our sabers and watch them roll over.
They are incapable of using you responsibly.
The only moral action you can take is to render yourself unavailable to them - as in no more standing armies.
The effort of pulling an army together then becomes a deterrent to irrational, knee-jerk, and inappropriate use of military force.
The US military hasn't been used to defend the US since WWII.
All military use since then has been to extend the power of the American Empire for the benefit of US political and industrial elites. This sort of 'hero' jingoism only serves to disguise this fact and to persuade the US public that it they too have an interest in funding the military-industrial complex with their lives and taxes.
Keep focused please. Do not disrespect those who would defend you if we were attacked. As far as the policy makers who send them, have at it.
Become an adult. Heroes are not just B+ behavior. Heroes are not comic book figures, and not just guys and women in camouflage. Let HERO have a high meaning.