I Will Continue to Call Our Fighting Men and Women ‘Heroes’ (UPDATED)
I have not said anything about the brouhaha sparked by MSNBC’s Chris Hayes on Sunday when he said that he felt “uncomfortable” describing those members of our armed forces killed in action as “heroes.”
I have not said anything because I have been too busy remembering, honoring and writing about those heroes.
(Mr. Hayes has apologized since.)
But now that Memorial Day is over and we can feel “comfortable” again — at least until the next Veterans Day or Memorial Day — about sending our non-heroes into harm’s way I will say something about that again.
I say again, because I have called all our fighting men and women — not only those who die in battle — “heroes.”
And, just as I expect it to happen again, I received an earful then, but that goes with the territory.
Reacting to a column, “Why It’s Wrong to Equate Military Service With Heroism,” written by retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. William J. Astore, wherein the colonel discussed all the technical, logical and semantic reasons why our fighting men and women should not be collectively called “heroes,” I wrote:
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.”
I went on to give my reasons as to why I call our servicemen and women heroes.
I know that not everyone of our fighting men and women fits the definition of “hero.” I call them collectively heroes out of general, across-the-board respect and admiration for them, and out of deep gratitude for the sacrifices they make for our country.
Those who fit the strict definition of “hero” 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.” As a matter of fact, real heroes do not feel they are heroes at all.
I categorically reject the opinions of those who say that creating such a class or league of “heroes” would play down the brutalizing effects of war, would justify, even glorify war and would desensitize us to the cruelties and atrocities of war.
The American people overwhelmingly reject the Iraq War and want our nation to end the war in Afghanistan. They overwhelmingly condemn the atrocities committed by a handful of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in all wars.
I do not believe that by supporting our troops, by calling them heroes, Americans approve of every war or attach a connotation of “nobleness” to every military action our leaders take us into. Americans are intelligent enough to make distinctions between the policy decisions that take our nation into war and the troops who are called upon to fight those wars — heroically.
I believe that taking issue with symbolic, laudatory labels for our troops — even though those labels may be overly generous — in order to condemn wars and in order to condemn those who sent our troops to war is wrongheaded.
Moreover, I believe that in taking issue with those who would call our troops “heroes,” to cite the “ennoblement” of German militarism during World War I or the Nazi atrocities during World War II — which included the Holocaust — is an affront to the intelligence and to the moral compass of the American people.
I totally oppose the Iraq war and question our continued involvement in Afghanistan. I have written frequently and strongly about my opposition.
And yet, I still call those men and women who have fought and continue to fight in those wars “heroes” — and I will continue to do so with all due respect to those who disagree with me.
As I concluded my previous piece on this issue:
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.
A Vietnam War era veteran, who did not see combat and who is not a hero, but who will always call our troops collectively, perhaps allegorically, but above all, earnestly heroes.
CODA:
In June 2011, while we were still in Iraq, the Stars and Stripes published this preface to their section called — you guessed it — “Heroes.”
I thought I would be appropriate to quote it here:
After nearly a decade of war, it’s easy to become numb to it.
You read the newspaper, you watch the television and it just keeps coming, one day after another until it all runs together. You mourn the dead and you celebrate the victories, but you can’t allow yourself to feel too deeply or it becomes too much. If you’re one of the 99 percent of Americans not actively fighting this country’s battles, war is difficult to understand.
But we must try. We owe it to the 1 percent.
For them, it’s not complicated. It’s not about surges and drawdowns and Capitol Hill bickering. For the men and women who will lace up their boots in Afghanistan or Iraq today, their only goal is to complete the mission and lie down to sleep at night one day closer to coming home.
It’s not easy. Sometimes completing an ordinary mission requires extraordinary heroism. These are the stories you’ll find in the seventh edition of Stars and Stripes’ Heroes special section.
The servicemembers profiled here never sought glory. Though many later received valor medals, they sought only to succeed and survive and to protect the one standing beside them. Most of them made it home safely, some didn’t. Others are still at war today.
To understand, we must know their stories.
We owe it to the 1 percent.
To read the stories of these heroes, please go here
Share This
Dorian
If you watched the entire show you would have seen that Hayes was very supportive of the soldiers and their families. He didn’t say they weren’t heroes but that he occasionally had trouble using the word. I think that he is right – using the powerful word hero does tend to make a war a noble cause and that’s a problem. Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan are not Noble causes. And yes, people eventually did turn against the wars but only after years of death and destruction. The last time I looked a majority are in favor of attacking Iran which would be a disaster for the region and the world economy.
Thanks for your comments, Ron.
You will notice that I have very little to say about Hayes’ comments, other than quoting him feeling “uncomfortable” about describing those members of our armed forces killed in action “heroes,” and mentioning that he apologized. Both are his rights and his choices.
I have absolutely no problem with anyone not wanting to call our troops heroes, but it would also be nice not being called all kinds of names for referring to them as heroes (Just read some of the more than 160 comments at the Huffington Post on the piece I linked to), but as I said,that goes with the territory.
And I will never accept that recognizing our troops’ sacrifices and bravery in battle somehow will turn those wars they fight into “a noble cause,” or having such recognition wrongly and cruelly interpreted as as a blessing or approval of those wars.
In other words, if people have problems with unjust wars (as you and I do) don’t deflect the frustrations on the troops who are putting their lives on the line, but rather “put the blame squarely on the moral squalor of our political leaders” who take us into war in the first place.
I have been raked over the coals many times for saying that I support the troops but not the war(s) conservatives, and I am not about to be taken to the woodshed now for just the opposite by the other side: for respecting and supporting those troops — and in my own way calling them heroes — but condemning unjustified wars.
Peace, my friend and thank yo for your service.
“I have been raked over the coals many times for saying that I support the troops but not the war(s) conservatives, ”
should be “I have been raked over the coals many times for saying that I support the troops but not the war(s) by conservatives,”
Where is the edit function when you need it?
Let me redo the entire last paragraph:
“I have been accused by conservatives of allegedly not supporting the troops because I did not support the wars,and I am not about to accept being accused by the other side of allegedly supporting wars because I support the troops.”
The point I think Hayes was trying to make was that words mean more than you find in Websters. In my post below I quoted Radely Balko who sums it up really well:
DDW, I know your heart is in the right place, that is what counts against people criticizing your words.
And words can be very imprecise to say the least when it comes to highly-charged subjects.
I have no problem with calling all of our service (and agency) people heroes. I also call the guys and gals that respond to fires and domestic violence reports and even the people that really bust their humps trying to provide a good life for the kids.
And get this, the guys that drove their planes to destruction on 9/11, are also heroes to THEIR people, just not to us.
My point is heroes is a broad term and perhaps overused for some folks taste.
P.S. the guy that travels the country going to service person’s funerals is my hero.
Sorry, Ron.
Radely Balko’s comments don’t even come close to sum it up “real well.”
As a matter of fact I find them insulting and offensive to the intelligence and to the sensibilities of many Americans.
Admiring, honoring, being grateful to our servicemen and women who do their duty, and beyond, has nothing to do with does not at all “connoting a noble mission” — although it often does, as in the two World Wars, in the elimination of Osama Bin Laden and in so many other jutified military missions.
And to compare our troops to the Nazis is even more objectionable.
I respect your and Balko’s right to have such opinions, but I hope you’ll respect my right to vehemently disagree.
“My point is heroes is a broad term and perhaps overused for some folks taste. ”
Fine.
But I resent those with such different “taste” trying to lecture me on how I feel about our troops and trying to divine my sentiments about war and even conjecture or extrapolate to what I should, consequently, think about the Nazis or terrorists or other characters.
Correction”
“Admiring, honoring, being grateful to our servicemen and women who do their duty, and beyond, has nothing to do with does not at all “connoting a noble mission” — although it often does, as in the two World Wars, in the elimination of Osama Bin Laden and in so many other jutified military missions.”
Should read:
“Admiring, honoring, being grateful to our servicemen and women who do their duty, and beyond, has nothing to do with “connoting a noble mission” — although it often does, as in the two World Wars, in the elimination of Osama Bin Laden and in so many other justified military missions.”
While the rest of Jonathan Bernstein’s opinion piece on “A partisan outrage against the troops,” is pretty partisan itself and I don’t necessarily agree with all he says, I do feel that Bernstein makes a good case for not blaming the troops for the war and peace decisions made in Washington:
“It was, to be sure, once the case that (some) opponents of the Vietnam War blamed those who were willing to fight there. Those days are long gone. One of the things that people really got right after Vietnam finally ended was to decide to never again blame people at the bottom of the chain of command for the decisions made in Washington, and for over thirty years mainstream liberals (and as far as I know even the fringe left, although I wouldn’t be shocked if there are exceptions) have lived up to that, even in cases in which they strongly opposed subsequent wars. In my view, the nation has been better off as a result. Those who really support the troops should be praising that consensus, not trying to undermine it – and certainly not falsely pretending that it does not exist.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/a-partisan-outrage-against-the-troops/2012/05/29/gJQAbGxLzU_blog.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions_Tue
I’m sorry Dorian but your reaction to the Balko comment is exactly what Hayes and Balko were talking about – the hidden power of words. Balko did not compare our troops to Nazis. He simply pointed out that while the German troops performed acts of heroism and valor we don’t consider them heroic because we don’t consider their mission a good and noble cause.
I have heard the stories about Vets being abused but I never saw it myself. I returned to Portland, Oregon after my deployment. Portland was a hot bed of anti war activity and I was treated with nothing but respect. I’m not going to claim that it didn’t happen but it was a rare occurrence.
Ron,
I have stated my views of respect and appreciation for the U.S. military (without any connections to glorifying war or any such nonsense) and my views of opposition to the Iraq War from its very start and of disillusionment with the protracted Afghanistan war more recently.
I have done so in probably over fifty posts and articles here and elsewhere over the past ten years.
I have been consistent and firm about my views and — most of the time — respectful of the views of others.
I understand your positions, I do not agree with them but I respect them and, if possible, I would like to leave it at that.
DDW, said: “But I resent those with such different “taste” trying to lecture me on how I feel about our troops and trying to divine my sentiments about war and even conjecture or extrapolate to what I should, consequently, think about the Nazis or terrorists or other characters.”
I agree.
@dduck
Not knowing sometimes how to construe your comments (I am not that refined), I have not been very responsive.
But on this issue, I do believe I get them right, and I appreciate them.
LOL, DDW. I have never been accused of being refined and being refined would cause one to misconstrue my style of writing.
@dduck,
As the refined would say, touché