A recent short discussion here got me to thinking. <\/p>\n
Yeah, I know \u2013 that\u2019s dangerous. But I sometimes take that risk. And yeah, it often gets me in trouble. (smile)<\/p>\n
What follows is my perspective, my opinion. I don\u2019t claim to be a world-class expert on the subject. <\/p>\n
But I have spent my entire life associated, in one form or another, with the US military. So perhaps I\u2019m not completely out to lunch here. And I apologize in advance for the length. Consider yourself forewarned. (smile)<\/p>\n
Obligatory disclaimer: although I\u2019ve used male gender pronouns and the term \u201csoldier\u201d in what I\u2019ve written below, my intent is neither to be service-specific nor gender-exclusive. In what I say below I\u2019m referring to military personnel of both genders and to members of all services \u2013 Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. I simply find repeatedly writing \u201chis or her\u201d, \u201chimself\/herself\u201d, \u201csoldier\/sailor\/airman\/marine\u201d, and similar wordy expressions cumbersome as hell.<\/p>\n
Terms of Use \u2013 and Abuse<\/strong><\/p>\n The terms duty, courage, and heroism often are used carelessly in discussions of military conduct. They seem sometimes to be used nearly interchangeably.<\/p>\n To use them interchangeably is not correct. These terms refer to three different concepts. They are interrelated, but they are distinct.<\/p>\n One of these terms \u2013 heroism \u2013 is far more commonly abused than are the other two. IMO it\u2019s now so abused as to now obscure its meaning. <\/p>\n But understanding the other two concepts is essential to understanding the third. So I\u2019ll discuss all three.<\/p>\n Duty<\/strong><\/p>\n Duty is not strictly a military concept. It\u2019s actually fairly universal. But it\u2019s the most fundamental of the three concepts.<\/p>\n 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 \u2013sometimes even making it your duty to pay a duty. (smile)<\/p>\n The concept of duty is very simple to understand. Essentially, performing your duty means \u201cfulfilling your obligations.\u201d Plain and simple. Examples are easy to list. A few obvious ones:<\/p>\n Is performing your duty always easy? Hell no. Often it\u2019s inconvenient. At times, it\u2019s unpleasant or costly. Sometimes it\u2019s against your own best interests. Under the right conditions, doing your duty can be quite painful. <\/p>\n And on occasion, performing your duty can literally risk your health \u2013 or life.<\/p>\n 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 \u2013 the concept of duty \u2013 IS important. IMO how well a society functions primarily depends on how well the members of that society adhere to the concept of duty. <\/p>\n 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 \u2013 not after.<\/p>\n 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 \u201cwell and faithfully perform the duties\u201d of his position. The concept of duty \u2013 that is, performing these voluntarily-assumed obligations, even when unpleasant, costly, or dangerous \u2013 forms the basis from which all else military follows. That\u2019s precisely why these obligations are made explicit in the oaths of enlistment and commissioning.<\/p>\n Moreover, the concept of duty is also absolutely essential. Why? The \u201cgame\u201d of war is deadly serious, and is \u201cplayed\u201d for high-stakes. All of a unit\u2019s 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 \u2013 and the unit may fail. <\/p>\n Courage<\/strong><\/p>\n Military service is inherently dangerous. Sometimes accomplishing a mission means \u2013 quite literally \u2013 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. <\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n The concept of courage is likewise a key element of military service. It\u2019s also similarly likewise simple to understand. <\/p>\n Stripped down to its essence, courage means doing one\u2019s duty even when it is inconvenient, costly, or dangerous. Or, if you prefer, doing what you know is right \u2013 even when it hurts.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Moral courage is obviously needed in the military. It\u2019s the driving force behind a soldier choosing to perform his or her duty.<\/p>\n But military service requires more than moral courage. At times, physical courage \u2013 the willingness to risk life and limb in the service of a cause, or of others \u2013 is also required.<\/p>\n The reason for this is simple: the \u201cfinal exam:\u201d for the soldier is combat. During combat, some will be injured \u2013 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 \u2013 and scary as hell. <\/p>\n The military \u201cfinal exam\u201d 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\u2019s performance of duty under conditions of personal risk is not optional – it is an integral part of military service.<\/p>\n Because of these circumstances, military service \u2013 as well as selected other nonmilitary professions \u2013 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. <\/p>\n 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\u2019s what you\u2019re 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.<\/p>\n Heroism and Heroes<\/strong> <\/p>\n First, the terms. Let me be clear: in discussing \u201cheroism\u201d and \u201cheroes\u201d, I\u2019m 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) <\/p>\n I\u2019m talking about the common usage of the words. And I\u2019m speaking about the person referred to by such common usage.<\/p>\n In my view, today we horribly overuse the term \u201chero\u201d, nearly to the point of making it effectively meaningless. We have sports \u201cheroes\u201d, medical \u201cheroes\u201d, financial \u201cheroes\u201d, political \u201cheroes\u201d, \u201cheroes\u201d 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 \u201cstar\u201d or \u201ccelebrity\u201d. Indeed, one of the accepted definitions of the term \u201chero\u201d has become \u201ca person noted for special achievement in a particular field\u201d. <\/p>\n This is grossly inaccurate. By this usage, we\u2019ve markedly devalued the term. And as a result, we\u2019ve lost sight of what the terms \u201chero\u201d and \u201cheroism\u201d really mean \u2013 particularly in a military context. <\/p>\n 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. <\/p>\n Heroism requires more than that.<\/p>\n 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. <\/p>\n But merely doing this \u2013 facing routine but dangerous duty while exhibiting the courage routinely expected of those in a particular profession \u2013 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 \u2013 but it\u2019s not \u201cheroic\u201d.<\/p>\n In a military context, the term \u201cheroism\u201d has a specific meaning. And that meaning is quite restricted.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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 \u2013 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.<\/p>\n When you have both, then \u2013 and only then \u2013 you have heroism. And by definition, you also have a hero who performed said heroic act.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n A short example may illustrate the point I\u2019m 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\u2019s a fine soldier who acted bravely by performing his duty during a time of great risk, and may have saved another soldier\u2019s life. But that\u2019s no more than is expected of any soldier \u2013 fight bravely, and care for your wounded comrades afterwards. That was his duty, and he performed it well. Commendable, yes \u2013 but not heroic.<\/p>\n 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 \u2013 well, that takes uncommon courage. This latter conduct is indeed heroism; these individuals are indeed deserving of being called \u201cheroes\u201d.<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n
\n — If you are a parent, you have an obligation \u2013 a duty \u2013 to provide for your children. You accept that duty when you opt to raise a child.
\n — If you are a citizen, you have an obligation \u2013 a duty \u2013 to be loyal to your country. You accept that duty by living there.
\n — If you are a soldier, you have an obligation \u2013 a duty \u2013 to defend your country. In our country at least, you accept that obligation by enlisting (or by accepting a commission).<\/li>\n