Veterans as "Heroes"

UponThisRock

Over the weekend, Chris Hayes from MSNBC said that he felt uncomfortable calling classifying all veterans and "heroes."

“Why do I feel so uncomfortable about the word ‘hero’?” Hayes said. “I feel uncomfortable about the word hero because it seems to me that it is so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war. Um, and, I don’t want to obviously desecrate or disrespect memory of anyone that’s fallen, and obviously there are individual circumstances in which there is genuine, tremendous heroism, you know, hail of gunfire, rescuing fellow soldiers and things like that. But it seems to me that we marshal this word in a way that is problematic. But maybe I’m wrong about that.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76799.html

Of course, he has since made the token apology.

I disagree with him, I think volunteering for military service given the possible consequences his a heroic act in and of itself, but I do think he raises an interesting point. We do tend to equate military service with "fighting to protect our freedom," when "our freedom" is usually only on the line in a tangential sense, if that.

On a related note, I wish people would just say what they think without issuing the B.S apology.

BrettPGH

I completely agree with him. Signing up for military service does not automatically grant hero status. Yes it makes a person brave. But still their action will determine what kind of person they are.

There are some really horrible people in the military. I don't take away from what they do, but joining the military doesn't make someone an angel. I have personally known people who've admitted the main reason they joined up was to be able to kill someone. That's not a hero. And we all know the stories of soldiers who tortured, raped, etc. etc. Those are not heroes.

Now because some people are awful that takes nothing away from the majority, which are legitimate heroes. Bravely fighting and laying down their lives for others. Those are heroes.

Also on a side note if your role in the military is pressing buttons from the safety of Albuquerque, New Mexico "hero" is a bit of a stretch as well. I know a guy who tried to claim PTSD for doing military data entry stateside. :noway:

UponThisRock

Also on a side note if your role in the military is pressing buttons from the safety of Albuquerque, New Mexico "hero" is a bit of a stretch as well. I know a guy who tried to claim PTSD for doing military data entry stateside. :noway:

LOL, in fairness, doing data entry would drive me crazy.

BrettPGH

Also on a side note if your role in the military is pressing buttons from the safety of Albuquerque, New Mexico "hero" is a bit of a stretch as well. I know a guy who tried to claim PTSD for doing military data entry stateside. :noway:

LOL, in fairness, doing data entry would drive me crazy.

You'd hate to be me.

Kamikazeflutterby

I know too many people touted as "heroes who volunteered" who I subtitle with "knocked up a chick out of high school, couldn't even hold down a retail job." It is a job, you are getting paid because you may get put into a situation where you get shot at. I'm not sure where the "hero" part applies.

That said, ordinary citizens who were drafted during war time were heroes. It wasn't their job to fight, but they went to serve when needed.

dragonbait0126

I think it all depends on how a person defines the word "hero" and the phrase "heroic act." Many people list a parent or grandparent as their hero because of the way that person lived their life. But if you define "heroic act" as taking jumping to the assistance of another without thinking of the consequnces or yourself then just living your life and doing the best that you can do may not be considered as "heroic." In the case of someone enlisted in the military, I don't think that alone makes them a "hero."

EvanKeel

In a strange rabbit hole journey while trying to get familiar with the forums, I found this group, so...hi.

Onto the topic.

I don't think people are really understanding Mr. Hayes here. Or if they're are understanding him, they're disagreeing with him for reasons that they aren't stating. What he's talking about is using this romantic notion of Heroism as a justification for further conflict. Just going to war is not heroic and we shouldn't treat it like it is. Signing your name on the dotted line and putting on a uniform is not de facto heroism. I think we want to believe it is because we understand the possible sacrifice of giving your life (or limbs, or sanity, or future happiness) for what we want to believe is a just cause.

Individual soldiers are certainly heroic in the same way the some police officers, firefighters, or just everyday citizens can be heroic. Soldiers, along with emergency personnel, are more likely to have the potential for acts of heroism thrust upon them, but just being in the military doesn't make you a hero. I've known too many people in the military to believe that.

EDIT: I think it's important to note that soldiers, heroic or not, are people like everyone else. Without going all Shylock, they have same weaknesses and strengths that effect the rest of the species. Until we do something that qualifies us being a hero or a villain, our jobs and whatever potential for heroism that brings should not be held against or in our favor. Assuming all service members are heros is almost like saying all low income, urban youths in gangs are murderous thugs. i don't think either assumption/generalization is cool.

Grimmerick

In a strange rabbit hole journey while trying to get familiar with the forums, I found this group, so...hi.

Onto the topic.

I don't think people are really understanding Mr. Hayes here. Or if they're are understanding him, they're disagreeing with him for reasons that they aren't stating. What he's talking about is using this romantic notion of Heroism as a justification for further conflict. Just going to war is not heroic and we shouldn't treat it like it is. Signing your name on the dotted line and putting on a uniform is not de facto heroism. I think we want to believe it is because we understand the possible sacrifice of giving your life (or limbs, or sanity, or future happiness) for what we want to believe is a just cause.

Individual soldiers are certainly heroic in the same way the some police officers, firefighters, or just everyday citizens can be heroic. Soldiers, along with emergency personnel, are more likely to have the potential for acts of heroism thrust upon them, but just being in the military doesn't make you a hero. I've known too many people in the military to believe that.

Welcome! Sounds like you are going to fit right in here

opus649

I know too many people touted as "heroes who volunteered" who I subtitle with "knocked up a chick out of high school, couldn't even hold down a retail job." It is a job, you are getting paid because you may get put into a situation where you get shot at. I'm not sure where the "hero" part applies.

That said, ordinary citizens who were drafted during war time were heroes. It wasn't their job to fight, but they went to serve when needed.

I believe you have either not served yourself or not worked with those who do. I have done one and am currently doing the other, and I believe your position is flawed because of a lack of information. I think what you and Mr. Hayes fail to understand is that joining the military isn't the same thing as "a job." In civilian life, you can quit your job if you want. You can get a tattoo anywhere on your body that you desire. You can get fat. You don't have to exercise. You can move to a new town if you desire. You have freedoms that you take for granted because you've never been without them.

But perhaps more importantly, even those who are not serving in direct combat have to deploy. I work with the Air Force and all of those guys deploy for 6 months at a time to Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa... they are away from their families, they miss the births of their children, they watch their kids grow up on Skype.... you just can't put a price tag on any of that stuff. Regardless of the reason we're there, the fact that they are willing to do that is heroic in my book. It might not be "storm the beaches of Normandy" heroic, but it's still a larger sacrifice than 90% of the country will ever make.

There are bad apples in any group and the military is no exception. But there are over 3 million active duty and reserve military members in the United States. I think the sacrifices made by most of these people goes completely unnoticed by the average citizen.

TheRoadDog

Wearing a military uniform does not make a person a hero.

Of course, pointing that out over Memorial Day weekend was probably ill-timed.

opus649

Signing your name on the dotted line and putting on a uniform is not de facto heroism. I think we want to believe it is because we understand the possible sacrifice of giving your life (or limbs, or sanity, or future happiness) for what we want to believe is a just cause.

Much like the other poster, I believe you are simply misinformed about what exactly it means to serve in the military. I think the average citizen only thinks of the Army fighting wars. It's just not just the soldiers who lose their lives. So many are called away, multiple times, and are away from everything....

greasygriddle_wechnage

I know too many people touted as "heroes who volunteered" who I subtitle with "knocked up a chick out of high school, couldn't even hold down a retail job." It is a job, you are getting paid because you may get put into a situation where you get shot at. I'm not sure where the "hero" part applies.

That said, ordinary citizens who were drafted during war time were heroes. It wasn't their job to fight, but they went to serve when needed.

I believe you have either not served yourself or not worked with those who do. I have done one and am currently doing the other, and I believe your position is flawed because of a lack of information. I think what you and Mr. Hayes fail to understand is that joining the military isn't the same thing as "a job." In civilian life, you can quit your job if you want. You can get a tattoo anywhere on your body that you desire. You can get fat. You don't have to exercise. You can move to a new town if you desire. You have freedoms that you take for granted because you've never been without them.

But perhaps more importantly, even those who are not serving in direct combat have to deploy. I work with the Air Force and all of those guys deploy for 6 months at a time to Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa... they are away from their families, they miss the births of their children, they watch their kids grow up on Skype.... you just can't put a price tag on any of that stuff. Regardless of the reason we're there, the fact that they are willing to do that is heroic in my book. It might not be "storm the beaches of Normandy" heroic, but it's still a larger sacrifice than 90% of the country will ever make.

There are bad apples in any group and the military is no exception. But there are over 3 million active duty and reserve military members in the United States. I think the sacrifices made by most of these people goes completely unnoticed by the average citizen.

:drinker:

EvanKeel

Signing your name on the dotted line and putting on a uniform is not de facto heroism. I think we want to believe it is because we understand the possible sacrifice of giving your life (or limbs, or sanity, or future happiness) for what we want to believe is a just cause.

Much like the other poster, I believe you are simply misinformed about what exactly it means to serve in the military. I think the average citizen only thinks of the Army fighting wars. It's just not just the soldiers who lose their lives. So many are called away, multiple times, and are away from everything....

I think I do have an idea of what it means to serve in the military. I think we just disagree on what constitutes heroism. Not all sacrifice is heroic, but it's obviously still a sacrifice. Though honestly, I think the families, who never had the option of signing on the dotted line probably get more of my sympathies than the person who gets called away repeatedly, but it's not to say I don't have enough [sympathy and empathy] to go around.

BrettPGH

Signing your name on the dotted line and putting on a uniform is not de facto heroism. I think we want to believe it is because we understand the possible sacrifice of giving your life (or limbs, or sanity, or future happiness) for what we want to believe is a just cause.

Much like the other poster, I believe you are simply misinformed about what exactly it means to serve in the military. I think the average citizen only thinks of the Army fighting wars. It's just not just the soldiers who lose their lives. So many are called away, multiple times, and are away from everything....

Being called away from your family for a few months doesn't make someone a hero in my eyes either. Sure it's hard. But not heroic. Truck drivers rarely see family. No one's calling them heroes. And they shouldn't. "Hero" should be saved for only the very best among us. Those who risk their lives to save others. That's my definition of a hero. Not just a person who did something most people wouldn't enjoy.

MANY military personnel are heroes. Not all. And it's not dependent on military service. You can be a hero and not be in the military and you can be in the military and not be a hero.

opus649

I think I do have an idea of what it means to serve in the military. I think we just disagree on what constitutes heroism. Not all sacrifice is heroic, but it's obviously still a sacrifice.

I would argue that unless you have served, you'll never truly know what it's like to serve. But that's just a personal opinion (to which we are all, thankfully, entitled).

I see your point about defining heroism. Although I'm a veteran, I would *never* consider myself a hero. I did five years stateside and although it was still a sacrifice, it definitely wasn't heroic. But ops tempo has changed considerably since 9/11... what these men and women go through today...

opus649

Being called away from your family for a few months doesn't make someone a hero in my eyes either. Sure it's hard. But not heroic. Truck drivers rarely see family. No one's calling them heroes. And they shouldn't. "Hero" should be saved for only the very best among us. Those who risk their lives to save others. That's my definition of a hero. Not just a person who did something most people wouldn't enjoy.

Yes, but a truck driver is doing this to benefit himself and his family. A military member does this to the benefit of the entire country. They go so that you don't have to. I don't know what could possibly be more heroic.

MANY military personnel are heroes. Not all. And it's not dependent on military service. You can be a hero and not be in the military and you can be in the military and not be a hero.

I agree.

macpatti

Some join the military to serve their country. Some join the military because they don't know what to do with themsevles after high school. Joining the military in itself does not make one a hero. I am grateful to all those people in the military who defend our country, work to protect the freedom and rights of other countries, and who risk their lives to do so. However, not all veterans are heroes to me.

BrettPGH

Being called away from your family for a few months doesn't make someone a hero in my eyes either. Sure it's hard. But not heroic. Truck drivers rarely see family. No one's calling them heroes. And they shouldn't. "Hero" should be saved for only the very best among us. Those who risk their lives to save others. That's my definition of a hero. Not just a person who did something most people wouldn't enjoy.

Yes, but a truck driver is doing this to benefit himself and his family. A military member does this to the benefit of the entire country. They go so that you don't have to. I don't know what could possibly be more heroic.

opus649

I would like to point out (and perhaps this is my fault for slightly redirecting the topic), but Chris Hayes was specifically referring to "fallen" veterans as this was Memorial Day, which is specifically about honoring those who have died while serving their country.

It might have been a slightly different issue if he had made the statement on Veteran's Day about all veterans. But he was specifically calling out those who had died as not automatically being heroes.

(edited to add the word "automatically" before "being heroes")

macpatti

I would like to point out (and perhaps this is my fault for slightly redirecting the topic), but Chris Hayes was specifically referring to "fallen" veterans as this was Memorial Day, which is specifically about honoring those who have died while serving their country.
It might have been a slightly different issue if he had made the statement on Veteran's Day about all veterans. But he was specifically calling out those who had died as not automatically being heroes.
(edited to add the word "automatically" before "being heroes")

Ah. I missed that. Well, I would say that anyone who lost his own life defending someone else's is a hero in my book. That being said, however, I'm referring to those lives lost in direct combat of defending a person or country.

Grimmerick

People don't sign up for the military for the same reasons they used to, it's not so much or all about serving your country anymore. It's about providing a steady income and stable home life for yourself and being able to afford an education if you didn't come from a good financial background. I have dated LOTS of military and my dad just retired military as a Lt. Colonel. I wouldn't call him a hero, he hated the military and all of it's BS. He did it to pay for his education while taking care of us at the same time, and to have a great retirement. He didn't do it for his country although that was a nice perk apparently. So I don't automatically assign heroism to people that join the military, it's their reasons and actions when in the military that would make them a military hero.

EvanKeel

Yes, but a truck driver is doing this to benefit himself and his family. A military member does this to the benefit of the entire country. They go so that you don't have to. I don't know what could possibly be more heroic.

I don't think we're really anywhere close to being a draft situation, are we? I don't want to refer to the military as a jobs program because it's probably a little belittling, but let's be honest. For some folks, it's their only option, and if they could they would choose something else; the honor of protecting my freedoms isn't really on their minds. Personally, I think the need for a standing military of our scale is fading away quickly. To paraphrase my father, who enlisted and served as a navy medic in Vietnam patching up shredded marines, our dependence on the bodies we have out in the field speaks more to nation's lack of military efficacy than anything else. Then again, he doesn't have much respect for how Uncle Sam treats his defenders overall to the extent that the told a military recruiter that he'd walk my rear end up to Canada before the government would get ahold of his son. So my perspective may be somewhat biased.

opus649

I don't think we're really anywhere close to being a draft situation, are we?

I believe that is only because we have people willing to volunteer. I believe the Military Industrial Complex is too vast and powerful to allow defense spending to shrink appreciably. If the volunteer pool dried up, I definitely believe a draft would follow.

I don't want to refer to the military as a jobs program because it's probably a little belittling, but let's be honest. For some folks, it's their only option, and if they could they would choose something else; the honor of protecting my freedoms isn't really on their minds.

Obviously I cannot speak for all 3 million, but I believe why they join ends up having very little to do with why they serve. And I believe there is a difference (there was for me, anyway).

...our dependence on the bodies we have out in the field speaks more to nation's lack of military efficacy than anything else.

I guess it depends on the task at hand. I firmly believe the United States military would utterly destroy any force on the planet in equal numbers on land, air, or sea. However, that's really not how these wars are being fought, is it? Much like Vietnam, we're being pulled into a war that's simply not possible to win, regardless of the number of boots on the ground. Afghanistan has been at war for decades.... they're just going to wait us out. If it were up to me, we would have pulled out of Afghanistan years ago.

So my perspective may be somewhat biased.

No more than mine

EvanKeel

I would like to point out (and perhaps this is my fault for slightly redirecting the topic), but Chris Hayes was specifically referring to "fallen" veterans as this was Memorial Day, which is specifically about honoring those who have died while serving their country.

It might have been a slightly different issue if he had made the statement on Veteran's Day about all veterans. But he was specifically calling out those who had died as not automatically being heroes.

(edited to add the word "automatically" before "being heroes")

I still agree with him. The timing is definitely provocative, though. The fact that people die in service of this war isn't noble in my eyes. I kind of doubt that there's argument that could convince me that we have a right to be where we are or that what's being done is truly in the defense of my freedom, but who knows. I think that most of these deaths are probably tragic consequences of deplorable politics, global or domestic. They deserve reverence, respect, and to have their sacrifice remembered, but not treasured as heoric. I think for the most part someone who dies in a heroic act would probably do the same thing all over again. Obviously can't take a poll, but if we could take a poll of those who died in this war, I wonder how many would jump up and down say that it was worth it and that they'd do the same thing again if they had a chance.

Some would, I'm sure. I think many would not. That's just my opinion.

opus649

I would like to point out (and perhaps this is my fault for slightly redirecting the topic), but Chris Hayes was specifically referring to "fallen" veterans as this was Memorial Day, which is specifically about honoring those who have died while serving their country.
It might have been a slightly different issue if he had made the statement on Veteran's Day about all veterans. But he was specifically calling out those who had died as not automatically being heroes.
(edited to add the word "automatically" before "being heroes")

Ah. I missed that. Well, I would say that anyone who lost his own life defending someone else's is a hero in my book. That being said, however, I'm referring to those lives lost in direct combat of defending a person or country.

How would you define "defending.... a country?" Because, arguably, nothing we did in the Pacific theater during WWII could be considered "defending a country" and yet I think the average GI who died fighting at Guadalcanal or Okinawa certainly earned some consideration for being called a hero.

For that matter, would the nature of combat operations make a difference? If the war is noble, the fallen solider is a hero? But if it's a "bad" war, for lack of a better term, those who give their lives are not heroic? (I'm not accusing anyone of making this point, merely asking if this line of logic flows from your 'direct combat of defending a person or country' qualifier).

macpatti

How would you define "defending.... a country?" Because, arguably, nothing we did in the Pacific theater during WWII could be considered "defending a country" and yet I think the average GI who died fighting at Guadalcanal or Okinawa certainly earned some consideration for being called a hero.
For that matter, would the nature of combat operations make a difference? If the war is noble, the fallen solider is a hero? But if it's a "bad" war, for lack of a better term, those who give their lives are not heroic? (I'm not accusing anyone of making this point, merely asking if this line of logic flows from your 'direct combat of defending a person or country' qualifier).

What I'm saying is just because someone loses his life while in the military, doesn't make him a hero to me. It's what he was doing when he loses his life that makes him a hero. I wouldn't consider a police officer who dies in a car accident while patroling a hero, but I would consider a police officer who is shot while protecting someone a hero.

tsh0ck

I believe you have either not served yourself or not worked with those who do. I have done one and am currently doing the other, and I believe your position is flawed because of a lack of information. I think what you and Mr. Hayes fail to understand is that joining the military isn't the same thing as "a job." In civilian life, you can quit your job if you want. You can get a tattoo anywhere on your body that you desire. You can get fat. You don't have to exercise. You can move to a new town if you desire. You have freedoms that you take for granted because you've never been without them.

But perhaps more importantly, even those who are not serving in direct combat have to deploy. I work with the Air Force and all of those guys deploy for 6 months at a time to Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa... they are away from their families, they miss the births of their children, they watch their kids grow up on Skype.... you just can't put a price tag on any of that stuff. Regardless of the reason we're there, the fact that they are willing to do that is heroic in my book. It might not be "storm the beaches of Normandy" heroic, but it's still a larger sacrifice than 90% of the country will ever make.

There are bad apples in any group and the military is no exception. But there are over 3 million active duty and reserve military members in the United States. I think the sacrifices made by most of these people goes completely unnoticed by the average citizen.

add to the list the sacrifices made by spouses. just because they aren't in uniform doesn't mean they, too, aren't sacrificing.

tsh0ck

How would you define "defending.... a country?" Because, arguably, nothing we did in the Pacific theater during WWII could be considered "defending a country" and yet I think the average GI who died fighting at Guadalcanal or Okinawa certainly earned some consideration for being called a hero.
For that matter, would the nature of combat operations make a difference? If the war is noble, the fallen solider is a hero? But if it's a "bad" war, for lack of a better term, those who give their lives are not heroic? (I'm not accusing anyone of making this point, merely asking if this line of logic flows from your 'direct combat of defending a person or country' qualifier).

What I'm saying is just because someone loses his life while in the military, doesn't make him a hero to me. It's what he was doing when he loses his life that makes him a hero. I wouldn't consider a police officer who dies in a car accident while patroling a hero, but I would consider a police officer who is shot while protecting someone a hero.

that officer still died while serving his community. doesn't diminish his sacrifice in my eyes.

adrian_indy

Most soldiers would never refer to themselves as a hero. But since I am a vet i guess I'll defend the hero status of my friends. Pointing this out on Memorial day is a bone headed move since it is supposed to be a day in rememberence of the fallen, but hey, whatever.

First....no soldier is responsible for the war he is in. The military is needed. End of story. We could have a endless debate on the lawfulness or just causes of modern warfare, but in the end, the uninterested and often ignorant american civilian and our leadership is responsible. Heroics shouldn't be determined by the popularity of the war. Right after 9/11 we were all heroes....because you needed us.....now everyone is sick of the wars....the soldiers hero status is being debated.....on Memorial Day.

After I was injured in Iraq, one of my best friends in the platoon was in the offensive at Fallujah and had a piece of metal blow his heart out of his chest when an RPG hit him in the gunners hatch of his truck. He used to be a hero. But now I guess he isn't because he wasn' able to return fire. Most americans have this image of what a "hero" does, and it comes from the crap they watch on TV. A lone warrior charging through a hail of gunfire shooting to machinguns and killing 50 enemies. Sorry, never happens. What is the reality is that everyday, in unarmored Humvees, we patrolled, raided, escorted, and much more on roads laced with bombs made for ordinance large enough that the concussion alone could kill you. Every day. I guess that it isn't heroic anymore. We should probably contact the families of the fallen and say we want to revoke their hero status because they didn't die in a popular, heroic way.

"Sorry Johnny got hit by an IED ma'am, but we have decided that your husband who was on his 6th deployment, has spent 6 years away from his family, missed every child's birth, birthday, anniversary, family member death, graduation, and countless other things is no longer a hero because he died in an ambush and you know what, truck drivers work long hours too. Be sure to take the word hero of his tombstone."

Not that any of this surprises me. I never tell anyone that I am a vet in public anymore, but I've noticed that the places that used to slobber all over your veterans status and offer you discounts....but those are quickly disappearing. And just 11 years after our "heroes" marched off to war with our citizens gushing all over us, they just cut the VA by 30% in a time where we have more messed up vets than ever.

Azdak

It's a good discussion, but I just wanted to add something about Chris Hayes. I think he is one of the good guys out there in media pundit land. He got caught up trying to "overintellectualize" a subject, and, yes, I think it made his remarks extremely ill-timed (and perhaps "ill-worded" as well).

Being the stand up guy he is, Chris apologized in an equally sincere and thoughtful way.

This is the end of the statement:

But in seeking to discuss the civilian-military divide and the social distance between those who fight and those who don't, I ended up reinforcing it, conforming to a stereotype of a removed pundit whose views are not anchored in the very real and very wrenching experience of this long decade of war. And for that I am truly sorry."

There are plenty of places to read the full statement. Here is one:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/sns-rt-chris-hayes-heroesmt1thewrap41841-20120529,0,3802054.story

macpatti

that officer still died while serving his community. doesn't diminish his sacrifice in my eyes.

Not all police officers are heroes. I'm trying to disassociate a heroic act from a hero, but I don't think
I'm doing a fair job. I have a huge amount of respect, admiration, and gratitude for those who spend their lives defending and protecting mine. The word "hero" I reserve for true acts of heroism and true heroes.