I'm going to commit a bit of heresy in this post.
I'm going to agree (mostly) with an NYT op-ed by William Deresiewicz. Almost every blog post I've read around the blogoshpere is deriding Mr. Deresiewicz and accusing him of gross disrespect toward the people in the military. Mostly by quoting this paragraph:
The term most characteristically employed, when the cult of the uniform is celebrated, is “heroes.” Perhaps no word in public life of late has been more thoroughly debased by overuse. Soldiers are “heroes”; firefighters are “heroes”; police officers are “heroes” — all of them, not the special few who undoubtedly deserve the term. So unthinking has the platitude become that someone referred to national park rangers on public radio recently as “heroes” — reflexively, in passing — presumably since they wear uniforms, as well."
Most people are missing the point in his essay which is basically arguing that we are perhaps over using the word "hero". If you just read that one paragarph on a blog somewhere, you would have missed this paragraph"
There is no question that our troops are courageous and selfless. They expose themselves to inconceivable dangers under conditions of enormous hardship and fight because they want to keep the country safe. We owe them respect and gratitude — even if we think the wars they’re asked to fight are often wrong. But who our service members are and the work their images do in our public psyche, our public discourse, and our public policy are not the same. Pieties are ways to settle arguments before they begin. We need to question them, to see what they’re hiding.
Mr. Deresiewicz goes on to note that there are incidents when our troops have turned in less than stellar performances such as Abu Ghraib and the murders committed in Afghanistan by a few members of the 5th Stryker Brigade. That's fair, I suppose. All idols have feet of clay. The military demands and expects the absolute best of its personnel, and unfortunately, that standard is not always met.
To be sure, I disagree with some of his conclusions such as fighting Iraq to a stalemate. I'd say we did considerably better than that. It also reads with a bit of a condescending tone.
The point to be made is this. Not everyone who serves is a hero. Most of us who have served will tell you that we are not heroes. I was never shot at or suffered harsh deprivations. The harshest conditions I faced were hardly what a combat soldier regularly faces. I was in a small radar unit in Germany in the early 1980s that deployed, often for several weeks at a time. We would live in tents, eat C-Rations, dig foxholes, carry weapons (sometimes with real bullets) and train to defend our little site, but most of my time was spent on very well maintained air force bases. That includes the US Army base in Germany near where my little radar unit was located. My unit was mobile, but most of the time we were in garrison. We had well stocked exchanges, commissaries and other facilities that made our existence quite civilized. I did save one life. It was in Guam and it was my future 13-year-old sister-in-law. I saved her from drowning. It had nothing to do with the military other than I was stationed there. That doesn't even compare to what someone in combat faces every day.
We do need to respect those who volunteer to wear the uniform. We should treat them with a bit more regard than normal. After all, regardless of their job or where they are stationed, they wrote the proverbial blank check to Uncle Sam that may mean their life. Thanking them for their service might be a bit embarrassing, but I think it's entirely proper. I might also take exception with his premise and say that those who have served honorably in actual armed conflict are indeed real heroes, regardless of their medal count.
Language and culture are tied together in the strongest of bonds. These days, it seems we have to treat every situation with some sort of overarching superlative. Conservatives are Nazis, Liberals are Communists, Tear Party folks are terrorists. We are all guity of it from time to time. We need to understand, however, when you employ a label such as Nazi or terrorist, you are cheapening the evil that those terms were once used to define. If everyone you disagree with is a Nazi, then real Nazis are just folks with whom you just disagree and not the total evil that they actually represented. If every GI is a hero, then the guys walking around with a Silver Star and a couple of Purple Hearts could have e-mailed it in.
We need real heroes. We do have them and, more often than not, they wear the uniforms of the United States Military.
VW







