"Our American Heroes": Why It's Wrong to Equate Military Service With Heroism
Thursday 22 July 2010
by: William J. Astore | TomDispatch.com | Review
(Photo: *Kid*Doc*One* / Flickr)
When I was a kid in the 1970s, I loved reading accounts of American heroism from World War II. I remember being riveted by a book about the staunch Marine defenders of Wake Island and inspired by John F. Kennedy's exploits saving the sailors he commanded on PT-109. Closer to home, I had an uncle -- like so many vets of that war, relatively silent on his own experiences -- who had been at Pearl Harbor when the Japanese attacked on December 7, 1941, and then fought them in a brutal campaign on Guadalcanal, where he earned a Bronze Star. Such men seemed like heroes to me, so it came as something of a shock when, in 1980, I first heard Yoda's summary of war in The Empire Strikes Back. Luke Skywalker, if you remember, tells the wizened Jedi master that he seeks "a great warrior." "Wars not make one great," Yoda replies.
Okay, it was George Lucas talking, I suppose, but I was struck by the truth of that statement. Of course, my little epiphany didn't come just because of Yoda or Lucas. By my late teens, even as I was gearing up for a career in the military, I had already begun to wonder about the common ethos that linked heroism to military service and war. Certainly, military service (especially the life-and-death struggles of combat) provides an occasion for the exercise of heroism, but even then I instinctively knew that it didn't constitute heroism.
Ever since the events of 9/11, there's been an almost religious veneration of U.S. service members as "Our American Heroes" (as a well-intentioned sign puts it at my local post office). That a snappy uniform or even intense combat in far-off countries don't magically transform troops into heroes seems a simple point to make, but it's one worth making again and again, and not only to impressionable, military-worshipping teenagers.
Here, then, is what I mean by "hero": someone who behaves selflessly, usually at considerable personal risk and sacrifice, to comfort or empower others and to make the world a better place. Heroes, of course, come in all sizes, shapes, ages, and colors, most of them looking nothing like John Wayne or John Rambo or GI Joe (or Jane).
"Hero," sadly, is now used far too cavalierly. Sportscasters, for example, routinely refer to highly paid jocks who hit walk-off home runs or score game-winning touchdowns as heroes. Even though I come from a family of firefighters (and one police officer), the most heroic person I've ever known was neither a firefighter nor a cop nor a jock: She was my mother, a homemaker who raised five kids and endured without complaint the ravages of cancer in the 1970s, with its then crude chemotherapy regimen, its painful cobalt treatments, the collateral damage of loss of hair, vitality, and lucidity. In refusing to rail against her fate or to take her pain out on others, she set an example of selfless courage and heroism I'll never forget.
Don’t miss a beat - get Truthout Daily Email Updates. Click here to sign up for free.
Hometown Heroes in Uniform
In local post offices, as well as on local city streets here in central Pennsylvania, I see many reminders that our troops are "hometown heroes." Official military photos of these young enlistees catch my eye, a few smiling, most looking into the camera with faces of grim resolve tinged with pride at having completed basic training. Once upon a time, as the military dean of students at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California, I looked into such faces in the flesh, congratulating young service members for their effort and spirit.
I was proud of them then; I still am. But here's a fact I suspect our troops might be among the first to embrace: the act of joining the military does not make you a hero, nor does the act of serving in combat. Whether in the military or in civilian life, heroes are rare -- indeed, all-too-rare. Heck, that's the reason we celebrate them. They're the very best of us, which means they can't be all of us.
Still, even if elevating our troops to hero status has become something of a national mania, is there really any harm done? What's wrong with praising our troops to the rafters? What's wrong with adding them to our pantheon of heroes?
The short answer is: There's a good deal wrong, and a good deal of harm done, not so much to them as to us.
To wit:
- "By making our military a league of heroes, we ensure that the brutalizing aspects and effects of war will be played down. In celebrating isolated heroic feats, we often forget that war is guaranteed to degrade humanity. "War," as writer and cultural historian Louis Menand noted, "is specially terrible not because it destroys human beings, who can be destroyed in plenty of other ways, but because it turns human beings into destroyers."
When we create a legion of heroes in our minds, we blind ourselves to evidence of their destructive, sometimes atrocious, behavior. Heroes, after all, don't commit atrocities. They don't, for instance, dig bullets out of pregnant women's bodies in an attempt to cover up deadly mistakes. They don't fire on a good Samaritan and his two children as he attempts to aid a grievously wounded civilian. Such atrocities and murderous blunders, so common to war's brutal chaos, produce cognitive dissonance in the minds of many Americans who simply can't imagine their "heroes" killing innocents. How much easier it is to see the acts of violence of our troops as necessary, admirable, even noble.
- By making our military generically heroic, we act to prolong our wars. By seeing war as essentially heroic theater, we esteem it even as we excuse it. Consider, for example, Germany during World War I, a subject I've studied and written about. Now, as then, and here, as there, the notion of war as heroic theater became common. And when that happens, war's worst excesses are conveniently softened on the "home front," which only contributes to more war-making. As the historian Robert Weldon Whalen noted of those German soldiers of nearly a century ago, "The young men in field-grey were, first of all, not just soldiers, but young heroes, Junge Helden. They fought in the heroes' zone, Heldenzone, and performed heroic deeds, Heldentaten. Wounded, they shed hero's blood, Heldenblut, and if they died, they suffered a hero's death, Heldentod, and were buried in a hero's grave, Heldengrab." The overuse of helden as a modifier to ennoble German militarism during World War I may prove grating to our ears today, but honestly, is it that much different from America's own celebration of our troops as young heroes (with all the attendant rites)?
- By insisting programmatically on American military heroism, we also lay a firm foundation for potentially dangerous post-war myths, especially of the blame-mongering "stab-in-the-back" variety. After all, once you have a league of heroes, how can you assign responsibility for costly, debilitating, perhaps even lost wars to them? It's just a fact that heroes don't lose. And if they're not responsible, and their brilliant, super-competent leaders (General "King David" Petraeus springs to mind) aren't responsible -- then it's only a small step to assigning blame to weak-willed civilians and so-called unpatriotic elements on the "home front," especially since we're not likely to credit our enemies for much. By definition, cravenly hiding among civilians as they do, our enemies are just about incapable of behaving heroically.
Of Young Heroes and Front Pigs
In rejecting the "heroic" label, don't think we'd be insulting our troops. Quite the opposite: we'd be making common cause with them, for most of our troops undoubtedly already reject the "hero" label, just as the young "heroes" of Germany did in 1917-18. With the typical sardonic humor of front-line soldiers, they preferred the less comforting, if far more realistically descriptive label (given their grim situation in the trenches) of "front pigs."
Whatever nationality they may be, troops at the front know the score. Even as our media and our culture seek to elevate our troops into the pantheon of demi-gods, our "front pigs" carry on, plying an ancient and brutal trade. Most simply want to survive and come home with their bodies, their minds, and their buddies intact. Part of the world's deadliest war machine, they are naturally concerned first about saving their own skins, and only secondarily worried about the lives of others. This is not beastliness. Nor is it heroism. It's simply a front pig's nature.
So, next time you talk to our soldiers, Marines, sailors, or airmen, do them (and your country) a small favor. Thank them for their service. Let them know that you appreciate them. Just don't call them heroes.
William J. Astore, a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF) and TomDispatch regular, teaches History at the Pennsylvania College of Technology. He welcomes reader feedback at wjastore@gmail.com. Check out the latest TomCast audio interview in which Astore discusses heroism and the military by clicking here, or to download to your iPod, here.
Copyright 2010 William J. Astore
All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.
Support Truthout's work with a $10/month tax-deductible donation today!
Comments
This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.
"So, next time you talk to
Thu, 07/22/2010 - 17:11 β Steve (not verified)"So, next time you talk to our soldiers, Marines, sailors, or airmen, do them (and your country) a small favor. Thank them for their service. Let them know that you appreciate them."
I would go one step further than the author of this excellent article - Don't thank them. Let them know we don't appreciate them.
We need to actively discourage - not reward - their actions. The day may come when our country needs to go to war. Until then, we need to do all we can to discourage our national addiction to militarism.
Killing for Empire is NOT
Thu, 07/22/2010 - 17:37 β David (not verified)Killing for Empire is NOT heroic, and thanks to the author for pointing out how the insane worship and support for volunteer US military soldiers is harmful. I have long been puzzled why even so-called liberals and progressives give praise and sympathy to people who choose to take blood money by volunteering to serve in the US military. People who think the USA is so righteous that is has a right to invade and occupy smaller countries, using torture, murder, rape and other horrendous tactics, people attracted to weaponry and semper fi insanity. Definitely not heroes. War criminals.
Its hard to tell people who
Thu, 07/22/2010 - 18:08 β OrwellWasAnOptimist (not verified)Its hard to tell people who think they are doing the right thing that they are "war criminals". In fact, I don't think they are. The war criminals are at the top, in particular the US Presidents who continue to make war around the world. All of them. And the Congress that allows it. And, yes a few "bad apples."
Personally, I choke at "thank you for your service", just like I choke at calling them "heros" just because they happened to have a job that took them to Iraq to deliver portable toilets. But its not as simple as "they are war criminals." We need a military. Unfortunately, we seem unable to know what to do with it, and continue to misuse it. Like most controversial issues, there is no clear cut answer.
Brilliant article...and a
Thu, 07/22/2010 - 18:21 β Progressive Believer (not verified)Brilliant article...and a message that every American needs to hear loud and clear. Now, can we find some real heroes in the U.S. Senate, or even the White House, who will stand up a fight the War Machine? I just wish Obama had dedicated his term, and used his 51 progressive votes in the Senate, to roll back the wars, lift the economy, and create single payer health care. Even if the conservatives found a way to chase him out after 4 years, I guarantee he would have left a truly heroic legacy.
Reading the first few
Thu, 07/22/2010 - 20:33 β Harry Thomas (not verified)Reading the first few paragraphs of this article, I thought it was another anti-enlistee screed. Someone else ripping the poor kids who were trying to get ahead in a country where most of the middle-class and decent-paying jobs have been shipped overseas in the name of corporation profit.
I served for nearly seven years in the Army, and while I am proud of my service, I did nothing that could be called "heroic." There are medals that are given for heroism; none of them are on my record. That doesn't bother me because I feel pride in having served my country. That's something a large number of our elected officials can't say, otherwise we wouldn't be promoting war so heavily.
A true soldier is the last person who wants to go to war, because he knows what the risks are. Even those REMFs in the supply chain know that their lives are at risk because they wear their country's uniform.
Our popular media have romanticized the myths of war dating back across human history; from the historical conquests waged by Asian, European and Middle Eastern rulers all the way up to today's modern films and video games.
There's just one thing about video games though that does not serve justice; if you die, you just start another life. On the battlefield, if you die, you are DEAD. If the video game was going to be true to the battle, it would make you pay the $60 again to start again.
There are commenters (like David above, who I've had arguments with before on similar stories) who would tell you that anyone who joins the military is forever tainted with the brush of imperialism. I'll forego all the personal invective I have for such opinions in favor of my belief that everyone is entitled to his own opinion.
What has happened with the U.S. military is that it has been reshaped from a defensive force into an offensive instrument. When Americans fought in the last "good" war, we had an obvious objective and people to fight for.
In the current conflict, we're fighting without a clearly defined objective. There's no Tojo, no Hitler, no Mussolini, not even a Saddam Hussein to defeat. There's the ambiguous specter of "terrorism," which is whatever the politicians and the CEOs want it to be. We're not really "defending America;" we're fighting an offensive (literal and descriptive) war against a people who have nothing to lose and all the time in the world to outlast their enemy, as they have done countless times before.
War crimes should not go unpunished. Anyone who violates the rules of war as defined by international conventions and military regulations should be punished. The trouble is that the ones who are giving the orders are not being held accountable.
Honor those who serve. Treat them with respect and reverence, because they are willing to go into places where you dare not tread. But like the author says; don't call them heroes. They know who their true heroes are within their ranks.
If there are heroes today, I
Thu, 07/22/2010 - 20:42 β Sandy (not verified)If there are heroes today, I think they would be the people who protested the wars we are in yet still fought for the supplies and benefits the warriors deserved from the people who sent them to war without what they needed.
I was a USAF pilot in
Thu, 07/22/2010 - 20:46 β Frafish (not verified)I was a USAF pilot in Vietnam, a particularly stupid and costly war. At the time, or soon thereafter, I thought that that debacle would deter our future leaders from engaging in such nonsense again. That was not to be, and the old Truman adage that "The only thing new is the history we haven't read" raised its ugly head once again.
I myself have thought about this hero thing a lot and have come to the same conclusion as the author. We were not heros, we just did a job that we were ordered to do. Some of my compatriots were actually cowards and were always looking for some cushy job at a rear base.
Excellent, excellent column!
Thu, 07/22/2010 - 20:57 β MarbleRye (not verified)Excellent, excellent column! I'm so glad I discovered that there was someone out there who felt the same way I do. They are vital to this nation's place in the world, but they're not heroes per se in the traditional definition.
Moreover, the ones I consider true heroes include, but not limited to, Todd Beamer, Capt. Richard Phillips, Capt. Chesley Burnett "Sully" Sullenberger III, Katharine Gunn and Sherron Watkins. These people made true sacrifices that either brought awareness to national scandals or saved many, many lives during a catastrophe. Those are the ones we need to call heroes.
Throughout the last
Thu, 07/22/2010 - 21:07 β Anonymous (not verified)Throughout the last presidential campaign everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, was proclaiming John McCain to be a genuine American hero, and I've been wondering ever since what he did to earn that label. Does getting shot out of the sky automatically make you a hero? It's not like he had a choice about becoming a POW, or being tortured. These weren't voluntary acts of valor. And as far as not accepting an early release because of his father, no one knew better than he did how leveraging such nepotism would have ruined his name and his career. Yet during the campaign, even Obama was declaring his opponent to be a "genuine American hero."
Well, if John McCain is a hero, then all these innocent men who are being freed by DNA evidence after decades of unjust incarceration must be Gods.
Add Rick Rescorla to my list
Thu, 07/22/2010 - 21:14 β MarbleRye (not verified)Add Rick Rescorla to my list above, as far as my list of true heroes.
What is Slick Willie
Thu, 07/22/2010 - 21:28 β Anonymous (not verified)What is Slick Willie Clinton's experience in any war or doing time in the service of his country?
He is now worth more than 100 million dollars because of his stay in the White House and giving us Nafta and China via Walmart. And the Jobless.
PEACE is WORK. We must work
Thu, 07/22/2010 - 21:37 β Anonymous (not verified)PEACE is WORK. We must work to overcome our anger, hate and revenge, which are proven to promote nothing but more of the same. We've lost our work ethic in favor of winning, which is gambling. The WINNER (like the"hero") is the exception. We all like to be "exceptional individuals" -although we ignore the simple fact that for that ONE winner, there are usually several LOSERS in the bargain. We gamble against the odds and risks to become a BIG winner, whereas when we WORK, we should simply receive a living wage, or our share. We don't anymore. If the minimum wage kept up with the cost of living since 1960, it would now be close to $100 per hour. Our work force is being funneled into the military because there are not enough jobs. The military-industrial complex is the winner/hero.
We will not rebuild America by exporting world-wide destruction (all "win-falls" going to the corporate weapons makers who now own the major meadia), but by returning to the productive WORK that grows local communities.
I once knew a young draft dodger who was confronted by a Viet Nam vet (who loved to fight). After some very serious "negotiations" between them, he was surprised to have the ex-soldier admit that he was afraid to stand up against the biggest bully in the world -the U.S. military. And he handed his Good Conduct medal to the draft dodger.
Β¨In the current conflict,
Thu, 07/22/2010 - 21:47 β Anonymous (not verified)Β¨In the current conflict, we're fighting without a clearly defined objective. There's no Tojo, no Hitler, no Mussolini, not even a Saddam Hussein to defeatΒ¨
There is a clearly defined objective: Profit. Long wars are incredibly profitable to the industry of war, and the banks funding it. By the way, this was also so in the cases of fighting against Hitler, Mussolini and even more so Saddam.
By this token, Vietnam was a huge success. Too bad TV exposure brought this profitable engagement to an end. That mistake was not made in later wars, as we can see very well. Irak and Afghanistan are doing well too, as long as long as the profits can be made without too much loss of valuable american lives. Arabs may be killed at will, their fate will never have any effect on the home public opinion about the wars.
Heroes -- real ones --
Thu, 07/22/2010 - 22:02 β Dick Moser (not verified)Heroes -- real ones -- happen accidentally. I knew some men during the Vietnam was who wanted to be heroes. For the most part they were dangerous -- to themselves and to their fellows. I respect our current military personnel for volunteering to do what they do and for enduring the mistreatment our government offers to those who volunteer. But I would never disgrace those few true heroes among them by categorically calling them heroes. As a group hey are admirable -- nothing more, but most certainly nothing less.
Thank the wounded ones, who
Thu, 07/22/2010 - 22:08 β proudtoserve (not verified)Thank the wounded ones, who came back broken in body or mind or both. Thank the dead ones for having the courage to go where most would not. Thank the families who endure the hell of seeing loved ones go to war, and the ones who must carry on alone when that loved one doesn't come back. For the rest of us who serve or have served... the only thanks we ask is that you leave us a country, governed by the Constitution we swore to protect, preserve and defend, to come back home to. That is the only thanks we need, and the only thanks that matters.
Once again we need to look
Thu, 07/22/2010 - 22:24 β Anonymous (not verified)Once again we need to look to our "leaders" who promote the image of hero to get our young people to put their lives on the line then do their best to ignore them and their needs once they are done with them and they are returning home with their broken bodies and minds. If George Bush had revealed the real reasons for going to war there wouldn't have been one. If he had stood up and told everyone that we needed to go to war so our multi-national oil companies could take over the oil fields in Iraq or to insure the building of an oil pipeline in Afghanistan. If he had stood up and told everyone that he wanted personal revenge for an attempt on his fathers life. If he had shown his arrogance and told everyone that everyone wants to be just like us and we need to go to war so that we can create a democracy in Iraq which will then spread democracy through out the middle east ending all of our problems there. If he had done that there wouldn't have been a war. There wouldn't have been another terrible waste of the lives of our young people. No he knew that wouldn't sell so instead he lied. Lied about Iraq's ties to al Qaida. Lied about Iraq attempting to import nuclear material from Nigeria. Lied about weapons of mass destruction. Lied, lied, and, lied some more. Want to stop wars? Prosecute and jail leaders who lie to us to get us to support our fighting them.
"Profit" is not a military
Thu, 07/22/2010 - 22:40 β Harry Thomas (not verified)"Profit" is not a military objective. Not by regulation/law, anyway. I know it's the real objective, but if the war was officially defined as such, there would be the outcry from the American people that would end it. Instead, it's spin-brushed as "patriotism" by the corporations and politicians who benefit from this low-wage labor force that has the added hazard of being shot at.
What's the difference
Fri, 07/23/2010 - 00:17 β gladbag (not verified)What's the difference between OJT in the military and in any other kind of work?
What's the difference between an industrial accident in a mine, a factory, and the military?
It seems there's little enough appreciation of the labors of the injured in our country, or care for them. The "freedoms" they allow us are well paid-for in taxes, in lost hours on any job, in the mistakes made by those who order as well as those who follow the orders.
I don't distinguish between a soldier who lost his legs in an explosion and a carpenter who lost all motion below the waist falling from a scaffolding. Both were on the job, both were hurt, each deserves the same respect for serving their country.
We have adopted Newspeak as
Fri, 07/23/2010 - 00:31 β Anonymous (not verified)We have adopted Newspeak as in the novel "1984" where phrases mean their opposite -- think "War is Peace."
When we talk about our current soldiers as heroes in the Forever Wars, what we really mean is that they are VICTIMS, but we don't want to face the truth.
Ours is arguably the most
Fri, 07/23/2010 - 07:55 β Ken Hall (not verified)Ours is arguably the most militaristic culture in the world today, and our idealistic youth think they are serving the US, "defending democracy", by enlisting in the military. I respect their naive choice, in their youthful ignorance they think they are fighting for what is right, they believe and invest themselves in the patriotic platitudes and bromides that our leaders cynically intone. The fact is they are regarded as expendable props by the Imperial elite, who give them little thanks. The deplorable and underfunded treatment they receive for their wounds and PTSDs, the attempts by some politicians to cut their benefits, are shameful reward for surrendering their moral independence and judgement to the service of the state. The economic empire regards them as blunt tools to enforce compliance by real politik. It is time to rethink our commitment to violence as a way to solve problems. It doesn't work well interpersonally and/or internationally.
Thank soldiers for their
Fri, 07/23/2010 - 12:06 β Anonymous-Non-Sheeple (not verified)Thank soldiers for their service?! Their service to what?? To empire, illegal wars of aggression ("the supreme international crime"), for committing war crimes (as they are doing just by, if nothing else, and not directly committing war crimes, by being part of illegal wars at all), and for being complicit in all of that illegality and those war crimes?? Just by thanking them for such "service" is being complicit in all of those war crimes and criminality, not to mention traitorousness to the Constitution and to the United States. In fact, thanking them for such service, makes all those who do so traitorous to the United States and its Constitution. Why? Because these illegal wars of aggression are illegal according to the Constitution as well.
Therefore, don't in essence thank the soldiers for the war crimes they're a part of, and/or are directly perpetrating themselves in far too many cases, but ONLY support them by seeking to bring them home so they are no longer supporting criminal wars of aggression and crimes against the peace, against humanity, and war crimes; and, thereby, don't yourselves be complicit in all of same by thanking and/or otherwise supporting them for it. They should be here at home protecting us from the tyranny and despotism, and greater and greater oppression and repression, of "our own" government, as it turns us into a completely un-free "national security state" where the government is more and more of a threat to us. Enough of ALL of this madness!!
Okay, I get your point. But
Fri, 07/23/2010 - 15:04 β Anonymous (not verified)Okay, I get your point. But you realize, of course, you just made a case against the American Military
By the way, the dipstick who
Fri, 07/23/2010 - 15:05 β Anonymous (not verified)By the way, the dipstick who accuses the US as "the most militaristic culture"----- where has your head been?!?
The person who accused the
Fri, 07/23/2010 - 15:07 β Anonymous (not verified)The person who accused the US of being "the most militaristic culture"------ where has your head been?!?
If anyone is a hero, it is
Fri, 07/23/2010 - 15:12 β Anonymous-Non-Sheeple (not verified)If anyone is a hero, it is the Erin Watadas of the U.S., who put their liberty and very lives on the line to obey the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) to disobey illegal orders to take part in completely unlawful wars of aggression, and who refused to deploy and thereby be complicit in the war crime(s) that illegal wars of aggression are, as well as be party to the specific war crimes that are committed every day by U.S. soldiers in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, etc., and which are committed right here on U.S. soil by training and brainwashing soldiers into being aggressors and to commit war crimes, and by those soldiers who control the drones which mass-murder mostly innocent civilians in Pakistan from right here on U.S. military bases as if they're only playing a video game, or simulating attacks.
The U.S. military is a war crime and unlawful aggressive warfare institution, and long has been. They train future dictators and their forces right here within U.S. borders, as well as U.S. special ops forces to support them. They train U.S. soldiers to extra-judicially assassinate and murder SUSPECTS who are presumed guilty, including U.S. citizens, without trial(s), in violation of the Constitution. They heavily use illegal, "war-crime" weapons such as white phosphorus, and donate and/or sell them to Israel to use against the mostly innocent civilian Palestinians, Lebanese and Syrians, the majority of which are children, at least in the case of Palestine. Then there's cluster bombs, depleted uranium, Agent Orange; and the list goes on and on, and again and again and again, ad nauseum.
This is what most of the "American people" sanction and are complicit in. And it all is a completely disgusting war fest and orgy of mass bloodshed, slaughter, maiming, destruction and suffering, which is now going on endlessly and pervertedly "in our names", in the name of "freedom", and in the name of "democracy". It is all completely unconstitutional, unsanctionable, inexcusable, unjustifiable, unconscionable, and horrific terrorism; but those who perpetrate it get away with it with impunity and immunity; and few, even among the "liberals" and "progressives", compared to the whole or those in power anyway, shed any tears about it, or about the untold harm and destruction it is doing to the people of the world, to the world itself, to the Constitution, to the Bill of Rights, to the country, to the republic, to freedom and liberty, and to most of the people of the U.S. themselves.
How refreshing to read
Fri, 07/23/2010 - 15:18 β basta (not verified)How refreshing to read this--simply joining the military does not make one a hero. Call me old fashioned but I believe one has to do something heroic to be a hero. There is nothing heroic about slaughtering people while trying to steal their oil. There is nothing heroic about murdering peasant farmers and pretending it has anything to do with terrorism. Nothing at all.
The author is overlooking
Fri, 07/23/2010 - 15:23 β Anonymous (not verified)The author is overlooking the Big Lie of our time; namely, the assertion that "our boys"--and girls--are "defending America's freedoms." This is the main thing that we are supposed to be grateful for.
Not since 1812 have "America's freedoms" (whatever that means) been at issue in a war. The fact is that Franklin D. Roosevelt lied when he invoked the threat of a Nazi and/or (bucktoothed racial horror!) a Japanese invasion to justify involvement in World War II.
The Nazis were Nazis and the Tojo regime were in many ways worse. But they weren't going to invade the U.S.
Pearl Harbor happened because the Japanese had decided that we would be joining the war and they wanted to get the jump on us.
That "virtuous lie" of Roosevelt's morphed into all of the militaristic lies and fear-mongering that we have lived with ever since.
Not that the soldiers, sailors, and airfolk are bad folk. They just aren't defending freedom.
Very well put, and exactly
Fri, 07/23/2010 - 16:06 β Anonymous-Non-Sheeple (not verified)Very well put, and exactly right, "Anonymous @ Fri, 07/23/2010 - 15:23"!
...Although I would add, so
Fri, 07/23/2010 - 16:17 β Anonymous-Non-Sheeple (not verified)...Although I would add, so I don't appear like I'm contradicting myself, that the soldiers, sailors and air forces ARE bad folks if they take part in completely illegal wars of aggression, "the supreme international crime", the war crime that such wars are in and of themselves, and the war crimes that are part and parcel of illegal wars of aggression; for, they are not only violating the Constitution, other U.S. law(s), and international law(s) and treaties, they are also violating the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) which gives them the duty and obligation NOT to obey unlawful orders, as ALL orders given in completely illegal wars are totally unlawful...
Don't blame the soldiers for
Fri, 07/23/2010 - 17:18 β Anonymous (not verified)Don't blame the soldiers for the war. They didn't pick it. But don't tell them you appreciate their service when you don't even know what they're up to. As a war veteran, I am highly irritated by people who had no idea what I actually did telling me that just as soon as they learned I was in the service. I could have been filling out forms. I could have been raping prepubescent Japanese girls. That I -- or any other veteran -- was actually conducting special operations and trying to keep my honor clean may go unnoticed when people automatically "appreciate" service. That's not what "appreciate" means.
Anon @ 15:07. By many
Fri, 07/23/2010 - 17:20 β Ken Hall (not verified)Anon @ 15:07. By many metrics the US is by far the most militarized, militatistic culture in the world. US spending on military is roughly half the US budget and equals roughly what the rest of the world COMBINED spends on their military. The US is the world's largest exporter of weapons and war materials. The US opposes the Int'l ban on land mines. And all this militarism doesn't make us safer, witness 911. It is not a Dept of Defense, it should be aptly named the Dept of Offense. The US projects military strength around the world in order to commandeer natural resources and exert economic hegemony. This makes a few at the top very rich indeed, and it is paid for, in lives and taxes, by the middle and lower classes. That's me and probably you. Wake up, you're living in an empire and the other citizens of the world resent our meddling in their affairs, our theft of their resources.
Speaking of lies to justify
Fri, 07/23/2010 - 17:20 β MarbleRye (not verified)Speaking of lies to justify our never-ending war(s), the US government and an all-too willing media love to preach that our men & women overseas are "fighting for democracy" or otherwise "defending" it, yet the fact is our nation is NOT a democracy - it's a representative republic.
Even the right wing's No. 1, long-time buffoon, one Rush Limbaugh, stated this verbatim over a decade-and-a-half ago as a way to discredit presidential candidate Bill Clinton and the left in general. I haven't listened to Rush in a long, long time (back when I was young and stupid), but has he even addressed this point within the past, oh, 7 years?
So,it's clear the war mongers of this country (the right) use a philosophy that isn't applicable to the US as an erroneous justification for war. Typical. Lies and spin, spin and lies. Repeat.
"I'm not sorry", so to
Fri, 07/23/2010 - 18:08 β Anonymous-Non-Sheeple (not verified)"I'm not sorry", so to speak, but U.S. soldiers ARE to blame if they fail to fulfill their duty(ies) to educate themselves about the wars that they are being asked to fight and very likely die in; and they DO have a responsibility to realize that if a war is an illegal war of aggression, not truly a defensive war which is of course, with more lies, claimed, they have the duty to refuse to take part in it, EVEN IF THEY HAVE TO GO TO PRISON FOR DOING SO, OR EVEN IF THEIR FELLOW SOLDIERS FRAG AND/OR MURDER THEM FOR REFUSING TO TAKE PART IN THE WAR CRIME THAT WARS OF AGGRESSION ARE, AND IN THE OTHER WAR CRIMES WHICH ARE PERPETRATED DURING THOSE ILLEGAL WARS. (Capitalization is not for yelling at you, but simply for emphasis---I could keep the text in mostly lowercase letters and make the text bold and/or italicize it, but I don't think my emphasis thereby would be as great or as necessary for the level of importance of that capitalized point of the subject matter.)
Excellent and very well put response, Ken Hall.
After reading Ken Hall's and
Fri, 07/23/2010 - 18:29 β MarbleRye (not verified)After reading Ken Hall's and Anonymous-Non-Sheeple's posts, I tend to agree re military recruits need to self-educate themselves before enlisting. Certainly it's unregulated, but now in year-15 of the internet it's pretty damned easy to do some research before you enlist in order to determine if this is a country whose ideals you want to fight for.
Of course, some are, as Hunter S. Thompson eloquently called, "flag-suckers" and will willingly fall under the spell of American propaganda, thus make oneself ignorant intentionally, just so they can go off and kill anyone our government deems as insurgents, erroneous or not.
There is no draft (although I think one's coming in the near decade), so there is no excuse today for making brainless choices regarding military enlistment.
Go0d point, "MarbleRye",
Fri, 07/23/2010 - 18:44 β Anonymous-Non-Sheeple (not verified)Go0d point, "MarbleRye", though we are supposed to live in a representative, constitutional republic, but we obviously don't. We live in a "demonocracy", as I like to call it, and demo(no)cracy is a bad thing, not a good thing. The Founders of the U.S. hated democracy, they spoke and wrote against it, and they intentionally didn't use the word "democracy" in the Constitution, etc. We've been led to call representative "republic-anism", "democracy", and to believe that democracy is representative "republic-anism", but they aren't truly such, in any way(s) whatsoever.
Democracy is mob rule; in this case by a minority of elitist corporate-fascist globalists and oligarchs who want to, and actually already do, run the entire world, and want to do so with absolute, totalitarian control of humanity and the environment, or what's left of both when they "got through" with them). And U.S. democracy, or "demonocracy", is a capitalist society of corporate-fascist control freaks who hate freedom(s), and want to control everyone and everything, falsely and really believing that the People supposedly can't govern themselves, but allegedly need and require absolute control of every aspect of their lives, or as close to it as possible. Thus, they are the true, real enemy(ies) who "hate us for our freedoms", to quote G.W. Bush.
Therefore demo(no)cracy, capitalism and corporate-fascism are just as bad as, if not worse than, totalitarian communism; and we've got to wake the People up to who the real terrorist enemy is, the globalist, elitist control freaks who want complete totalitarian control over all of us that are not one of them, and who want to enslave us all under no True Freedom whatsoever, and that we HAVE TO fight them and their goal(s) of eradication of all of our liberties and freedoms, and absolute enslavement of us all, or we're all screwed!
When G.W. BushCON made that
Fri, 07/23/2010 - 19:16 β Anonymous-Non-Sheeple (not verified)When G.W. BushCON made that statement in that particular "State of the Union Address" in which he made that remark in, about the terrorists hating us for our freedoms, he was using double-speak. In the context of his remarks, he was of course claiming that the terrorists are "Islamo-fascism(ts); but, in reality, he was indirectly admitting that the true terrorists are really himself, all of his partners in crime, "al-CIA-duh", the far-"right" (really "left") extremists (or neither "left" nor "right"), the "RepugnantCONS", the "NeoCONS", the "NeoLibCONS", and all of the globalist corporate-neo-fascist elitist oligarchs who run the world and want us all totally under their thumb of absolute control and enslavement.
Enslavement is the absence of freedom(s) and liberty(ies). So, as much as most people have a problem with calling what the globalists are really up to, "enslavement", that is EXACTLY what it is, because what they are really up to is an eradication all True Liberty(ies) and Freedom(s), and Self-Governance.
The terrorists really DO hate us for our freedoms if you understand it in the context of the terrorists being the "global(ist)CONS", not the "Islamo-fascists". As long as we don't whip "our" so-called "democracy" on them, mind our own business, don't stick our noses in their business, and as long as we leave them well-enough alone (which is what the U.S. Constitution was ONLY designed for), the "Islamo-fascists" DON'T hate the U.S. for its freedoms (or former-freedoms), or Americans for their freedoms. But the "global(ist)CONS" DO hate all those who are Truly Free and Self-Governed, or who desire True Freedom and Self-Governance.
A-N-S, I fully believe, at
Fri, 07/23/2010 - 19:23 β MarbleRye (not verified)A-N-S, I fully believe, at the risk of sounding like a collectivist-anarchist, that in order to, as you say, wake the people up, and that we have to fight the elite to wrest back our liberties, the people of this country absolutely have to do two things: 1) unite, which is a task in itself, and 2) overthrow the elite, which would signal the end of this country for good or ill.
But for the unity to happen, it will take, IMO, a modern day Enlightenment period to sweep America ala the late '60s to plant the seeds of true change. If that happens, then the people will realize that when a nation has such systemic problems that are self-inflicting, a mere change in presidents or other politicians won't do. And right now, Americans as a general do not realize that, as with each passing election voters traipse to the booths not to vote FOR somebody as to rather vote AGAINST someone else. American voters are great at removing problem incumbents during election year, but are flat-out poor at putting in an upgraded replacement.
Example, Obama's victory wasn't a function of people believing in him as they simply wanted the Republicans out after they stuck by Bush/Cheneyt. Fast forward to 2 years later and many incumbents are on the hot seat as before, and Americans once again will enter the booths and vote AGAINST someone else instead of voting FOR someone they truly believe in. Until Americans realize the system is broken and to participate in said broken system only exacerbates the problem, not a lot will change. Recognizing this is key to exacting change.
(as a side note, this system is so broken that I haven't voted since '96, when I felt neither Clinton nor Dole were good candidates, and I voted for Dole for the hell of it yet walked out of the precinct that day feeling like a rube).
If my memory of world history serves, the groundwork is quickly being laid here in the US for its version of the French Revolution or perhaps similar to Czarist Russia pre-USSR. Not saying we should go communist obviously, but moreso as far as recognizing that we 1) in fact have a ruling elite (corporate, versus monarchial) who has a willing servant in all levels of government, and 2) it will, unfortunately, take blood in the streets to overthrow it as has been the case in just about every revolution in history. Whether corporate or monarchial, elite is elite, and when American recognize that simply recategorizing aristocracy or merely switching presidents or congressmen makes no difference as the end result is always the same.
But again, it will take a stepwise process among the middle- and lower-classes to pull this off, as they first must become enlightened, then unite, then confront. Perhaps when the middle-class comes to full awareness that it's on the brink of joining the lower-class, this process will begin.
Abused children who haven't
Fri, 07/23/2010 - 19:24 β Hittite City (not verified)Abused children who haven't been able to progress much in their inner soul-work (or -play!) tend to ask themselves, regarding their parents, "Now do you love me?" after their significant acts. (See the work of Alice Miller.)
The same often applies to the young person with a brutal or ambivalent/acting-out father and child-faithless mother, when that person volunteers in the military. He or she asks unconsciously, "Now do you love me?"--or says, with misplaced relief, "Now I am beyond your control!" But that person is not beyond rigid control, as anyone in the military knows, and the love does not occur, and the Self-love gets deterred, though its striving to exist never stops.
Children of soldiers suffer, too. I feared for, I loved, and--in an honest and hard-won way--I love my father. Yet when he returned to my family and me from World War II--after the unit he led entered Bastogne and later the Czech Socialist Republic, and after he helped liberate a concentration camp and served on a military war crimes tribunal--, he abused his children and his wife, slept around ('hitting on' women in my presence), and remained alcoholic and tobacco-addicted till he entered the hospital with lung cancer and died many years after the war.
He did some good things (at retirement he refused to enter the military-industrial revolving door, even then rightly calling it illegal; he wrote on other countries--though also on their capacities as enemies; he sponsored a Czech, met during the war, to come to the U.S. and to teach at the DLI), and he did a number of bad things. He and my brother never questioned or even discussed their childhoods or military service. Despite his achievements, ranks, battles, wounds, awards, appointments, and publications, he was not heroic in relation to family members' well-being and survival after the war, nor his own. He most probably experienced unassessed, undiagnosed, and untreated PTSD.
I am female and was too confused, in relation to having been abused by my father, as to how I could ever convince him properly "now to love me". I unsuccessfully tried the "Now I am beyond your control" route, picking domineering and abusive husbands. But I became an adult who questions and am ashamed of the military (though it nurtured my very existence) and terrible government, which permit themselves to exist unchecked. I also question baseless authority (including, when it shows up, my own).
I was relieved that my son was too old to be forced to register for a potential draft. But he disagrees with me on that conclusion of mine. His father was shot at in the 1940s in the Dutch army in colonized, occupied Indonesia.
Where does this multigovernmental, yet intra-personal, transpersonal, earthly horror end? Would you consider this reply?: It ends in how we treat our Selves and our children and grandchildren, above all with deep respect for their souls and lives, which are equal in value to ours. For me, that includes encouraging them not to go to war.
This is written by a mother, grandmother, and psychotherapist, now re-mated with her Korean War veteran former husband who searches his soul and who has cancer.... He (who can't see or hear well) does not feel William Astore's article goes far enough.
One fireman speaker and we agree that wars, like fires, are meant to be put out.
Preferably non-toxically!
A-N-S, I see your point
Fri, 07/23/2010 - 19:33 β MarbleRye (not verified)A-N-S, I see your point regarding Bush's double-speak on the definition of terrorists. I think the terrorists et all don't so much hate us for our freedoms, but rather they hate our international lawlessness and bullying. Because to Bush/Cheney/Corporate America, freedom is indeed tied to having zero accountability. Wall Street is a prime example of this.
I remember watching the movie "Che" starring Benicio Del Toro paying the title character. In the movie, I believe it was Guevara's address to the UN, he basically said that the Cuban people do not have a problem with the American people; only the American government. How true that is to reality, I don't know. But I do wish the terrorists do distinguish between the actions of our government and the American people. Perhaps they do, but American propaganda prevents us from knowing this.
Regardless, there is really no reason for the terrorists to attack us in hopes of destroying us. They're wasting their time, because we're doing a fine job of destroying ourselves on our own. It's only a matter of when, not if. Unless my aforementioned revolution happens.
"MarbleRye", recall that
Fri, 07/23/2010 - 21:56 β Anonymous-Non-Sheeple (not verified)"MarbleRye", recall that only a very small percentage of the "New England" colonists started the Revolutionary War; though, of course, many more joined with it later. (What was it again? Something like a paltry 7% started the Revolution?) The problem today is, though, that unless at least 51%, or 150 million, of the American people start the present-day revolution, they won't stand a chance against the "firepower" of the presently-tyrannical-despotic-traitorous-constituted government.
So you're right and I agree with you that we need a major awakening, and/or "enlightenment". There is a huge awakening going on right now, but it's nowhere near as big (close to that 51%) as it needs to, and must, be.
The problem with that necessary level of enlightenment and/or awakening coming to fruition, is that the level of "chemical-lobotomization", "dumbing-down", "washing-of-brains", programming, conditioning and indoctrination has been so thorough and successful that the odds seem to be largely against it. But, considering the "miracles" wrought by the colonists, starting out with only "7%" of the then-population, that does not necessarily mean that similar things couldn't happen today...
...Especially if enough U.S. government personnel, military personnel and state and local police, and/or former police, military and government personnel, wake up and realize that said revolution is our only option considering the level of absolute treason, despotism and tyranny that has come to exist today, and considering the true enemy's goal(s) of absolute enslavement of us all if we don't (at least seriously try to) stop it, or that will come about if we fail to do so...
Excellent comment, "Hittite City"!
ANS, if authorities
Sat, 07/24/2010 - 13:06 β MarbleRye (not verified)ANS, if authorities (government, police, etc) realize that they may be facing a revolution, I expect martial law to be implemented gradually, and that government will hire "security companies" to aid police, or perhaps replace them, in keeping the masses oppressed. Perhaps that's a reason as to why the US spends about as much on military as the rest of the nations combined, because they need that kind of firepower to quell uprisings. Remember, the masses in the late 60s brought about change in the face of uncontrolled police power (Kent State, etc), Our government, I think, has not forgotten that and is prepared to quash anything resembling any kind of Rights Movement.
I do agree once again with you, the Enlightenment and Unity I speak of is necessary but perhaps wishful thinking on my part given that Americans have allowed politicians to divide us into, mainly, two camps: the Conservative Right and the Liberal Left. Two things about that: 1) a divided people can't rise up against a monster power nation such as ours, and 2) there won't be any kind of revolution until the masses rebuff both Right and Left and go in a third, independent direction. For instance, if everyone decided to join the right (or left) nothing would change. United yes, but no change.
Outside of full-scale revolution, I do think one other option we may see: exodus. Fed up with the status quo, Americans over the next few decades may move to other countries of their choosing, selecting those that fit their beliefs and values. We kind of already see that a bit among Indians (not native Americans, rather people from the nation of India), as it's been reported that many native Indians who've come to America to attend college and learn how to do things the right way are now returning back to India, and taking their knowledge and skills they learned in America with them, which will only benefit India. We may see that with offspring of illegal immigrants, if they end up getting an American education and learning new skills and talents, they may take those back to Mexico or wherever and apply those traits there, thereby improving those nations.
But, I won't be shocked to learn in the future that many white Americans just decide that enough's enough and leave the US, for Europe, Canada (one of the world's best economies) or wherever. They'll realize that, perhaps, nations with better economies and true opportunity (not the 'land of equal opportunity' BS that has become more of a catchphrase than an ideology in America) will be the ones they want their kids to live in and thrive. Because they've long realized that there is no hope in America, unless you're the beneficiary of a cronyistic and nepotistic elite.
The American Paradigm must shift at the grassroots level among the middle- and lower-classes for this country to have any hope of reaching its economic and moral potential, and that's not happening, nor do I see signs of it ever happening.
will everyone reading this
Sat, 07/24/2010 - 19:03 β Anonymous (not verified)will everyone reading this piece whose earned his or hers combat infantry badge please raise their hand
Excellent points,
Sat, 07/24/2010 - 23:05 β Anonymous-Non-Sheeple (not verified)Excellent points, "MarbleRye"! But pretty soon they won't let any but the "privileged" leave the U.S., except those they can be relatively assured will return after their "vacations", "business trips", etc. Many Americans have already become "expatriots" (which does NOT mean they have stopped being patriotic or "patriotic") and permanently left the U.S. and moved abroad. The time is now, and there is no time to put it off anymore if people are seriously considering doing it; as they must do it before it's too late and they aren't allowed to leave, at least permanently.
I'm looking for someone of like-mind to move abroad with, and have been for a long time (but haven't found anyone, or the right person). Are you game?
Anonymous 15:23, please
Sun, 07/25/2010 - 19:59 β Anonymous (not verified)Anonymous 15:23, please explain how the War of 1812 was to protect American freedoms. You guys invaded Canada--and, furthermore, we beat you!
Marblerye, I agree with most of what you say, but when you say young people have "no excuse" for joining the military since there is no draft, you are forgetting the "economic draft". Your country has trashed its welfare system and my country, unfortunately, has been and still is doing a lot of copy-catting in that regard.
ANS, I would love to but 1)
Mon, 07/26/2010 - 15:32 β MarbleRye (not verified)ANS, I would love to but 1) I have a family to worry about, and "worry" is an apt description given what future my son has staring him in the face, and 2) I need to learn the language. Two years ago I told my wife I was very concerned about having a kid, but I didn't tell her one of the main reasons - that the child, in 15 years or so, will be staring down the barrel of a warped American that's only a shell of what it could have been had Reagan and Co. not been elected. I really do fear that, in his lifetime, he will become a man without a country.
Anonymous 19:59, very good point! I was indeed forgetting about those who have to join in order to leave their poor lot behind! And that's pretty sad, that many enlistees are joining not because they believe in this country or the war, but rather to escape something. Again, thanks for bringing up this point. Very good!
Anonymous 19:03, and your point is? That unless we've served we, as those who haven't but are still as much American as any soldier out there, have no right to criticize? If that's the case, you strengthen my argument about the overall philosophy and mentality this country has spiraled into. Great nations are built upon the masses having the right to criticize as they see fit. What you're implying is nothing short of low-level tyranny.
THE TITLE HEROES SHOULD BE
Mon, 07/26/2010 - 20:10 β cheyennebode (not verified)THE TITLE HEROES SHOULD BE APPLIED TO ALL THE BRAVES THAT REFUSE TO FIGHT IN THES TWO ILL..CONCEIVED WARS...IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN.. THEY ARE A GANGRENE... LEFT UNCHECKED WILL BREAK UP AMERICA IN A SLOW GRIND.
Thanks for writing this. I
Mon, 07/26/2010 - 21:29 β Bob (not verified)Thanks for writing this. I am a 74 year-old non-veteran. [Although I was in AFROTC for 1.5 semesters.]
I would not go so car as to call myself a pacifist, but coming a long line of Lutheran ministers, I am certainly quite anti-war.
And I find the glamorization of the military to be quite offensive in most regards. Nevertheless, I do respect those who serve although they are certainly not automatically heroes while many of them act as if they are even when they may never have experienced combat or done anything particularly heroic if they had.
Well, no rudeness intended,
Tue, 07/27/2010 - 02:37 β Anonymous-Non-Sheeple (not verified)Well, no rudeness intended, "MarbleRye", but I hear that "family" excuse all the time. Many American family members move abroud quite often, and the rest of their family come and visit or they don't, giving the latter some place to visit on vacations or whatever, with a free place to stay.
Evidently, even you have little or no idea how bad things ALREADY ARE in the U.S., and that there is not going to be another fifteen years without the complete takeover of corporate-fascism, and the U.S. being turned into a militarized police state.
We're already well on the way. I could list example after example, but with most people it just doesn't get through, they refuse to believe it, and/or they just ignore it. But I wasn't kidding AT ALL, if you're going to get out of this country, you need to get out NOW.
There is TRULY no time whatsoever to put it off. I personally would have been gone fifteen years ago, or especially starting about nine years ago, but I can't do it alone due to my low income and disabilities. It is no exaggeration at all that the U.S. is going to hell very fast.
Somebody out there got a home abroad that they don't live in full-time, and that they'd like a True American who they can truly trust to caretake for them? Heck, I'll even pay rent and take off when you're going to be visiting, and go stay in the hostels or wherever.
I've been disappointed by
Tue, 07/27/2010 - 06:09 β Anonymous (not verified)I've been disappointed by the way the word 'hero' has been thrown around too. War does not make one great though as the author pointed out being in the military does provide opportunities for heroism.
Leaving aside the abuse of the term for athletes who can dunk a basketball or 'go yard' on a ball diamond, the nation has also started to use the term hero for those who are basically victims.
While I'm certain that a number of the people who died on 9-11 were heroes, most were victims. Riding in a truck which is blown up by an IED doesn't make you a hero, but, rushing in under fire to try and drag one of those victims to safety would. Being a victim is not dishonorable.
In my opinion, heroism requires knowingly putting YOURSELF in danger to aid someone else.
Clearly, not all heroic acts involve risking one's life but those are the most obvious cases.
Btw, "MarbleRye", et al., I
Tue, 07/27/2010 - 17:49 β Anonymous-Non-Sheeple (not verified)Btw, "MarbleRye", et al., I forgot at the time to post a link to a great website on moving abroad, so here it is:
http://www.internationalliving.com/