Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bigtree

(85,977 posts)
Fri Jun 6, 2014, 12:13 PM Jun 2014

A Devaluation of the Idea of Heroism

from Paul Waldman at WaPo:


____ Some years ago, the country came to a collective realization that the people who fight in a war don’t bear personal responsibility for whether the war was a good idea in the first place. This was an immensely salutary development, one that led to the important acknowledgement of the risks that service members take on. The image of the military improved dramatically, and Americans began looking at those in uniform with new admiration. Service members couldn’t walk through an airport without a dozen people walking up to them to thank them for their service. That’s all good.

But along with it came a devaluation of the idea of heroism. We began to regularly refer to any and all members of the military as “heroes,” without any regard to what they had or hadn’t done in their service. If we use the same term to refer to someone who risked his life to save his fellow soldiers in a valley in Afghanistan as we do for someone who effectively conducted data entry for personnel files at a base in North Carolina, “hero” has lost nearly all its meaning.

Conservatives are up in arms over the fact that Susan Rice said Bergdahl “served with honor and distinction” before he was captured by the Taliban. But how many times have we heard that phrase? It’s become a meaningless throwaway line. These days, if a soldier managed not to frag his commanding officer and drive his Humvee off a cliff, we say he “served with honor and distinction.”

From what we’ve learned so far about Bergdhal (granting that we will certainly learn more), it seems he was an ordinary soldier. He didn’t perform any super-human acts, but he did his job competently. He was something of a quirky guy. He was disillusioned with the Afghan war (like most Americans). He didn’t fit in very well with his comrades . . .

And yet, to hear the administration’s opponents tell it, unless Bergdahl was a true “hero,” a square-jawed, gung-ho Steve Rogers type who had performed acts of uncommon valor and self-sacrifice, then perhaps this swap wasn’t worth it. But that’s a dangerous position to take. There are 1.4 million men and women currently in uniform. Some of them are genuine heroes. Some are villains – in a group that large, there are murderers and rapists, too. But most are just regular people, trying to serve their country and do their jobs as best they can, whether those jobs involve risk to life and limb or not . . .


read: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/06/06/its-true-bowe-bergdahl-wasnt-a-hero-so-what/

12 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
A Devaluation of the Idea of Heroism (Original Post) bigtree Jun 2014 OP
The "hero" meme is trotted out by journalists undeterred Jun 2014 #1
we need to promote and celebrate our own 'heroes' bigtree Jun 2014 #2
Couldn't disagree more with the first paragraph phil89 Jun 2014 #3
mostly agree bigtree Jun 2014 #5
And I could not disagree more with you. JayhawkSD Jun 2014 #6
Just romanticized nonsense phil89 Jun 2014 #8
I feel sorry for you. n/t JayhawkSD Jun 2014 #9
Because I think for myself and question things? phil89 Jun 2014 #10
Wow... WHO is the one rewriting history? Michigander_Life Jun 2014 #11
What did I say that was incorrect? phil89 Jun 2014 #12
Here's something I say to myself upaloopa Jun 2014 #4
+1000 bigtree Jun 2014 #7
 

phil89

(1,043 posts)
3. Couldn't disagree more with the first paragraph
Fri Jun 6, 2014, 12:30 PM
Jun 2014

It's not a good thing that the American public, in all it's wisdom, decided not to hold people who sign up for wars accountable for the war. So tired of the pro military nonsense and "troops protect our freedom" nonsense. After watching nbc news last night I guess there are people who think the "greatest generation" saved America...or that the axis powers would have invaded the US and we'd all be speaking German if not for them? Historical illiteracy at its finest.

bigtree

(85,977 posts)
5. mostly agree
Fri Jun 6, 2014, 12:38 PM
Jun 2014

. . . but I think the paragraph was referring to the opposite, initial reaction the Vietnam vets got from many of the public when they returned home; calling them murderers, baby-killers, and the like. The turnaround that the author is likely referring to was a welcome development, in that folks began to separate their feelings about the soldiers from their anger and disagreement with the politicians who led them to war.

 

JayhawkSD

(3,163 posts)
6. And I could not disagree more with you.
Fri Jun 6, 2014, 12:41 PM
Jun 2014

It does not matter why they were sent, it matters why they go.

They did not sign up to promote the Republican agenda or the Democratic agenda. They did not sign up to promote "American exceptionalism" or "American hegemony." They did not sign up to promote American control of the world. The government may have sent them to Afghanistan for any or all of these reasons, but that is not why they joined the military and that is not why they served.

From "A Rabble In Arms" by Kenneth Roberts comes a quote that sums it up.
"They go to war, these young men, not to die for their country, but to place themselves, their precious lives, between their home and the forces which would destroy it."

The fact that they may not actually be doing that, the fact that they may have been misled by the leaders of this country and that their mission may be based on lies, does not detract from the purpose for which they serve.

 

phil89

(1,043 posts)
8. Just romanticized nonsense
Fri Jun 6, 2014, 06:39 PM
Jun 2014

"They go to war, these young men, not to die for their country, but to place themselves, their precious lives, between their home and the forces which would destroy it."

Which is obviously false, as many were drafted against their will into wars which had nothing to do with defending the US. Vietnam wasn't going to destroy the US, nor Iraq, nor Afghanistan and not even the Axis powers in WWII could have destroyed the US militarily.

 

phil89

(1,043 posts)
10. Because I think for myself and question things?
Sun Jun 8, 2014, 10:15 AM
Jun 2014

Not sure why that would cause sadness for you. I noticed you're not trying to refute anything I said...

 

Michigander_Life

(549 posts)
11. Wow... WHO is the one rewriting history?
Sun Jun 8, 2014, 10:23 AM
Jun 2014

You have a solid point about Iraq and 'Nam. But when you equate WW2 to those wars, you lose all credibility. And then to blame the soldiers for the actions of the politicians?

Your bias is showing.

God Bless American Heroes -- The Men & Women of Our Armed Forces

upaloopa

(11,417 posts)
4. Here's something I say to myself
Fri Jun 6, 2014, 12:30 PM
Jun 2014

I have an American citizenship just as the rest of us do. But mine cost me a year in the Vietnam war and afterward a life of drug abuse and alcoholism, divorce, inability to hold a job, bankruptcy, suicidal clinical depression and homelessness.
All but the first one were because of choices I made. But my choices were colored by a year in a war. I felt like I lost ten years of my life.
I am no hero but I feel I paid a lot more for my citizenship than others I grew up with.
Vets from Iraq and Afghanistan may not be heroes but they have all the shit I went through and probably worse yet to go through for the same citizenship we all have.
So we may not call them heroes I think we have to acknowledge the things they faced and will face.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»A Devaluation of the Idea...