Wilkinson on Hero Inflation

By On May 29, 2012 · 5 Comments · In Current Events

Here.

Calling “hero” everyone killed in war, no matter the circumstances of their death, not only helps sustain the ethos of martial glory that keeps young men and women signing up to kill and die for the state, no matter the justice of the cause, but also saps the word of meaning, dishonouring the men and women of exceptional courage and valour actually worthy of the title. The cheapening of “hero” is a symptom of a culture desperate to evade serious moral self-reflection by covering itself in indiscriminate glory for undertaking wars of dubious value. A more confident culture would not react with such hostility to Mr Hayes’ admirable, though cautiously hedged, expression of discomfort with our truly discomfiting habit of numbing ourselves to the reality of often senseless sacrifice with posturing piety and too-easy posthumous praise.

Indeed, the adolescent vehemence of the reaction to Mr Hayes’ mild confession seems to me to underscore the idea that America has become so deranged by war that anyone who ventures to publicly question any element of America’s cultural politics of endless conflict will instantly mobilise indignant hordes who will bear down to silence him.

 

 

 
  • billwald

    Better “hero” devalued than the draft resumed. I have grand kids turning 18.

  • TJ

    The American martial ethos is not glory.  Anyone who spent anytime among American servicemen would find the vast majority humble and note that glory seekers were shunned.  The justness of the cause is not theirs to decide.  St. Augustine and the Constitutionally constituted powers do that.  However, those who take the King’s silver may be required to give their life to save my family’s.  Medic, motorpool, machinist mate, personnel officer it makes no difference.  When the Hun is at the gates they will all be between the enemy and my children.  This in itself does not make them valorous (we recognize these soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen with additional honors) but it is sufficient to earn them “hero” status for me and my family.  Admiring each and every one of them cheapens their status in my eyes not a bit.  My criteria for military “hero” is a standard not a scarcity.  Perhaps this is what Mr. Wilkinson fails to grasp about those who do not share his thesis.

  • Joseph Stromberg

    Opinions among the rank and file differ considerably. Over the years, I have met Vietnam veterans who were 1) zombies, 2) thought the war was one giant beer party, 3) enjoyed shooting ‘zips’ and cutting off body parts.  The one officer I personally know from that war helped found the Broward County (Florida) Chapter of Vietnam Veterans against the War as soon as he got back.

    At the command level, American militarists (including presidents and advisers) have generally favored using maximum firepower to destroy the enemy in the field and (especially) to flatten the enemy’s home society, civilians be damned.  If there’s an ‘ethos’ in there, it is one we can do without.

    If the country is corrupt beyond recall (as it probably is), militarism has played its role.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Roderick-Tracy-Long/1037941173 Roderick Tracy Long

    To quote The Americanization of Emily, “we perpetuate war by exalting its sacrifices.”

  • j_m_h

    I think TJ makes an excellent point. Moreover, I’m not sure what Wilkenson’s really saying here. Is he suggesting that we’re confusing those who died in actual combat situations with those who dies in stupid events, e.g., the driver of the truck taking the new recruits to the front line losses control and drives off a bridge killing all.

    Or perhaps he’s suggesting that some of those who died in battle were cowering in fear, shooting randomly and probably not hitting anything? 

    Or perhaps we shouldn’t call those who die due to friendly fire hero.

    In all of the above cases I’m not sure how this relates to “martial glory that keeps young men and women signing up to kill and die for the state”. When I was in the Army the vast majority of enlisted people were there for economic reasons — few wanted the opportunity to fight in some war. It is true the those seeking careers recognized that actual combat experience would increase their opportunities to advance. That’s a slightly different take though.

    What I also find interesting is that there’ plenty of interest from those who are exposed to no risk in “martial glory”. All on needs to do is pay attention to TV, Film and video games. So I’d really ask WIlkenson if the driving force that he’s so upset with is something that originates within the military or if the origin is elsewhere in society.

    I do agree that as a society, these days we seem more prone to escalate the level of violence — be it gang/drug, policing or military — rather than seeking peaceful resolution.