Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Our soldiers are our heroes?
hermitwin
Veteran
Too often, americans refer to soldiers as heroes.
I think this is wrong from the buddhist perspective.
Armies go to war, the result is death n destruction.
most people join the army bcos they need a job, not bcos
they want to be heroes.
what are your thoughts?
I think this is wrong from the buddhist perspective.
Armies go to war, the result is death n destruction.
most people join the army bcos they need a job, not bcos
they want to be heroes.
what are your thoughts?
0
Comments
I don't like war, but in a way, soldiers can be heroes. If their intent is to protect their family or "liberate" people in a foreign land, they are making an attempt at heroism (although they may not think of it this way). We may not agree with their methods or agree with their justifications, but they are IMO technically being heroes.
However, the "well-liked" condition may not apply.
Please stick to discussing the role of soldiers within the military.
Many thanks.
Patriotism, causes greater than self, liberation are some of the greatest causes of conflict and war in the history of the homo sapien. Oh and let's not forget God and country.
But, there's a general attitude on this forum that in regard to Tibet that "somebody should do something". Like what that would actually work other than a military action?
Today in the USA it is Memorial Day. The one day we set aside to honor our war dead. Those who died in combat, wearing the uniform of our Country. We don't judge; we don't politicize on this day. We don't question the soldiers' motives. We simply honor their sacrifice.
Do some research. I have yet to read any comment by a Medal of Honor (the highest American military honor) winner that accepted the description of what he or she did as "heroic."
Are these 'heroes' all just eating some decorous, socially-graceful humble pie? I seriously, seriously doubt it.
Maybe heros, maybe villans.
Maybe a bit of both.
In my mind, courage and noble qualities dont sit comfortably with war or its participants.
The extremes of thought I would guess are:
1. War is ethically correct.
2. War is unethically correct.
Buddhism - as you well know - is called the Middle Path; so don't you think the truth is going to be in some subtle place between the extremes?
And soldiers on a battlefield can be capable of great acts of heroism, cowardice, mercy, murder, kindness and cruelty.
But in general, all soldiers are not heroes; I don't care which country they serve. In the UK we have a gallantry award system designed to recognise our heroes; the highest honour being the Victoria Cross, most of which are awarded posthumously; i.e. the soldier died during the heroic act.
Many of these Victoria Cross's are awarded to guys who've died trying to save their comrades from a murderous machine gun nest (or some real threat). The citations are a good read; written in typical British understatement. "Having spent all his ammunition, Sgt Collins straightened his beret, picked up his issued bayonet, and dashed towards nineteen enemy machine gun nests, shouting "Last one to the Bosh gets the pints in", kinda thing.
We only have one serving soldier in the British army with a V.C. and he was the first to 'win' one since 1982.
Anyway, the gallantry award system has it's problems, but I generally trust it, and no, not all soldiers are heros. Is a bedding storeman a hero?
So I'll just :thumbsup: your post.
War is the business of death - it is premeditated killing defined by the word 'murder' - those who participate in war are accessories to the events of war - this is not black and white thinking.
'dont sit comfortably' is not a statement that they are mutually exclusive...
I think that Americans refer and sell and upkeep soldiers as heroes because military might and enablement is such a huge part of the American MO.
I think that the intentions of some soldiers may be kind and noble, but they are just an accessory that is used by the powers that are.
And Samsara isn't a straightforward place where we can all chat and sort problems out like grown ups. As a final resort, I think force has it's place. However, I do not agree with all wars.
I remember when British troops (including some friends of mine) were sent to Sierra Leone, I thought that was a good thing, I was sickened by those press reports of children having limbs hacked off by drugged up rebels. Kosovo too - and I participated in that one. I was witness to the aftermath of some pretty nasty stuff there; we recovered many bodies that had been victims of the Serbians. When we first arrived after living in a wet and miserable field in Albania for six weeks, finding a dead body was a common place affair; often you could smell them before you saw them. And speaking to the locals, the Serb police had just been a generally not nice bunch of gimps; one shop keeper told me that a lady - covered in blood arrived at his door step one night; she'd been brutally gang raped by them and she later died. Yeh, I felt I was in the right place doing a good thing; in no way did I feel I was a murderer.
There is such a thing as going to war for a humanitarian cause; in this instance the motivation is compassion. Don't you think?
_/\_
But that story said what I feel a hero is, human or not
To me, soldier need focus in fighting only like last resort after that all other posibilities are exhausted.
My uncle was a soldier in the militar regimen of Pinochet here in Chile, he told us that he was order to kill some people, he didn't want to make that but was a order, he told us that he close his eyes when he shoot them and always have nightmare of that, I don' t think that he forgive him self for that.
Is a terrible position be a soldier ordered to kill. Don't exist any heroic in that.
'just war' is just an excuse for the real reason.
that is why kim jong un still rules north korea.
in libya, gaddafi became good friends with europe prior to the uprising.
One man's outlaw is another man's freedom fighter, or however that saying goes.
Yes, I was in the military for many years. I never saw combat, because I was lucky enough not to be chosen for that role, but it was the tail end of the Vietnam war and I had plenty of buddies who did end up in a war zone. Unlike the politicians want you to believe, we never got spit at by dirty hippies. Everyone we met, long hair or short, thanked us or at least told us how sorry they were that we had to fight, depending on their political view. Sure, the thanks were nice. We figured, if you elect leaders who decide to uproot us from our families and send us out to some godforsaken foreign land to be shot at, the least you can do is thank us for it. But make no mistake, it was the least you could do.
The best thing you could have done was stop electing leaders who liked to play with a military like it was a set of toy soldiers in order to get elected and to distract you from the real problems at home. And while we're at it, the best you could have done was spend some of those billions of defense dollars on a decent salary for those serving and decent veteran care instead of letting your flag waving politician gut those line items so some congressman can get another couple of shiny planes built. The most expensive military in the history of the world has soldiers with families on food stamps and veterans with a year's waiting list to get medical care.
So even the observer him/herself can change opinions on who the heroes are and aren't; at the same time, if someone has put themselves in a line of fire for me, even if their instinct was misinformed, I still consider them tragically heroic.
There is a much stickier question as to how much responsibility we the people (the soldiers, the grunts, the ones " taking orders") bear for our actions. For some reason, once someone has signed up with the military, we absolve them of nearly all decision-making responsibility as if they were toddlers with absolutely no choice but to obey. In fact, if someone deserts for ethical reasons (as *many* Gulf vets have done after coming to the conclusion the war is a sham), they are thought badly of, even by otherwise logical people. "Deserter" bears a stigma nearly impossible to overcome.
After listening to interviews this past week with approximately 20 soldiers who deserted for moral and ethical reasons, I am convinced that they, too, are absolutely heroes.
It's very complicated I think.
People can join the military and then change their views while serving; I just cite Sassoon as a famous example; though he could only be famous in the UK.
What if it's your unit commander who goes crackerdog, not you, and he orders you to mow down a bunch of schoolkids?
Loyalty is bunk; situations change. You have to use your judgement at every step, and no oath should compel you to sacrifice reason.
I remember thinking, "I'm glad you're not my boss!"
How do you honour the lives of the people you live with when you have ignored desperate pleas for mercy as you thrust a bayonet into a living man's guts? They are him, you are him, he is the same as everyone you love. Kill one, in your heart you killed us all.
So not heroes, but victims, deserving of great empathy and care.
Pride is not an argument.
And my father got messed up in the airforce, in Iraq, in the 50s, and saw some things he couldn't talk about, but that my mother confided to me changed him, and he was a difficult, bad-tempered, at times violent man who didn't look after his health and died young.
Heroes is just a politicians' way of bringing solace and justification to the use of lives.
Like my friend kowtaaia said -- What if there was a war and no-one came?
Awakening is just the first step, folks.
There are those to do battle with their defilements and conquer them .This is called fighting inwardly. Those who fight outwardly take hold of bombs and guns to throw and to shoot. They conquer and are conquered. Conquering others is the way of the world . In the practice of Dhamma we don't have to fight others, but instead conquer our own minds, patiently resisting all our moods.
Just because your father got messed up in the military, doesn't mean that most did. You know, there's an old saying, "The army either makes you, or breaks you." I have known several people that were pretty much nothing until they went in the military, and it straightened them out.
Pundits, Platitudes, and Patriotism: War Heroes and Their Enemies
Coincidentally, a friend of mine was called an "unpatriotic communist" today for simply saying that she wasn't a fan of war. It's kind of a bizarre how critical our society can be towards anyone advocating or supporting nonviolence when you think about it, from the court of popular opinion to the court of law.
Back in 1918, for example, Eugene Debs (one of the greatest Americans to ever have lived, in my opinion) was arrested and sentenced to 10 years in prison for an anti-war speech he gave in Canton, Ohio—a sentence the Supreme Court upheld upon appeal, ruling that it had the "intention and effect of obstructing the draft and recruitment for the war [i.e., WWI]," something made illegal under the Espionage Act of 1917.
For my own part, I respect the men and women who join the military and place their lives in danger for the sake of others despite my own philosophical disagreements; and I respect the hellish things that many of them are forced to endure in the course of their service, as well as the sacrifice of those who lose their lives while serving. I also have a great deal of compassion for those who choose to serve their country, but end up regretting their decision by doing things that later weighs their conscience down, such as was the case with Howard Zinn, a WWII vet and political activist, and the realization of what he did as a bombardier in WW II.
But at the same time, I'm critical of war and the reasons nations go to war; and I have a different perspective than most on the effectiveness of nonviolent solutions to war and violence in general. Just because we have noble intentions doesn't mean that we'll always end up doing noble things. In fact, one of the main things that originally attracted me to Buddhism was its attitude towards violence, e.g.: And: I think Howard Zinn came to a similar understanding — that war can't end war, that violence can't end violence — from his experiences in WWII; an idea which he expressed in part of a speech he gave in 2006: When it comes to the subject of war, I think we (especially us Buddhists) should always be on guard so that we don't allow ourselves be so blinded by our patriotism and the idealization of war heroes that we fall into the trap of blindly supporting militarism and nationalism, or attacking anyone who happens to have a different point of view.
People can call me all the names they want, but it's going to take a lot more than that to get me to uncritically support war and not speak out against the 'collateral damage' war inevitably leaves in its wake. As Howard Zinn once said, "While some people think that dissent is unpatriotic, I would argue that dissent is the highest form of patriotism. In fact, if patriotism means being true to the principles for which your country is supposed to stand, then certainly the right to dissent is one of those principles. And if we're exercising that right to dissent, it's a patriotic act."
That's my two cents, at any rate.
If we choose to fight, people like my father and I will always lose. You can keep that, for what it is worth.
I know, deeper than blood could be taken from me, that what the world calls power, will, pride, toughness, is weakness, is suffering.
That is why they are my Hero. They are going through this so I do not have to be drafted and find myself somewhere else, being forced to kill someone for something I do not agree with. Come on people, try to think things through somewhat. This entire thread is just... I can't even put it into words that fit with the rules of this website.
Sickening.