About Heroes and Heroism . . .

A recent short discussion here got me to thinking.

Yeah, I know – that’s dangerous. But I sometimes take that risk. And yeah, it often gets me in trouble. (smile)

What follows is my perspective, my opinion. I don’t claim to be a world-class expert on the subject.

But I have spent my entire life associated, in one form or another, with the US military. So perhaps I’m not completely out to lunch here. And I apologize in advance for the length. Consider yourself forewarned. (smile)

Obligatory disclaimer: although I’ve used male gender pronouns and the term “soldier” in what I’ve written below, my intent is neither to be service-specific nor gender-exclusive. In what I say below I’m referring to military personnel of both genders and to members of all services – Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. I simply find repeatedly writing “his or her”, “himself/herself”, “soldier/sailor/airman/marine”, and similar wordy expressions cumbersome as hell.

Terms of Use – and Abuse

The terms duty, courage, and heroism often are used carelessly in discussions of military conduct. They seem sometimes to be used nearly interchangeably.

To use them interchangeably is not correct. These terms refer to three different concepts. They are interrelated, but they are distinct.

One of these terms – heroism – is far more commonly abused than are the other two. IMO it’s now so abused as to now obscure its meaning.

But understanding the other two concepts is essential to understanding the third. So I’ll discuss all three.

Duty

Duty is not strictly a military concept. It’s actually fairly universal. But it’s the most fundamental of the three concepts.

Religions talk about moral duties. Politicians and polysci professors talk about the duties of citizens. Occupations and professions impose duties. Parents and children have duties. The law can impose duties –sometimes even making it your duty to pay a duty. (smile)

The concept of duty is very simple to understand. Essentially, performing your duty means “fulfilling your obligations.” Plain and simple.

Examples are easy to list. A few obvious ones:

— If you are a policeman, you have an obligation – a duty – to enforce the law and to protect the public. You accept that duty by becoming a policeman.
— If you are a parent, you have an obligation – a duty – to provide for your children. You accept that duty when you opt to raise a child.
— If you are a citizen, you have an obligation – a duty – to be loyal to your country. You accept that duty by living there.
— If you are a soldier, you have an obligation – a duty – to defend your country. In our country at least, you accept that obligation by enlisting (or by accepting a commission).

Is performing your duty always easy? Hell no. Often it’s inconvenient. At times, it’s unpleasant or costly. Sometimes it’s against your own best interests. Under the right conditions, doing your duty can be quite painful.

And on occasion, performing your duty can literally risk your health – or life.

Other than duties imposed by law, in our society the performance of duty is virtually always the result of an obligation freely accepted. But willingness to fulfill obligations – the concept of duty – IS important. IMO how well a society functions primarily depends on how well the members of that society adhere to the concept of duty.

Since obligations are generally freely accepted, if you have a problem with taking on a given set of obligations, the time to think that through is before you assume them – not after.

For the military, I hold that the concept of duty is fundamental. In our military, on entry a soldier voluntarily takes on three key obligations: defense of Constitution, allegiance to nation, and obedience of lawful orders. Additionally, an officer explicitly obligates himself to “well and faithfully perform the duties” of his position. The concept of duty – that is, performing these voluntarily-assumed obligations, even when unpleasant, costly, or dangerous – forms the basis from which all else military follows. That’s precisely why these obligations are made explicit in the oaths of enlistment and commissioning.

Moreover, the concept of duty is also absolutely essential. Why? The “game” of war is deadly serious, and is “played” for high-stakes. All of a unit’s personnel performing their assigned duties is required if a unit is to accomplish its assigned missions; each soldier must trust one other to do their assigned tasks. Without the concept of duty, some may not perform their assigned tasks, this trust will not exist – and the unit may fail.

Courage

Military service is inherently dangerous. Sometimes accomplishing a mission means – quite literally – that not all involved will come back safe and sound. However, this risk is also well-known, and is one that each soldier voluntarily assumed on entry.

In a dangerous situation, fear is normal; no sane person wants to be seriously injured or killed. The expectation of how one will cope with this fear, however, is different in the military than it is in most other occupations. This leads to the next item of discussion: courage.

The concept of courage is likewise a key element of military service. It’s also similarly likewise simple to understand.

Stripped down to its essence, courage means doing one’s duty even when it is inconvenient, costly, or dangerous. Or, if you prefer, doing what you know is right – even when it hurts.

Courage is expected of every decent individual; courage comes in many forms. Every religion imposes duties on its adherents. Every religion thus requires moral courage.

Moral courage is obviously needed in the military. It’s the driving force behind a soldier choosing to perform his or her duty.

But military service requires more than moral courage. At times, physical courage – the willingness to risk life and limb in the service of a cause, or of others – is also required.

The reason for this is simple: the “final exam:” for the soldier is combat. During combat, some will be injured – and some will die. Members of a unit depend on each other; the failure of one soldier to do his duty may cost other soldiers their lives. So every soldier must be able to depend on those in his unit, even when things get crazy – and scary as hell.

The military “final exam” of combat is literally a life and death undertaking involving risk to life and limb. To a lesser degree, so is the training undertaken to prepare a soldier for this final exam. Therefore, a soldier’s performance of duty under conditions of personal risk is not optional – it is an integral part of military service.

Because of these circumstances, military service – as well as selected other nonmilitary professions – requires and expects a degree of physical courage as well as moral. This requirement is simply inherent in the profession of arms. Anyone who performs service in the military is therefore expected to have a certain degree of physical courage. However, there are common-sense limits to what is expected in the way of physical courage; these limits bound and form the norms associated with physical courage in the military. All soldiers are expected to meet these basic norms.

An example may illustrate these limits. No soldier who yells a warning, then dives for cover on seeing a grenade land near him – or on hearing the whistle or zoom of incoming artillery or rocket fire – is considered a coward. Hell, that’s what you’re trained to do to save your butt! But all soldiers are expected to perform their duties in spite of these risks rather than be paralyzed by fear and unable to function. Some risks come with the territory; you deal with them and carry on.

Heroism and Heroes

First, the terms. Let me be clear: in discussing “heroism” and “heroes”, I’m not talking about anything related to a sandwich, the leading character in a work of literature, or some human-god hybrid out of Greek mythology. (smile)

I’m talking about the common usage of the words. And I’m speaking about the person referred to by such common usage.

In my view, today we horribly overuse the term “hero”, nearly to the point of making it effectively meaningless. We have sports “heroes”, medical “heroes”, financial “heroes”, political “heroes”, “heroes” of science, of medicine, of engineering – heroes of virtually every profession and/or occupation. We use the term as a replacement, it seems, of the term “star” or “celebrity”. Indeed, one of the accepted definitions of the term “hero” has become “a person noted for special achievement in a particular field”.

This is grossly inaccurate. By this usage, we’ve markedly devalued the term. And as a result, we’ve lost sight of what the terms “hero” and “heroism” really mean – particularly in a military context.

Not everyone who does something outstanding deserves to be called a hero. And not all who serve, even at personal risk or under difficult conditions, are heroes.

Heroism requires more than that.

IMO, a soldier simply doing his expected and assigned duty, even if that duty is dangerous and requires the courage normally expected of any soldier, does not qualify as a hero – any more than a policeman walking his beat in a rough part of town qualifies as a hero. Yes, both are indeed facing danger. But the danger they face is simply that which is inherent in their profession. Both are exhibiting courage by facing this danger voluntarily, and by doing their duty in spite of that risk.

But merely doing this – facing routine but dangerous duty while exhibiting the courage routinely expected of those in a particular profession – is not heroism. In these situations, all the soldier and policeman are doing is showing the normal and expected degree of courage that is required of anyone who has voluntarily taken on the obligations inherent in their profession. It may be admirable and deserving of praise – but it’s not “heroic”.

In a military context, the term “heroism” has a specific meaning. And that meaning is quite restricted.

In military parlance, a hero is one who has exhibited uncommon valor. That is, a hero is that soldier who – when faced with a situation involving risk to life or limb – has exhibited uncommon courage in order to accomplish an assigned mission or in an attempt to save another’s life.

A closer look indicates that, in a military context, heroism has two components. The first requirement is situation that calls for an act of uncommon courage – courage beyond the accepted norm for the military profession. The second requirement is an individual who, on finding himself in such a situation, does indeed perform such an act of uncommon courage. Take away either, and you do not have heroism. Or a hero.

When you have both, then – and only then – you have heroism. And by definition, you also have a hero who performed said heroic act.

Heroism of this sort is not limited to the military. Members of other professions – police, firemen, and other emergency response personnel come to mind – also from time-to-time find themselves in such a situation and are called upon to perform such acts. But the nature of warfare guarantees that war provides ample opportunities for heroic conduct.

A short example may illustrate the point I’m trying to make more clearly. A soldier who steadfastly engages the enemy in a firefight, then renders aid to a wounded fellow soldier afterwards and carries that soldier to the nearest aid station for treatment is IMO not a hero. He’s a fine soldier who acted bravely by performing his duty during a time of great risk, and may have saved another soldier’s life. But that’s no more than is expected of any soldier – fight bravely, and care for your wounded comrades afterwards. That was his duty, and he performed it well. Commendable, yes – but not heroic.

However, when a medic knowingly treats a wounded soldier who has a live RPG round embedded in his body; when a MEDEVAC crew, knowing the conditions, evacuates that same soldier for treatment; when medical and EOD teams work together to operate on that soldier and save his life by removing that live round – well, that takes uncommon courage. This latter conduct is indeed heroism; these individuals are indeed deserving of being called “heroes”.

And in case anyone reading is wondering: no, this second example is not hypothetical. In this case, reality was truly amazing – and humbling. And those involved were indeed deserving of the title “heroes”.

Truly heroic conduct is a rare and absolutely awe-inspiring thing, whether in a military or civilian setting. However, we’ve cheapened the term. We now call those who merely do something well, or something difficult, “heroes”. As a result, we effectively no longer have an appropriate term for those who exhibit true heroism – and the significance is lost.

It’s very difficult to honor – or even remember – true heroism when we call everyone under the sun who does something that’s merely difficult or outstanding a “hero”. And that’s damned unfortunate.

. . .

Why post this today today? Hell, I don’t know. I gave up trying to figure out why a particular thought enters my mind years ago. But for some reason, this just seems like an appropriate day. And discussion of heroes and heroism – and the current abuse of the term – has been a recent theme on more than one thread here at TAH.

Yes I’ve served; I did my duty. I’m certainly no hero. But I’ve met a few individuals who legitimately were. And seeing the term cheapened pains me – particularly today.

“Poor is the nation that has no heroes, but beggared is the nation that has heroes and forgets them.”

Category: Military issues, Pointless blather, Who knows