“I am always humbled in the presence of warriors.”

You speak with that odd combination of arrogance and lack of critical sense that seems to be the particular provender of Americans.

Whilst I agree with some of your sentiments in some fashion I find your delivery distasteful and galling.

"recognised as a scholar", "you're all naive and arrogant" etc...I just...oh....just...nevermind.

I think my struggle with the glorification of the armed forces is that it assumes a level of responsibility on the part of the troops which simply doesn't exist. Whether a soldier fights for a just cause or an unjust one is not his decision - it is the decision of his country's leadership. The idea of giving up responsibility for one's actions makes me deeply uneasy, particularly when those actions are likely to have fatal consequences. You describe being a soldier in war as a 'sacrifice' but when the sacrifice is not one you have chosen, where is its meaning? It's all reliant on a 'my country right or wrong' attitude.

There are plenty of positives about military service, but there isn't any escaping the fact that a serving front line soldier makes the decision that, should they be instructed to do so, they will attempt to kill a human being regardless of their own feelings on the matter. And that worries me.

You speak with that odd combination of arrogance and lack of critical sense that seems to be the particular provender of Americans.

Whilst I agree with some of your sentiments in some fashion I find your delivery distasteful and galling.

"recognised as a scholar", "you're all naive and arrogant" etc...I just...oh....just...nevermind.

Being a solider during peace time is just a job. Being a Solider in war is a sacrifice, no matter what salary they receive.

Most students, especially the ones that perceive themselves as intellectuals, are naive and arrogant at the same time. That is an absurd combination of traits. Their failure is that they permit a contempt for war to cloud their judgement. They choose to judge soldiers by the motivation for their service, instead of understanding the value of their experience. Students struggle with the value of experience, because they have none.

“Not all soldiers are heros.” This statement is very true as well. Still, there are certainly more heros in a barracks than in a dormitory. Perhaps it is just a matter of circumstance, or perhaps there are more subconscious factors at play. I don’t really care. What I know is that war is terrible. It is an uncommon experience. Those that emerge with their lives, minds, and character in tact, often emerge with a conviction and credibility that is uncommon.

I have served as a solider, and I have also been recognized as a scholar. I value both sides of my persona. I feel blessed in regards to the company I have been able to keep. I can tell you that my experiences with intellectuals have left me stimulated and informed. My experiences with soldiers have left me inspired. Appreciation and gratitude for our soldiers is not an endorsement for war.

“I am always humbled in the presence of warriors.”

There are plenty of positives about military service, but there isn't any escaping the fact that a serving front line soldier makes the decision that, should they be instructed to do so, they will attempt to kill a human being regardless of their own feelings on the matter. And that worries me.

I think that's an oversimplification of the Rules of Engagement under which all Forces [certainly UK Forces] operate. In a warzone it's simply not the case that you're instructed to kill. You're instructed to take whatever actions necessary in order to prevent someone coming to harm, to clear a building, to free a hostage, etc etc. If you can deter someone from attempting to kill another by simply showing up and being a presence - expending no ammunition in the process - then that's what you do. A 'Show of Force' has become a common effect in recent conflicts.
Saying that the order is "to kill" is a crude and sounds somewhat ignorant of what it is that goes on.

There is a lot more to being a 'hero' than just fighting in a war.

Building on my point above. It takes more than just fighting in a war to be a warrior mate. A good deal of people in the armed forces are better trained, better equipped and have a far greater chance of surviving combat than the people they are fighting against. They are more likely to see their families again than any Taliban fighter. It is easier to be brave when the adversity you face is not so nearly as big a threat. In truth, Warriors exist on all sides everywhere. They exist in dorms, they exist on the street and yes, they exist on the battlefield, but not in the numbers that you imply. Do not idealise soldiers and accept that, like in all walks life, the real heroes are the ones you do not see. And those are soldiers and civilians alike.

Look at this website for infinite amounts of real world heroes.

http://www.givesmehope.com/

I think to say "all a hero needs do is face adversity" cheapens the title. According to that definition there is a hero on every street. That may be a nice sentiment but you are making the idea of a hero a common thing. Perhaps that is your intention.

I am arguing semantics but you would label me a hero five time over. I don't presume to place my deeds as equal in conviction, courage, and sacrifice to Mohammad Ali Dadkhah, or his client Youcef Nadarkhani. Those two men are heros, not myself, or a student/part time waitress, or a gay couple. All those people may exhibit admirable traits, but to me hero should mean something more than that. It requires more than just character. It also requires the right circumstance and a choice. It just so happens that an environment of war is more likely to produce such a circumstance than most.

The point of the op was not to suggest that only soldiers are worthy of the title. The op was a retort to those who wish to dismiss their worthiness as irrelevant because "they are doing a job." More people in wartime have proven themselves as worthy of the title than those of us living in relative security. The distinction may be a matter of circumstance, but it is no less profound.

It cheapens the title does it? Do you think being a 'hero' is a golden badge of honor? An object of prestige that must be protected? Tell me, do you believe heroism to be an exact, objective exhibition of struggle? Surely you are aware that struggles are entirely relative to who we are as human beings? A marathon runner would not struggle to run a kilometer, but a clinically obese man would. A man who is innately headstrong and brave is not necessarily as brave as a coward who forces himself to face his fear. Its when we do things that are otherwised percieved, both by us and others, that the truth of heroism comes out. A soldier is not a hero insofar as he has been conditioned to exist in that environment, they are trained to perform that role. He is not a hero by virtue of being a soldier, he becomes a hero, like anyone else can, by overcoming an adversity which defies the apparent means in which we can act.
Heroism IS a a common thing, stop tying it to some abstract idealisation of an objective struggle, but instead look at it through the eyes of each and every individual. We are all unique, and therefore all of our actions cannot be judged the same. In the same way, if a man gives a £100 to charity when he only takes home £200 a week it means more than a man who takes home £2000 a week also giving a £100.



True heroism is modest. You are proud of the result of your actions as a hero, not of the action itself, otherwise it is just plain selfishness. Your statement that I would consider you a 'hero five times over' paints to me the image of somebody who is not a hero. A hero does not do things for the sake of recognition, nor would he even acknowledge those deeds to someone else to provide a loose fitting argument.
People are heroes in different ways, you seem to only think heroism occurs when death is a threat. Don't be so naive. No, as I have said before, people who are conditioned to war know how to deal with war. Its the people who DON'T know how to deal with something but pull through anyway who are heroes. Those that defy the odds.



No, they haven't, stop pulling idealised bull**** out of your ass for a second. As I have said before, on the criteria which heroism is judged there are hundreds of thousands of millions of silent heroes all over the world. That already outnumbers every military organisation in the world. However, not to say there are no heroes in the military. In the military, in the same manner, great adversity and what seems like obstacles one can never overcome exist, and the people who do succeed are the heroes. But it is certainly not as many as you believe it is.


-Yours a Young Staff Sgt

Being a soldier during peace time is just a job. Being a Soldier in war is a sacrifice, no matter what salary they receive.

Yep. It's a shame they're sacrificing their lives for the profits of oil corporations, huh?

It. Is. Spelt.

S O L D I E R

If I see "solider" one more time I might just hang myself.