When soldiers were part of society, people recognized them as ordinary human beings. Now, with the emergence of the all-volunteer army, society has transferred the burden of war to a small, self-contained caste cut off from the American mainstream. This distance allows civilians to develop extravagant fantasies about soldiers that feed the militarist impulse. If we believe our soldiers are superheroes, it makes sense to send them to faraway battlefields to solve our perceived problems in the world. That is why, in this era of seemingly endless war, politicians, the defense industry, and even big-time sports compete with each other to promote hero-worship of soldiers and veterans.
This serves the cynical interests of those who, for political or business reasons, want to encourage American involvement in foreign wars. Even worse, it distracts attention away from the scandalous way we treat our veterans. Cheering for them in public and saluting them in cliché-ridden speeches is a way to disguise the fact that our society callously discards many of them. Shocking rates of unemployment, mental illness, homelessness, addiction, and suicide among our veterans constitute a national disgrace. It is far easier, however, to spend a few seconds applauding a smiling soldier than to contemplate a troubled veteran left behind by an uncaring country.
The soldier acknowledging cheers at a ball game is a fantasy figure we can easily admire. Veterans in need are more disturbing, so we keep them invisible. If we truly considered our uniformed fighters heroic, we would show them real gratitude rather than the phony kind that gives us a shiver of momentary pride but does them little good.
This issue has been bothering me for quite some time, only in today's world discussing it is tantamount to treason in the eyes of many.
I think we have all seen politicians giving lip service to our military men and women, and then turning a blind eye to their needs after their service is complete.
The suicide rate for veterans far exceeds the number killed in combat, and even if they do not kill themselves many others are diagnosed with PTSD and have significant trouble reentering civilian life.
By labeling them "heroes," and giving them almost mythical abilities, we forget to treat them like the fragile human beings that they are.
In the end we place them on a pedestal and then abandon them as if they were a marble monument to bravery, instead of a thinking, feeling, suffering, member of the human race.
"If we believe our soldiers are superheroes, it makes sense to send them to faraway battlefields to solve our perceived problems in the world."
ReplyDelete----------------------------------------------------------------
For the right-wing chickenhawks, it also justifies waving a flag from afar at these superheroes and cheering the next call to war while having a handy-dandy reason not to sign up yourself.
All you have to do is humbly acknowledge that you, yourself, are not made of the stuff of heroes and that you would not dream of bringing down the quality of the armed services made up of these magnificent heroes. But you will mightily wave the flag!
"By labeling them "heroes," and giving them almost mythical abilities, we forget to treat them like the fragile human beings that they are."
----------------------------------------------------------
I don't think it is a matter of forgetting to treat them like fragile human beings. I think it is a justification for not treating them like fragile human beings.
I think it is very important for the monstrous hawks like Cheney, McCain, Palin, and so many others to sell an image of an army made up of some sort of super-soldier who lives only to fight and who does not have human flaws, weaknesses, or even attachments (family).
That justifies using them up and spitting them out without expending one extra dime on them. it is easier to sell the broken ones as being defective soldiers, now converted into "takers", and thus justifiably abandoned.
Excellent comment, Nefer.
DeleteExactly. Calling them heroes is lip service; treating them like heroes costs money.
DeleteDave Van Ronk sums it up here:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_w5JlDn9WCw
I will never forget the article I read about a soldier's suicide. He had been diagnosed as at risk for suicide, so his CO ordered that the soldier turn in his weapon. But the CO neglected to order the soldier's roommate to surrender *his* weapon. Middle of the night, using his roommate's gun, the soldier killed himself.
ReplyDeleteThis is how we care for our troops? The soldier should have been placed in a secure environment and treated, not left to face his demons alone.
I'm sure the CO sleeps just fine at night.
Thank you Nefer 12:16...an excellent post, as always.
ReplyDeleteWhy has Sarah Palin forsaken her Combat Veteran son? He was MIA for the last family holiday gathering. Track 'Menard' Palin didn't deserve even a shout out? You would think he would call or she would mention what he was up to and all the good wishes and missing that he wasn't there? Has all her deification, his hot body, the tatts and all the glorious pentagon write ups and articles from 2008 finally caught up with the wonderful family unity?
ReplyDeleteAlleged that Track is a great father, but not a peep about the grandchild.
http://cdn4.us4palin.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/track-palin-airport.jpg
Exile and silence about Track and his spawn is alarming. Red flag on family trouble for certain. Is that a result of the years of deification when Sarah needed and used the prop for her military cred?
Alaskan National Guard Commander in Chief myths that she needed for PR.
Deification sure came in handy for her and it seems there are many fans that love that, although it can be the worst for the vets that are cursed with that kind of crap.
Is this the end for Track Palin?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/palin-brawl-police-audio
Will he ever be able to be seen with the Palins again? Has his family given up on him?
http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2014/10/sarah-palin-alaska-brawl-party-bristol-palin-track-palin-todd-palin-willow-palin/
Track Palin may not have been legitimately in the service but it is his myth. He was one of the more deified soldiers of the decade and now his own family will shit on him and his child? That says a lot about Sarah and Todd Palin.
The last of the family "happy" unity times together?
https://austinisafecker.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/liar.jpg?w=640
Must reads:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/09/politics/palin-family-brawl/
The Palins have left too many dangling mysteries. Perhaps this is a clue: Track Palin Drunkenly Claims Brawl Started When Dudes Punched ‘Guy Who is Basically Gay’ (Audio)
Deletehttp://aattp.org/track-palin-drunkenly-claims-brawl-started-when-dudes-punched-guy-who-is-basically-gay-audio/
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/10/23/video-undefined-227E451200000578-296_636x358.jpg
Claims fight started when a family friend was a victim of a 'cheap shot'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2805599/Bristol-Palin-finally-speaks-drunken-family-brawl-calls-reports-threw-punches-lies-saying-proof-perfect-manicure-intact-scrap.html
Now that being gay is ‘worse than mass murder’ and all the violent and dead images being promoted for a warm and fuzzy Republican Christmas time, Track may be on the outs with both Sarah and Nancy French (Bristol) due to some homophobic issues. There seems to be a link.
Trig is MIA because who in the Palin family wants to bother with his issues now he is older? Can you imagine having to pretend they care about Trig joining in while all the family is wanting to eat? It is a huge reminder of how seriously Trig has been neglected all these years. He also has the diaper matters, someone would need to attend to him.
http://theimmoralminority.blogspot.com/2014/12/sarah-palin-is-nothing-if-not.html?showComment=1418054963618#c77843938206668217
FACTS ARE FACTS. It is clear about the Palin's sons. They are no longer viable props.
The deification of Sarah's prop failed and it is only name recognition and a prime example of how deification fails all.
But these moments, you all know them, showing a soldier surprising their children, or someone giving up their airline seat let people forget what the "volunteer" military as actually done.
ReplyDeleteMost members are from extremely poor families, which means Mitt's sons and grandsons will never have to hide out in France because they have family money. And this new "volunteer" military also has suffered in a few other ways, multiple deployments,8 for my son( 2 of which were during a period of time when he did NOT reup, but was backdoor drafted and not allowed to go home after he had fulfilled his contract on his enlistment papers.and I know others with even more. These repeat deployments has what has caused PTSD to soar to never before seen levels. I am speaking as a Nam Vet, married to a Nam Vet, the fact our son was deployed 8 times, 2 of those in which he was basically held as an indentured servant during his backdoor draft, not only left him without a leg but severe PTSD.
These people, every person that tries to hero-ize any military member doesn't give a damn if they aren't marching in the streets begging for changes or for the draft to come back and put the burden of wars across the shoulders of the populous and not primarily a very small percentage of the poor. So during the holidays don't go around shaking hands and thankings soldiers, get on the phone with your Sen and Reps and demand changes for those soldiers.
Very well said.
DeleteThe last thing in the world that I would want for my children is to be drafted to fight and die for some one-percenter's cause (money/profits).
On the other hand, any country voting to send troops to war should find it a great and terrible burden, one that will fall equally on every citizen, including those people voting on the issue.
Perhaps the "bomb, bomb, bomb [any convenient target] crowd would be a little less eager to send people other than themselves to die, if those sent to war included their own loved ones.
I wouldn't be so sure about that, Nefer. Sarah Palin certainly didn't give a crap if her son was sent to a war zone. She saw it as an opportunity and if he was sacrificed for her personal cause, it probably would have been even better for her.
DeleteVery good point, 3:13.
DeleteI agree with you, Nefer. The burden of fighting for one's country should fall equally on all shoulders. Maybe the rich would think again about wanting war-all-the-time if their kids and grandkids had to be ordinary soldiers going to dangerous places.
DeleteBeaglemom
3:13 PM
DeleteWhen the true story about Track Palin is revealed we will know more. At this time, I doubt Sarah thought her son would be in a war zone. Track had severe anger and problems and was an addict when they arranged for him to use the military instead of taking what he had coming and/or getting help with addiction as a civilian.
He may have gone right into re-hab or such in the military and she may have already known he wasn't actual military material. What happened with Track Palin was all about Sarah Palin being a politician. Track was and is a tool. Or she may have been in denial and actually believed he could be like other soldiers and served somewhere out of country. It is not known at this time. It is important that the truth about Track Palin is comes out for the public to know about our politicians and military. Also the religious crap they sell us about people and the military.
I support the troops with my tax dollars, as does every tax paying American citizen, we have no choice.
ReplyDeleteThis has bothered me for a very long time, too. And not just because of what it does to the soldier, but because of what it does to the rest of us as well. We see soldiers make sacrifices on our behalf, and perfunctorily thank them for their service, and think that they are the only ones who need to make sacrifices for our country. Where does that leave the rest of our citizenry? We need to make sacrifices, too, whether it is paying taxes, cutting back on our use of fossil fuels, informing ourselves about issues instead of watching that new TV show, actually getting out to vote, etc. "Somebody else" is being asked to make all the sacrifices needed to govern and protect ourselves, and we seem to be okay with that, assuaging our guilt by elevating ordinary service members to heroic status. I am so often ashamed of modern Americans' inability to step up and take responsibility for making this country work, but so many seem to think somebody else will do it.
ReplyDeleteExcellent comment.
Delete""Somebody else" is being asked to make all the sacrifices needed to govern and protect ourselves, and we seem to be okay with that, assuaging our guilt by elevating ordinary service members to heroic status."
----------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. If they are some sort of mythological soldier-hero, they do not need our help.
I salute you for FINALLY saying what should have been said many years ago. Every time I hear the word "hero" in relation to a typical and quite ordinary person (who's been bamboozled into thinking our country's engagement in so many wars is actually honorable), I cringe. Then, our government leaves them living on the streets and begging for food and medical attention. Shame on the USA.
ReplyDeleteA draft for ALL men and women without exclusions
ReplyDeleteNo fucking way. I'm not offering up my children as cannon fodder.
DeleteI agree 2:40pm. I personally was my daddy's ticket out of the Vietnam draft and I am thankful that I came along at the right time.
DeleteMost of the charity and stories about civilians honoring vets look more like it is about the civilians than the actual ones they call heroes.
ReplyDeleteBush would not have all the wonderful work with charity and care for soldiers if he and Cheney hadn't worked so hard to take them into harms way where they could get blown up and lose legs and parts.
Plus all the money Cheney and bros made. They can now be proud of all they give to help the ones they damaged.
Hey - we all applauded the veterans in Branson.
ReplyDeleteAlmost every show the country & western entertainers said we should thank our servicemen so we applauded like crazy when they stood up (those that could, anyway).
So I don't think we really need to give any more to our veterans.
Right?
What do they want, money?
I am a veteran who served in the United States Navy from 1974 to 1979.
ReplyDelete1st point: Let me first say that I am very glad to see that people are separating the military member from their feelings for the war. During the 1970's when we had Vietnam, service members and veterans were not popular at all. I cannot remember all the times I was called a baby killer and I was spit on more than once during my time in the service. In addition, during the 1970's, I cannot tell you how many made for TV movies involved the poor crazed veteran as the bad guy. So, it is very good that folks are not doing this anymore. I hate to say it, but a lot of young liberals were the ones doing the demonizing and calling the names. For this reason and this reason alone, I will never call myself a liberal; just a left of center moderate (though truth be told, I am a socialist).
2nd point: This country has a long history of not taking care of its veterans. Sure, they promise the veterans plenty, but the politicians never mean what they say. They promised pensions to Revolutionary and Civil War soldiers, but then made it just about impossible to get. WWI vets were promised a bonus, but instead of a bonus, they got burned out when they protested in Washington DC. Hoover ordered the burning of the bonus vet encampments, but it was MacArthur, a fellow soldier who did the burning. Millions of vets returning from WWII needed medical care, yet the VA had less than 100,000 beds. Being a grateful nation, the Congress passed a bill to increase the beds by about 20,000. Vietnam vets spent years in court proving that Agent Orange really did screw them up. Years later, some of them were recognized as having a disability and got a partial pension. To this day, the military fights anyone with a PTSD diagnosis.
Last point: Politicians of both parties always praise the military member and the veterans, and then they vote to cut the benefits of the veterans. Roosevelt in the 1930s screwed the veterans and decreased pensions substantially. George W. Bush screwed the vets by cutting the budget for the VA, all the while he kept sending these kids into war time and time again.
People talk the talk, but when push comes to shove, you can be sure they will be screwing the veterans now and in the future. There is a bill in the House now that decreases the benefits of military members, including their pensions.
So, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Politicians praise veterans and service members in the same manner as they kiss babies. It looks good at election time, but after the election, the poor veteran better get ready to bend over because he or she is going to get screwed.
Caroll, my former husband served honorably in the Marine Corps from 1963 to 1984, including two tours in Vietnam (second tour he ended up in a body bag with a toe tag, recognized to be still alive when he opened his eyes briefly, and yes, it messed him up). He fought his way back to active duty because he didn't know any other career.
DeleteEvery word you say is true as to how this country treated its vets in the past and how it treats them now.
I will never forget the time my hometown paper ran an editorial praising Congress for looking into veterans' benefits, especially pensions. The paper's editorial board claimed that "all" a vet had to do was serve "just" 20 years and then they would be on "easy street" the rest of their lives.
Caroll, all that being said then why would anyone in their right mind choose to enlist in the armed forces? That is what I can't understand.
DeleteI have nothing but complete admiration for the Marines. Those guys go through hell and back time and again. If you want to get a Marine all riled up about the Navy, just mention Guadalcanel. The Navy dropped the Marines off in WWII on the island and then cut and ran when the Japanese fleet showed up, abandoning the Marines on the beach with little food and not much water.
DeleteSoldiers are people doing a job. But this job can sometimes be dangerous, like police, fire, and other jobs.
ReplyDeleteThe hero designation has become popular lately for a few reasons. First, it was the most recent anti (Iraq I&II)-war movement's strategic corrective to our mistakes during the anti-war movement re: Vietnamese War. Soldiers are now rightfully treated with respect and compassion by those who want to end wars.
However, the hero designation is also used by those who would justify the aims and goals of imperialism or war and destruction in general. They are heroes because they "did the right thing for our country." Really? Not necessarily.
In my view this designation also continues the glamorization of war and killing - sorry-- no dice.
Is a coal miner a hero? Is slaughter house worker a hero? Is a window washer a hero? These workers and others risk their lives without destroying.
The power brokers call soldiers "heroes" to make them feel important--even though part of the job is risking life and limb for the enrichment of others. If the Cheneys and Rumsfelds of the world want to conquer other nations, let them use their own flesh and blood. Then they can be the "heroes" and the sons and daughters of working folks wont have to be sacrificed and given this phony honorific.
The politicians are the ones that USE the military!
ReplyDeleteAnd, I would start the list with the one that is NOT a politician any longer by the name of Sarah Heath Palin! She uses her son, Track, who she claimed was in combat in the ARMY. It was proven she lied, but what else is new? She has done photo ops w/vets and that is about it! Fraud and liar is all she is as well as her family members.
AGREE! 100000000+++++++++
DeleteFraud and liar is all she is as well as her family members.
Politicians and NOT a politician are the ones that USE the military!
I always have wondered why military members in recent years have all been referred to as heroes. I have never thought them to be so unless they did some heroic deed while at war.
ReplyDeleteDuring WWI and WWII and the Korean War - they were referred to as heroes ONLY when having done some outstanding thing while fighting and earned one of the medals given them for outstanding service.
If you served and returned home, you did your duty to your country which was expected of you.
I'm a senior citizen adding to this discussion. Is the difference in the thought process of today because of voluntary serving/enlisting in the military vs the way it use to be - required duty? Could be!
It's a recruitment strategy.
DeleteIt was almost 40 years ago, but I remember it was me and my buddy Don on a ninety minute drive to Villas NJ where my mom lived, and we picked up this hitchhiking soldier en route.
ReplyDeleteI vividly recall his words: "If you're not in, stay out. If you are in, get out as quickly as you can." Don didn't remember like I did, and after stints for 7-11 and Sam Goodys, joined the Air Force. Within 10 minutes of the first time I saw him on leave, he volunteered the exact number of years, months, weeks and days before he'd be out. He never quite made it; he died still in of leukemia at 26.
I have never put the military on a pedestal. They're guys who either come from military families, and would be shunned if they didn't join, or couldn't get a job in civilian life. Maybe they're doing it "for God and country". But I come from the town Wuturich came from. And I have no faith they are better than anyone else.
ReplyDeleteIt's kinda like the deification of fetuses only up until they are born, then you're on your own.
ReplyDelete