Heroes?

After September 11, 2001 Americans almost universally proclaimed New York City firefighters, policemen, and even the Mayor as flawless heroes. Some even went as far as to call all firefighters and policemen heroes. Granted it was an emotional time, and I was willing to forgo the irrationality of a proclamation of heroism based solely on the performance of a job that one receives a paycheck for, but I can no longer hold my tongue as American soldiers are now proclaimed “heroes” as well.

Even Looking beyond the 15 civilians massacred at Haditha, the torture of prisoners at Abu-Ghraib, and the “untold thousands of Iraqi civilians [that]have been killed by US forces in conditions considered insufficiently atrocious to be worthy of investigation,” (Younge) American soldiers do not qualify.

According to the Wikipedia online dictionary, “Typically the willingness to sacrifice the self for the greater good is seen as the most important defining characteristic of a hero.” After looking through several different dictionary definitions I believe the following could be an acceptable universal definition of a hero: a person who shows great courage in an effort to help others regardless of the personal risk. While some soldiers may fit the criteria, they do not fit it in any greater abundance than the general population, and by no means can we bestow the title of hero on all American soldiers.

While fighting to defend one’s homeland may be heroic, blindly signing up in one of the most militarily aggressive nations in history is not. According to most definitions of heroism, the person must be sacrificing himself/herself for the greater good, but nearly the entire world has condemned the Iraq War. The pretext for invasion, Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction, has been proven to be a lie. The Americans have caused more suffering to “liberate” the Iraqi people than anything they endured under Saddam. And now, with a raging civil war, and the impending withdrawal of US forces, it appears to be only the beginning for the Iraqi people, with no signs of the “freedom” America had promised them in sight. The net outcome will be chaos in Iraq, millions dead, trillions of dollars wasted, a huge refugee problem, ethnic cleansing between Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd, and a greater world terrorist problem.

The war is definitely not for the greater good, but can a soldiers’ ignorance of the justification of a conflict a reasonable defense? Do American soldier’s “noble” intentions to serve their country automatically make them heroes? If so, then shouldn’t soldiers who fought for Germany in WWII, that did not know about the genocide, and truly believed they were fighting for their homeland’s “security” be deemed heroes as well? Or, how about the Al-Qaeda soldier who believes in the justification of his cause? There should be no double standard for Americans. Either a belief in the justification of a country’s cause is sufficient, or the soldier should be held accountable for the net outcome of the morality of the actions of their nation or group. If it’s the former then Al-Qaeda and Nazi soldiers are heroes as well.
I tend to agree with latter; even in an American criminal court one can not use ignorance of the law as a defense. If soldiers are held to the same standards as any other citizen then they are individually culpable for their participation in their groups/countries actions; and therefore German soldiers, Al-Qaeda, and American soldiers should all be deemed terrorists.

American’s are probably reeling back in their chairs right now thinking, Al-Qaeda soldiers signed up with the intent to commit atrocities and therefore they can not be deemed heroes, but both soldiers signed up believing their cause was just, and both groups/nations committed atrocities. The Al-Qaeda soldier can not know that blowing up a building for his religion is wrong, when he has been told throughout his life by every respected individual in his society that it’s right. American soldiers obviously don’t know it’s wrong to press a button that will drop a bomb killing Iraqi freedom fighters and civilians because their government has told them it’s right. The outcome is the same, people die and things get destroyed.

The next piece of the criteria American soldiers must possess to be called heroes is selflessness. Are they really “risking their lives for other American’s freedom?” I have to wonder how an American killing innocent Iraqis will increase anyone’s freedom. Even if terrorists planted 10 nuclear bombs in the largest U.S. cities, the constitution would not be changed. People would be dead, but Americans would be living under the same laws. They would have the same shattered bill of rights.

If anything American soldiers’ actions have put American’s freedom into the line of fire. The Iraq war has created more terrorists recruits, increased terrorist funding, and therefore increased the threat of future terrorist attacks, which then allows President Bush to use that fear to steal more freedom from the American population via legislation like the Patriot and Military Commissions Acts.

Instead of fighting inhumane, illegal wars, United States soldiers should be upholding their oath to defend the Constitution, even if that means standing up to President Bush for his treasonous actions. At this point it may even be better for the average American’s freedom if another country invaded the US. With draconian laws, a higher percentage of the American population under some form of correctional supervision than any other country in the world, and a non-existent bill of rights, an invading country may bring more freedom with it. After all the United States has ranked fairly lowly in freedom of the press and other human rights world rankings, and that was prior to the patriot and military commissions acts, which deprived Americans of any right to privacy. Although highly improbable, if the Netherlands invaded the US today, they would actually be significantly freer than they are today.

Looking beyond all of the propaganda and illusions, one must see that soldiering is not a heroic profession. These people are getting paid to do a job, and one that has done significant harm to humanity at that. Garbage men, janitors, teachers, and many others are paid to do jobs as well. What differentiates these people from an American soldier in Iraq is that they actually do something productive. One thing we know for sure is that soldiers aren’t getting paid for their contribution to humanity.

Although governments have glorified the honor and heroism in killing for one’s country it is no different than killing for any other reason. It may even be worse. Usually when a person kills another it’s for a rational reason like the other guy was sleeping with his wife, for monetary reasons, or maybe the other person just needed killing. When one kills for a country they get no personal reward, and they may not even know if they’re on the right side of things. In a war one has no idea if they’re killing a great man or a bad one. They may be killing a person who won the Nobel peace prize. At least in common murder one usually knows who they’re killing and why. When one goes to a criminal court no one really cares if they had a good reason to kill the other person. They can get a lesser charge for it, but whether its murder 1, murder 2, or murder 3, they still call it murder.

Maybe it’s the inherent danger that makes people think of soldiers as heroes. Of course that very danger is what they are getting paid for isn’t it? That is the job description. For example, what would happen if firefighters only got paid to put out fires that posed no risk to their lives or if policemen only had to catch the non-dangerous criminals?

Though government, the press, and soldiers themselves continue play up this image of sacrifice and personal risk to bolster their image, the truth is, most of our current military in Iraq signed up well before the war, in pursuit of safe positions in the National Guard or the Reserves. I personally witnessed my military recruiters tell my friends and myself that we would never be called to war if we signed up in the guard or reserves. They told us that wars were fought with technology and not people nowadays. They told us that the most we would have to do is press a button to drop a bomb on someone. Even now, post Iraq war, CNN has caught recruiters lying to kids about the war being over and they won’t have to go if they sign up. So, if one signs up not despite the danger, but because they don’t feel there is any danger then they are not really consciously taking a risk. When the war comes, they have no choice, either they fight, thereby “taking a risk” or they are court-martialed for cowardice, and possibly shot, or at the least discharged and forever disgraced back home. That’s not much of a risk. In fact, the real risk would be doing the honorable thing and refusing to fight in an illegal war. Going to Iraq is the easy way out. In Iraq they face the 10% chance they will be wounded or killed, but by acting morally they face a much greater chance of facing a court-martial and the brig.

If it’s not the danger then maybe it’s their self-less motivation that we admire, but do soldiers really enlist for selfless reasons? While we like to pretend that the pay does not motivate a soldier to enlist, or a fireman to apply, that would be fairly naive. There’s a reason the United States military has to offer a free education and many other benefits to get soldiers to sign up. If people were enlisting for patriotic reasons alone, recruiters would not have to sell the economic benefits. In fact, recruiters shouldn’t have to sell it at all. When we add up all of their pay including: tuition, medical benefits, retirement benefits, housing, hazardous duty pay, etc… they are making a very nice living. With all of the added wartime pay, a brand new enlistee can make as much as $50,000 a year, tax free. That’s far more than other 18-22 year olds would make with similar education and experience.

So what are they expected to do for that money? Their only job is to train to fight, and then fight when necessary. Should they be praised then for doing what they are paid to do? For example, what would you think of a person who signs on as a crab fisherman; which by the way is actually more dangerous than enlisting in the military during peacetime, and didn’t fish? The public would think they are worthless, and as well they should. What would you think of that same fisherman that took the job, got paid and fished? That would be expected, just as fighting is expected for a soldier. There is nothing heroic about doing a job that one is paid to do. If one doesn’t do it they are derelict in their duties, and if one does it, it’s not heroic, but simply what they have been paid to do. In this case the fisherman has actually done more for his country than the soldier. He is providing food for his country men and some economic benefit as well. The soldier in Iraq on the other hand is busy destroying things and killing people, while hurting our freedom.