The devil’s advocate: The problem with “heroes”
| March 14, 2012 | Posted by James Harle under national |
Azhar Ahmed, 19, will appear in court on March 20th. His alleged crime is that he committed a racially aggravated public order offence – in the form of posts on his Facebook page. According to a police spokesperson Ahmed was bemoaning the attention given to the six soldiers who recently died in Afghanistan, as compared with the loss of civilian life under OEF. What exactly he said is as yet unknown, but the spokesman suggested that: “he didn’t make his point very well and that is why he has landed himself in bother.”
I agree with Ahmed’s sentiment; I find coverage of army fatalities uninteresting. I don’t know who these articles reach out to – outside of direct acquaintances of the soldiers involved, they must have little resonance. Some would argue, no doubt, that the nation needs to know the names of these ‘heroes’, in much the same way as we remember those who died in the world wars with various monuments. I disagree, and I think the time spent covering them could be far better spent elsewhere.
Dying does not make you a hero. Even dying for a good cause does not make you a hero, per se. I find the coverage patronising in its perpetual surprise; the attitude is that whenever a specific soldier dies, it comes as a shock. It’s not a shock. We’re at war, and in war you expect casualties and deaths. Since 2001 Britain has lost 404 soldiers in the Middle East conflicts. I think that’s actually not bad going for such a long war. If anything, I’m surprised more soldiers haven’t died. The civilian deaths receive less coverage, and yet are less anticipated – like Ahmed, I see a problem with that.
It is a soldier’s job to fight and risk death. It’s in the job description, and those who do the job have chosen it. Soldiers aren’t drafted into the army; they choose to join it for money and for a job. That’s not heroic, that’s choosing a career path, and those who join said career path deserve no more and no less respect than those who join accounting, marketing or advertising. The pay is proportional only to the difficulty of the job, and if it’s not you are free at any time to choose a different job.
In fact, you hear a lot of very negative stories about our so-called heroes. Take trophy-killing, for example, or the recent viral clip of a group of soldiers beating a sheep to death. These aren’t necessarily representative, of course – but every soldier acquiesces to the possibility of killing another human being in order to collect their wage packet. That doesn’t sound heroic to me. It sounds psychotic. It’s not the sort of mentality I’d wish for in a neighbour – in fact, I’d like that sort of ‘hero’ to stay in Afghanistan indefinitely.
Not all troops are heroes. Some undoubtedly are, but not all. They’re just people doing a job. They’re not the drafted and martyred sons of the first world war, and they don’t deserve the equal remembrance suggested by last November’s poppy appeal. In fact, I think their inclusion devalues the heroism of fighters in both world wars. Support and interest is far from unanimous, and acting as if it is will only cause more problems down the line.
Hero is certainly not the word I would use. I don’t know whose heroes these people are, but they’re not mine.
Fantastic article mate I completely agree!
Wow, such ignorance, I barely know where to start.
Yes it is a soldier’s job to work in dangerous environments, and so you might expect their deaths to be reported with as much prominence as say, a police officer’s, fire fighter’s, or in fact that of any civilian who dies in a road accident or deliberate killing in this country would be. Or are you suggesting none of those should be reported either? Actually I’m sure you are bored by all those too and spend your time better, by writing silly, confused articles such as this one.
You apparently have forgotten that the killings of 16 Afghans was given a lot of prominence this week too. And that wasn’t the first time. Not to mention that the perpetrator will be prosecuted.
And of course ‘negative stories’ aren’t just confined to members of the armed forces. More like any branch of human activity. Wasn’t Harold Shipman a doctor? And some priests exposed as paedophiles? What relevance do these stories really have on anything? And I won’t even start on the atrocities committed by the insurgents they are trying to contain. Are you going to denounce those too? If so, it isn’t in your article.
You also have to remember that they are performing an official United Nations mission in Afghanistan, to uphold security council resolution 1401, and as such their killings can not be ‘legitimised’ in the name of war. Perhaps you are getting confused with Iraq, which is slightly more equivocal. These killings were murder.
Most of what you have posted is naïve polemical crap, and I am sure you will get a few others like Errol there who will swallow it. But even if you don’t want to see them as heroes – that is entirely up to you – it isn’t obvious why you should not want their deaths reported at all.
And to top it all you compare servicemen to advertisers and marketing people. You really need to sit down and have a long look at yourself.
Oh and by the way, if what Ahmed said isn’t known, as you said, how is it that you agree with his sentiments? If he is to be prosecuted, mightn’t you now be, seeing that you apparently agree with him? Or maybe he just went a bit further than complaining about the coverage.
How dare you even suggest that a soldier who has chosen that career deserves no respect or recognition. You say that its their choice but does that mean the the British Expeditionary Force deserves no respect? WW1 was not just volunteers, conscription did not start until 27 January 1916 so should we just ignore all who gave their life before this date?
You make the argument that soldiers accept the possibility that they may be killed and for this reason their job isn’t extraordinary. They made the choice to be there and accepted the rewards to outweigh the negatives. You then say that they are despicable for going into a career where killing is the outcome which contradicts your first point.
They accept the possibility that they may be killed and also the possibility that they will kill. That seems fine to me.
You also state that they shouldn’t be celebrated for fulfilling their job description. The vast majority of soldiers do not see harsh combat, the idea of celebration is for going beyond the call, not every soldier is given a worldwide fanfare. By the same logic we could say that great scientists were merely doing their job, as were doctors. Perhaps we shouldn’t celebrate doctors who make extraordinary treatments or Nurses that get infected during hospital work because they should have known the risks.
With soldiers PTSD was not truly recognized until the 1970′s, many professional soldiers were left to suffer and had a much higher suicide rate than any other. I do not believe that only drafted soldiers should respected, often drafted armies/non-professional commit the worst war crimes as they do not have the training and conditioning that professional soldiers do.
However pointless the reasons for war are it is not the soldiers that start it, it’s the politicians and even the people who support it at times. War is pointless as is military spending but to expect change overnight is just pure, blind naivety. Human nature cannot change overnight and it’s been thought that aggression is an offshoot of intelligence.
I think this article is well written, James, and I thoroughly enjoyed reading your view points.
For the people above, I’d like to point out and emphasize the last line: “Hero is certainly not the word I would use. I don’t know whose heroes these people are, but they’re not mine.” I think that says all that needs to be said. These are James’ views, you don’t have to agree with them, and I certainly don’t think petty insults are the way to persuade him to believe otherwise.
-AJ
If he’d stopped at that then it would have been fine, as I said in my reply actually.
Unfortunately he decided to go a lot further, and a lot of his other opinions are badly thought out, ill-informed twaddle. I mean “every soldier acquiesces to the possibility of killing another human being in order to collect their wage packet. That doesn’t sound heroic to me. It sounds psychotic”. Really? Is he qualified to state that sort of psychiatric diagnosis?
And I’d still like to know how he agrees with somebody when he doesn’t know what they said.
Even so, they’re his opinions, but be that as it may, it’s still not an excuse to post insults in response. There are better ways to communicate.
-AJ
I am a serving Army Officer, with >10 years’ experience, including deployments in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I agree with much of what James argues. I made a decision when I joined the Army that the benefits [1] outweighed the risks; when that changes, I will leave – perhaps to an accounting, marketing or advertising job (but probably not…). Personally, I feel that much of the pro-military support in the UK, and also the US, borders on the jingoistic, and is in part a reflection of a deeply-felt ambivalence within the population over the legitimacy and likelihood of ‘success’ (noting those two metrics are related) of Afghanistan and, previously, Iraq. The emergence of Help For Heroes as a charity is, I suggest, a manifestation of that. In any event, I suggest that ‘dulce et decorum est pro patria mori’ is a dictum which a healthy society is well rid of.
I disagree with James’ two sentences beginning, ‘It sounds psychotic. It’s not the sort of mentality…’, as I would suggest that there *are* times when, regretfully, the threat or the application of force may be necessary. In the domestic sphere, the monopoly on the legitimate use of violence is exercised by the police: I am sure you would expect them to come to your defence if you or your family were attacked. Equally, on an international level, an equivalent role is discharged by armed forces. [2]
I concur unequivocally with both of Alaa’s comments. We hold precious certain concepts of what a healthy society entails. One of these is freedom of speech. [3] It would be perverse if people were not free to criticise the Army – protecting such rights is one of the very raison d’êtres of having a military. In fact, holding up the police and military to the highest possible scrutiny is absolutely vital in a democracy – ‘quis custodiet ipsos custodes’ et al.
(All opinions are my own: I do not claim to speak for the British Army, or my colleagues.)
[1] Army jobs – the benefits: http://www.army.mod.uk/join/join.aspx
[2] Roles of the military: http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/8D451C3C-8FA5-4EEF-AC44-9B0C50660F24/0/dpr2001_annexes.pdf
[3] http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/the-human-rights-act/the-convention-rights/article-10-right-to-freedom-of-expression.html