I disagree. If you want to stop fighting unnecessary wars, stop treating soldiers like pawns. Right now, the military is ‘voluntary’. Once. Every decision thereafter is made for you, because you are an indentured servant of the United States Government, and they can do what they wish with you.
They blatantly lie to kids, fill their heads with propoganda, and get them to sign the dotted line before they know what they are doing.
You want change? Let the kids quit. You’ll find pointless and unpopular wars completely failing to begin because the soldiers themselves won’t tolerate it. Not what they realize what their ‘adventure’ actually entails.
You have a war that actually needs fighting? People are going to be there. There are no shortages of fire fighters willing to run into burning buildings to save a kid, because that needs to be done.
I am a ‘veteran’. I was very fortunate to get out of the military in 2003 before we kicked off the Iraq war, a war I disagreed with, and a war that I had absolutely zero knowledge of in 1997 when I joined.
Oh, and as for defending american freedoms.. American hasn’t defended its freedoms since 1812. The logistical nightmare of mounting an invasion over an ocean on the worlds third most populous country with the largest industrial capacity makes us quite safe. Beyond that, nukes, and a modest defense force, and the fact that 17 of the top 20 militaries in the world are close allies with us, will keep us safe.
So basically, heroism must combine both altruism and courage.
Therefore, someone skiing under extreme conditions and surviving demonstrates heroism if the adventure involves a clear display of courage against daunting conditions, and sets a new benchmark for the endurance capabilities of the human body, or something similar.
A wealthy donor may yet miss that bit of wealth which went to save the endangered species, but that only makes it an act of altruism. Our hypothetical wealthy donor is a hero only if they had to overcome some kinds of non-financial hurdles as well. E.g. motivating people to join into a “save the XYZ species” program sometimes requires the courage to overcome apathy, ignorance and prejudice from the destroying the species.
But how is a 5 year old kid with Leukemia a hero? IME, no child takes to chemotherapy placidly, and survival depends on several factors including early detection, access to medical care and the skill of the attending doctors. IMO, since the child has no legal right to refuse treatment, however painful, therefore (s)he is a victim of a debilitating disease, but not a hero.
On the other hand, a parent who administers euthanasia to a terminally ill child is definitely a hero. One, for acknowledging that sometimes life can be too painful to live, and that love can be selfish. Two, for facing the social approbation that will eventually come their way. And finally, because they will also have to face the wrath of the law, if euthanasia is illegal.
OK I get your point and I’ll admit I supported an evil agenda. Seriously not sarcastically, I’ll admit it and it does suck. But I suppose what I’m really trying to say is that a soldier isn’t any less guilty than a civilian who won’t stand up for their own beliefs by whatever means necessary. I am a civilian now and I hate the bureaucratic systems and hidden agendas I feel are the foundation of America but I don’t attempt to start a revolt and I’m sure that others feel like me but don’t resist it. If soldiers are guilty of cooperating and supporting an evil cause then I don’t see why ANYONE from any other country isn’t guilty of the same thing.
But taking the American independence from the British as a given and focusing on the modern context, it appears unlikely that any foreign army could have succeeded in conquering the US–or ever can-- thus depriving us of our freedoms. Of course the international situation would be very different, but what would the effect be on Americans’ political freedoms?
I think it’s a national myth that our freedom constantly hangs by a thread supported mainly by our troops. The possibility of us being invaded by Soviet-led communists is the only example that’s even debatable, but if our focus is strictly on heroism, then our nuclear arsenal stays on the table and that was a pretty significant yet not exactly “heroic” factor.
well i’ll agree we are not in some precarious freedom-is-at-stake war all the time.
but it’s absurdly complicated.
i see a schism in this thread that i think is way more polar than necessary. it’s like someone drew a line–war: good (hero) OR war:bad (fuck the troops!)
i want to clarify my viewpoint: i hate war.
i cannot over-stress how grateful i am that i do not have to make decisions of violence. i do not hunt, i do not like guns, etc etc etc. but i do realize the necessary evil of war, and the necessary mentality of those who comprise the cogs of war.
and i appreciate them. the semantics of hero notwithstanding, i’m still glad people want to be in the military.
now…i had a friend who was (and i believe is again) in Afghanistan. i befriended her while she was deployed. i felt it was my civic duty to be kind to her. i would chat with her nightly about the local NBA team’s games, keeping her abreast of goings on and just in general trying to be nice and uplifting.
she ended up being a fucking madwoman. she came home and couldn’t deal with the inaction of civilian life. even before she got home, she would BEG for “some shit to go down.” i realized that this particular cog of war was a bit of a violencemonger. she spooked me. she spooked me so much that when she was home i opted out of being her friend. as i said she hated civilian life and did all she could to get back active.
i dont know what to do with that.
i can easily say “wow, something’s really wrong with our military system. we don’t even need to be there, and we’re ruining kids who are there. we’re ruining the nation itself.”
i can look at our drone strikes in Libya and Pakistan and see the toll. i can see the insurgencies rise up and i can, from their perspective, see how we really are the bad guy.
but does that mean cease all action? i pray there’s some good mixed in with all the chaos.
i hope.
but honestly, i think it’s much more complicated than i have insight into. i think our military power factors directly into our economic power and puts us in cahoots with people like the Saudis–who are sitting on some 23 trillion dollars of oil in reserves alone–and it keeps their enemies at bay because we stand behind them.
take away our big stick, then what? does Iran attack them? Iraq tried. what if we had not stepped in?
what if we didn’t have an army to?
the middle east goes to shit-chaos instantly if we do not have the big stick. Israel loses their footing without us backing them, and who knows what all else. trade goes cattywampus all over the globe, and economies rise and fall however they do. everything would be effected.
i’m not saying we lose our military might and we suddenly have to be Russian. but our lifestyle–every aspect of it–is integrated into our status on the world-stage. i just can’t help but think disrupting that would disrupt our lifestyle.
And this is my problem with the use of the word hero. A 5 year old with leukemia is experience suffering, we feel bad for them, they can be suffering bravely, but there’s nothing they are doing that is altruistic. Skiiing across Greenland can be brave, again not very altruistic. People seems to conflate brave and hero a lot. Wealthy donors… maybe, sometimes it’s not a huge effort involved (if you have vast amounts of money, it’s not that hard to give some away). I’d probably say noble.
On the other hand someone like Bill Gates dedicating the second act of his life and his money to a serious effort to improve the lot of the poor worldwide is definitely inspiring. As is someone who has dedicated most of their life to altruistic ideals like Gandhi, or someone risks their life selflessly in a particular moment for others.
None of what you said contradicts what I suggested.
My point is simply that the people of the country are less likely to support the President and Congress in pursuing a war, if they don’t know who might be called up to serve. That’s my only point, and doesn’t in any way conflict with your valid points.
Furthermore, I don’t think it’s practical to let servicepeople serve “at will” and be able to quit at any time. I’m surprised to hear a veteran suggest it.
Furthermore, I don't think it's practical to let servicepeople serve "at will" and be able to quit at any time. I'm surprised to hear a veteran suggest it.
I agree but I’m not sure if it’s the same reasons as you?
Is every vet a hero? You posed a question without setting any parameters. You could start by defining the word and thus the person:
Hero: A person who is admired for courage or noble qualities.
The next term is “Veteran” and that has a broader meaning. You used it to refer to returning soldiers of war who were injured. We presume they were injured in the line of duty. So applying the term hero to one who has gone into harm’s way on our behalf seems the proper use of the term.
Here’s another veteran suggesting it. There’s enough gung-ho, knife-in-their-boot Rambo wanna-bes to staff a substantial true volunteer army. And worrying that half your army might quit in the face of an unjust war is a pretty good check on the powers that be.
Frankly, if you can’t get grown men to voluntarily risk their lives for your cause, maybe it isn’t a cause worth risking lives for.