"A shot from an enemy sniper struck him above the heart but he refused aid. . . plugging the bleeding wound with his finger. . . he leaped up to cover the deadly grenade with a steel helmet. . . weakened by his multiple wounds, he continued to direct the actions of his men until he succumbed 2 hours later." There were 245 other such stories.
The obvious reason for our distinct lack of enthusiasm for decorated soldiers after World War II is the absence of both clear-cut goals for a war and of victory shorn of ambiguity. First evident in the "Forgotten War" (Korea), the pattern was carved in stone with Vietnam.
Furthermore, we weren't fully convinced that those we fought were actually our enemies. At least with the Koreans, who resembled the oft-merciless Japanese, lingering racial hatred from World War II could be summoned.
But the Vietnamese were like third-generation Japanese. While still Oriental, most were too slight of build to invoke fear in the hearts of our corn-fed continent. To put a kind face on it, we may have been suffering from a hint of shame over bullying a smaller enemy.
In the same vein, our reluctance to honor decorated veterans is further complicated by a vague uneasiness about civilians killed along with insurgents. We may have condoned or even cheered it on in a "total war" like World War II. But, perhaps because we soon determined they weren't direct threats to us, going all Rambo on the Vietnamese and Iraqis didn't seem called for.
The public may not be motivated to lobby en masse for an end to Iraq. If only out of a subliminal guilt over civilian deaths, though, neither do we wish to honor it. Awards aside, we sometimes wonder how any of our enlisted men and women justify fighting such a war to themselves.
By nature, many service persons are not inclined to the kind of interior life that addressing a question like this requires. But Shannon E. French, a philosophy professor at the US Naval Academy, has thought it through for them. In a 2003 article in The Chronicle Review, she wrote, "Individuals can fight for an objectively bad cause or a corrupt regime and still be warriors, as long as they have a warrior's code that requires them to observe the rules of war."
Speaking of playing by the rules, it would be much simpler if those Iraqi militants who actually are Al Qaeda would brandish banners or even arm bands announcing their affiliation. Then Americans could keep a body count scrubbed clean of uncertainty over whether those killed weren't civilians or just Iraqi nationalists. In the interim, we remain uncomfortable honoring our troops.
For additional insight, we approached Paul Woodward, proprietor of WarinContext.org, which assembles the most astute articles on war in the Middle East. He's also the managing editor of another widely read site, ConflictsForum.org, which aims, in part, to engage proponents of political Islam. Woodward expanded on the theory that muddled goals and the unlikelihood of unadulterated victory fuel public apathy about war heroes.
"Ever since World War II, the United States has fought wars of choice," he wrote back. "Military action has become an instrument of foreign policy rather than an unavoidable means of national defense.
"Individual acts of military heroism that symbolically represent the defense of the whole nation have gradually lost that symbolic power. War has come to reflect the goals of America's political leadership rather than the conviction of a national consensus. There is a split between the nation's civic life and its military endeavors. [Emphasis added.]
"We talk about soldiers dying for their country but instinctively understand that they are really dying for their government. While some Americans still retain unwavering faith in the righteousness of their political leaders, many others increasingly understand that valor is now tarnished by the uncertainty that hangs over what we are fighting for."
Ironically, whether or not they're honored by the public may not be as critical for members of the military as for the nation as a whole. It's often just as well to enlisted men and women to see the bitterness of their us-against-the world, unit-centric worldview confirmed. Also, elite troops, like a member of the Special Forces I know, are likely to hold the public in contempt for its naivete about how dangerous the world is.
Still, with our appetite for television, movie and video game violence, you'd think we'd feast on the feats of decorated veterans. After all, they often border on the fantastic. In fact, while filming his own story, To Hell and Back, Audie Murphy expressed concern the audience wouldn't buy the scene depicting the firefight for which he won the Medal of Honor unless it were watered down.
Maybe, though, decorated veterans' stories fail to engage us because they don't pack that present-day prerequisite for TV viewers' and film-goers' pleasure -- "24"-style torture porn or slasher-type "gorenography."
Another reason the public takes a flyer on them might be that it finds the stories too corny. Commandeer an abandoned machine gun and mow down the enemy? Throw yourself on a live grenade? "Done to death," we think, rolling our eyes.
Russ Wellen is the nuclear deproliferation editor for OpEdNews. He's also on the staffs of Freezerbox and Scholars & Rogues.
"It's hard to tell people not to smoke when you have a cigarette dangling from your mouth." -- Mohamed El Baradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency
it was very good. But in all fairness this attitude towards the ' heroes' is not new and not indigenous to the US. It was a prevailing attitude towards the heroes of the ' un generation purdue'- the ' lost generation' of the veterans of the WWI in the 20th and it is described by Hemingway, Remark and Oldington. It is a bad thing. But we here and now are just awakening to many-many bad things we happen to be guilty of and yes, that awakening is painful.
by
Mark Sashine (51 articles, 19 quicklinks, 244 diaries, 3454 comments)
on Friday, October 12, 2007 at 9:16:41 AM
"Poor is the nation that has no heroes, but beggard that Nation that has and forgets them."
" Poor is the nation that oft lies to fights wars, and beggard the nation that thinks a soldiers fight for survival is heroism"
You expect me to think Audey was fighting for America, or was he fighting to stay alive? And yet how much can a man do to prove heroism? In fact killing is the easy part. How much harder for him to throw down his weapon and engage the enemy without violence, without knowing the language, without hiding and lurking from tree trunks and holes in the ground? Seems to me there are heros everywhere in the USA, who don't need guns to show the way for humanity. Who is the stronger? Who is the real hero? Let's not pretend here.
Soldiers who claim they fight for you and me, really fight for themselves first, and if they really wanted to do good...they would be doing things that disavow war, disclaim war, refuse medals, and understand that if they don't; they are themselves the ideals of war and hatred.
Whether we call them foreigners and can't communicate is reason enough to be our enemy, what purpose is it to believe the other side would win, when they are as at fault. I will never believe that Iraq was the only lie to go to war. Certainly WWI and WWII, Korea and Vietnam were lies in action.
Commemorate Precept
The Media is the power in America; not the process of Democracy. Therewith we can understand that there is good or bad. And so how does Democracy stand upon that scale? I truly think good is good and bad is bad. There is no such distinction that good is bad or bad is good. This is the hypocrisy our current lives are driven by through this Bush administration and the Media liars who drive it. The conclusion is that it is not really about Democracy but about the way the Media has created its own 4th branch of government called the Right to Incite Violence Branch, all neatly packaged according to the precepts of free speech. Come on boys join our army and become men, become hero's.
Mind you free speech in the days of early yore was toward escalating the decency and right to do the good, which was to never put War before the issues of morality and goodness. That goodness is the ability and want to preach the end to conflicts, the urge to decommission and reduce military perceptions, and show the providence hand with its bounty and alms. The foregone has accepted that freedom of speech connotes the disregard of law and civility, in order to nurture the carnal desires of the flesh of men...meaning the perverbial clause you've sold your soul to the devil and his profits. A time will come when the people who have caused this great harm to our nation, will seek the capes of retirement as a shelter toward the collapse of their said intended purpose. For what good is it to continue the guise of carnal sanguity when there is never the perception of its goal which is real peace? In fact they fail; and the test of Democracy because of that, and sadly perish with the sins they have claimed. While laws state the books, and books state the men wherewith knowledge is in conflict with the values of society, the society that wanders away from its core of benevolence is and always will be conquered, whether by the use of the gun and its violent intent, or by the absence of mans integrity.
by
Dom Jermano (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 930 comments)
on Friday, October 12, 2007 at 9:43:48 AM
I believe that the citizen soldier should still be honored for heroic acts.Even though I believe this to be an illegal war of choice, it is not the military’s fault that the civilian leaders have put the military in this mess.
by
Michael Chavers (47 articles, 0 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 174 comments)
on Friday, October 12, 2007 at 12:09:54 PM
is that when they swear to obey orders they place themselves under the control of someone else's judgement. And if there is one scoundrel in their chain of command that soldier needs to have a great deal of wisdom in order not to become a deadly instrument of harm.
Specifically, under the command of the President of the United States in the case of US servicemen and women these would have had to have been exceptional people to have refused to invade Iraq once the order was given the grounds that it was illegal and/or unconstitutional. Many of the troops were deployed to the region well in advance of the time when it might have been possible that the invasion might have been lawful (endoresed by the UN security council). At the time of March 2003 the majority of Americans (let alone the Congress) were not obviously opposed to the invasion of Iraq. I would not have opposed it had it had UN security council endorsement.
It is easy to respect the bravery, courage and sacrifice of someone who "lays down their life for their friends", but it is another thing to place oneself uncritically in the service of dishonorable and potentially dishonorable people. Iraq was not a just war. It was not a lawful war.
One might just as well (at least) respect the bravery, courage and self sacrifice of insurgents who are resisting an occupying force.
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 1010 comments)
on Friday, October 12, 2007 at 6:22:57 PM
I had a father who overpowered by patriotism not yet 17 ran off to war. He had his 17 birthday as a prisoner of war on the Burma railway for 3years. He died of long-term injuries including what we now know was untreated PTSS 22 yrs later prematurely His only battles were firing at an enemy he couldn’t see.
He also said that heroism were usually as a result of circumstances and reactions. Medals were for acts of bravery not necessarily the man the result of normal men in extraordinary situations doing extraordinary things. Neither did they always reflect the true nature of the circumstances or the man. He compared a soldier who when pinned down by a machine gun nest ‘went troppo’ and wiped out the nest and Edward ‘weary’ Dunlop a surgeon who risked his life on a daily basis (in many ways) for the men on the Burma railway.
Dad was indifferent to his chest full of medals (one was for bravery) but marched most ANZAC days (Veterans Day) the emphasis was on mates. Surviving war was for him about mateship…sticking by your mates and they stick by you.He often said that you quickly take the view that all you really want is to do your duty and go home as near as intact as possible.
In fact he advocated in the next war I should choose “B” Company. Be company for those who stay and be here to give company when they get back. He went a patriot and returned anti war.
It is inevitable that we should honour our military vets regardless of the theatre of war….they have risked their lives in answer to the call from the country. From this position I see no difference between them and those who do likewise at home i.e. Fire-fighters, police et sec.
How about the fiery who risks his life to dash into a burning building to save three children? Is he any less brave than the machine gun nest hero? Likewise the heroic beat cop that spends 30 years risking his life working in a dangerous area comparable to a lesser ‘weary’ Dunlop?In this way reduce the emphasis on war (legal/illegal, moral/immoral). The emphasis would be on life threatening service to the people instead of immorality of non territorial threatening wars (see Charter on just wars)
by
Andris (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 531 comments)
on Saturday, October 13, 2007 at 2:32:30 AM
History indicates the need for a standing army, what we seem unable to learn is the right use of force. Currently we seem engaged in a war that strokes one man's ego and fills the pockets of many others with the treasure of our country, which happens to have been REMOVED from the pockets of the citizens. Hero's? I've been in the military and also served in the fire department and never noticed anyone doing anything we were not trained for and expected to do if the situation required. It's like calling someone with cancer a hero, they are just dealing with their reality the best they can.
I have a nephew in the Marines. He had a great time playing paintball when he was younger, now he is being prepared for his second tour in Iraq. The first one gave him the experience of having his best friend's brains splattered all over his face. Certainly he does not think he is any kind of a hero. He's not quite 20, if I live long enough I will get to see the damage that has been done to him.
by
Roger (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 359 comments)
on Saturday, October 13, 2007 at 8:52:23 AM
A standing army is one thing as is the right to defend one’s self these are rights under the ‘Charter of a Just War’. This international charter doesn’t sanction adventurism or wars to enhance financial opportunities. It is these type of wars that have alienated the US and as a consequence created most of the USA’s current international problems. Think of it this way if you continually poke a snake with a stick (despite its natural reaction to flee) it will strike with the intention to eliminate the perceived threat.
If a nation has a culture of militarism and bellicosity can become self perpetuating i.e. military are revered beyond their role IN society they eventually become the reason FOR that society e.g. the ancient Spartans.
If one is to break the link with war then it must be replaced with an alternative another opportunity for ordinary people to garner community respect (Psych 201 Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs, Sociology 101 Theory of social interaction).
Theoretically the military are doing a job for which they’re trained. But there’s a big difference between training and the real thing. This same distinction can be made for the inherent risks for Fire fighters and Police. An enemy’s bullet can kill just as surely as friendly fire, some individual publicly going ‘postal’ or unsuspected chemicals exploding in a fire which are ‘all in a day’s work’.
I see no logical reason why their service shouldn’t be celebrated or more respected in the final analysis it’s the high risk service to society that is being recognized. Simply put not every can physically or mentally cope with such essential services so the rest of us should respect the service of those who can and do.
Medals are for service or acts of Heroism where that heroism took place are irrelevant. ‘Soldiers’ don’t choose their theatres anymore than fire-fighters choose their fires. When the latter get citations the citation don’t differentiate where the fire was (which suburb or even who it was that they may have saved) only that an act of bravery.
Why then should armed service courage be differentiated by theatre? I suspect this is for the political reasons of selling particular conflicts. My concern is for the vets after the hype has faded and all that is remembered is that the middle east war wars a war without honour.
by
Andris (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 531 comments)
on Saturday, October 13, 2007 at 7:23:11 PM
This is what happens when the meaning of the awards is discredited. I got an Air Medal for hours aloft (no combat involved) and everybody in my unit wore the Distinguished Unit Citation for modest accomplishments that rarely involved any risk. Bronze Stars went to just about every officer who set foot in Vietnam. They give a Purple Heart now to noncombatants. Pat Tillman got a Silver Star to cover up his murder at the hands of his comrades. Plus, there's very little valor to recognize these days, what with the kevlar vests and shoot-first rules of engagement. Part of the destruction of the armed forces at the hands of the right wing.
by
Steve Fournier (32 articles, 17 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 43 comments)
on Saturday, October 13, 2007 at 11:11:11 AM
I suspect that this is why my dad was ambivilent to his medals . Two of his medals were theatre medals, one was for overseas one other was for over 4 mths military servce. But the last was for bravey...he never told me why he got it! The approach I offer would reinstate the meaning of the medals
by
Andris (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 531 comments)
on Saturday, October 13, 2007 at 7:28:56 PM
10 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
