Former Deputy
Assistant Secretary of the Navy, distinguished
combat veteran, and retired Navy Captain,
Wade Sanders is much published on matters
of national security in major newspapers and
the Naval Institute Proceedings. He is also
a news commentator for NBC News. His imaginative
and innovative initiatives were key elements
in the transformation of the Reserve Components
of the Armed Services from Cold War mobilization
assets to relevant providers of contemporary
support.
He presently is senior partner of
a law firm dedicated to matters of corporate
governance, ethics, and specializing in employee
owned companies, as well as providing government
relations assistance to major corporations.
Sound
Off! - Have an opinion about this
article? Visit the discussion forum.
Since the tragic events of September 11, 2003, it seems as though the media, politicians, and every opportunistic country western singer, have decided that everyone associated with that horrific carnage, and everyone serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Afghanistan, are heroes. It seems that there are heroes everywhere, and the word “hero” is being used so often and so loosely that the term is beginning to have no meaning at all. Such profligate use begs the question of what are we going to call those who actually meet the actual definition of a hero. Are we going to have just regular heroes, exceptional heroes, and super heroes? Or, how about this: heroes first, second, and third class, just so we can keep the record straight?
The Cambridge, Oxford, and Webster dictionaries all agree that a hero is one who “acts in an extraordinary manner in a remarkable action or event ... someone who shows great courage; an illustrious warrior.” Certainly those within the World Trade Center who risked their lives to help others, be they firefighters, police officers, or just those regular folks who delayed their departure to help another in need, qualify as “heroes.” I am not so sure about the financial trader sitting at his computer, the shoppers in the underground mall, or the many others who died at their desks. Innocent victims of terrorism, certainly, but “heroes?” I think not.
One does not have to look far for other examples of how the concept of hero has been perverted. It now seems to apply to nearly everyone who is either in the wrong place at the wrong time, or doing one’s duty well (as if doing one’s duty is not honor enough). Consider Fox News’ website entitled “The Fallen Heroes of Iraqi Freedom” which lists all those who have died in Iraq. Among those listed as a “hero,” sharing this accolade with those who have been killed in combat, is an unfortunate soldier who drowned after falling into the Tigris River while on routine patrol. Was he a “hero?” In fact, is the fact of dying in combat enough to be considered a hero? Thousands have been maimed, blinded, or killed in every prior war and received nothing, except perhaps a Purple Heart if the trauma was caused by the enemy. Why? Because they were killed or injured doing exactly what they were expected to do: their duty. I wonder if the fellow who drowned doing his duty was awarded a medal.
Well, I don’t mean to rain on this parade of accolades, but all who serve, or are wounded, or die are not heroes. Serving and doing one’s duty, even volunteering to be in a place of danger, are not acts of heroism. They may be acts of patriotism, sometimes even courage, and they are certainly deserving of recognition and celebration, but they are not deserving of medals or the mantle of heroism. That needs to be reserved for the real heroes, the ones who go beyond duty; for those special men and women who demonstrate exceptional bravery while risking their lives.
The military has been particularly guilty of their abuse of the term of “hero” and their dispensing of medals traditionally reserved for heroes. They are rapidly cheapening the symbolic value of medals such as the Silver Star (which is to be awarded for gallantry in action) and the Bronze Star with Combat Distinguishing Device (a bronze “v” device which graces the medal and the ribbon, and is commonly referred to as the “combat ‘v’” and which is normally reserved for heroic achievement). PFC Jessica Lynch, injured in an automobile accident and well cared for by her captors received the Bronze Star with combat “v,” is only one example of this abuse. Any one who has served in combat can cite numerous cases of truly heroic men and women who performed heroically in the face of fire and received either nothing, or a much lesser award. Yet, the Air Force, Army and Navy have recently awarded medals once reserved for heroes to individuals who never left the safety and comfort of their air condition rear echelon headquarters in Iraq and, in some cases, never left the United States. None of these ever experienced a shot fired in anger; none of them where ever exposed to enemy fire. Only the Marine Corps seems to understand the concept of heroism and continues to award that title with appropriate restraint.
Why is this destructive? Because it cheapens the medals and it does a disservice to those fine men and women who have earned the right to be called heroes. So, let’s stop this travesty now. There is certainly no shame in being known as a patriot, as person who serves with honor and does one’s duty. That should be enough. We need to reserve the mantle of heroism for those who are truly heroes.
Of course, that’s just my opinion, I may be wrong.
Wade Sanders is a former deputy assistant secretary of the Navy,
a decorated combat veteran and attorney practicing in San Diego. He
can be reached at wade2000@cox.net.
