“All wars are civil wars, because all
men are brothers. Each one owes infinitely more to the human race than to the
particular country in which he was born.”
This is a controversial topic that I have wanted to summarise my thoughts on
for some time, and my answer to the question posed is 'no'. To clarify the
meaning of the title, by 'soldiers' I mean people who fight in an army as part
of their job currently, and by 'not heroes' I mean not possessing the qualities
of a hero by virtue of being a soldier. I will first summarise why soldiers
should not be considered heroes, then tackle the 'pro-hero' arguments, and
finish by discussing the potential dangers of the hero worship of soldiers.
Why Soldiers are Not Heroes
The crux of my argument lies on the nature of a soldier's job; this being
that, amongst other things, the primary job of a soldier is to kill others as
part of a war. This is an inescapable fact, and a fact that people often forget
or ignore, unconsciously or wilfully. This is my first premise.
My second premise is, to some, less easy to accept. This is that killing is
a fundamentally immoral activity, unless it is done as an absolute last resort
in self-defence or the defence of another. You may be thinking that this is the
perfect description of the reasons that soldiers kill, but on closer
examination it is not. Soldiers have made a concious decision to join the army,
and have allowed themselves to be shipped out to whatever country they are now
in, and accepted the orders to kill another human being. They have not been
conscripted or otherwise forced, and have had the chance to not take part at
many occasions.
It follows that the job of the soldier is an inherently immoral one, and
that whatever individuals may do to exceed themselves, it doesn't negate this
fact. It is true that soldiers can do heroic things, like throw themselves onto
grenades to save their comrades, but this does not make all soldiers heroes,
and does not necessarily make the individual a hero outright - as an analogy, imagine a
Taliban fighter doing the same thing, of throwing himself over a grenade. Would
that make him a hero, even though he has been a member of a horrifically
violent and amoral fundamentalist group? The example is extreme, but apt
nonetheless.
Perhaps a very small number of soldiers could be considered heroes by virtue
of their actions, but note that these actions would almost certainly not be of
a violent nature, and that non-soldiers also perform acts of equally laudable
heroism without the civilian groups they are part of being considered as
comprised only of heroes. To call all soldiers heroes is an absurdity (unless
killing is much more acceptable to you than I) and dangerous, as I will come to
later.
Debunking the Counter-Arguments
The argument most often put forward for the heroism of soldiers is that, without them, we would not be speaking English/not living in England/not be alive, and so on. Not only does this argument not apply to any conflict for the last 70 years, but it ignores that pacifist position that all are undesirable - not just the British one! I won't comment on whether the soldiers of WW2 are all (or most) heroes, as it's a complex and difficult issue that I dare not try to tackle, but the fact remains that soldiers currently fighting in Afghanistan, and Iraq until recently, are not 'defending our nation' in the profound way that some suggest.
Another similar, and even more vague, argument is that without soldiers we
would not have freedom, and that I would not be able to profess these
'disgusting' views. Perhaps if we, again, go 70 years back this may have some
truth. If anything, wars have damaged freedom, causing an approximate
seven-fold increase in terrorism since the invasion of Iraq, which has led to a
reduction in freedoms since the implementation of domestic policies to combat
terrorism. I won't give more than a sentence to the argument interchangeable
with this; that soldiers are 'defending our country' - a ridiculous claim for
any recent conflict on the face of it (Taliban ground invasion anyone?).
I will try to deal with the other minor arguments in this paragraph by use
of analogy. Take a typical Taliban fighter. The chances are that he is not bent
on 'Global Jihad' or terrorism, but instead considers it to be his duty to
fight against foreign invaders. Surveys have shown this to be true, with a
majority fighting with the, perhaps misguided, intention of defending their country, and a very
high percentage having lost a close relative to the conflict. It is therefore
comparable, in that a majority have (perceived) noble intentions, much like for NATO soldiers, a very small minority of whom doubtless have
extreme Islamaphobic attitudes, or are in it for the sake of being able to kill people. Note
that this person is actually putting themselves in far greater risk than a NATO soldier,
as he statistically has a much higher probability of being killed.
On almost all levels, the Taliban fighter and NATO soldier are much the
same, if any particularly heroic (and uncommon) actions are not considered. Do
we call them both heroes? I don't know about you, but I'm not in the habit of
calling members of brutal fundamentalist groups heroes, so it is more
reasonable to call neither heroes. It is what people do that matters - not what
they are, or what they intend to do.
Why Hero-Worship is Dangerous
“War will exist until that distant day when the
conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior
does today.”
I hope that I have convinced you that not all soldiers should be immediately
named as heroes, but if not, and even if I have, you may still ask what the
harm is, if it helps support the soldiers and their families (both of which I do
sympathise with very much!) The answer is that the universal praise of soldiers
is the beginning of a dark path to the acceptance of violence and killing.
If we consider killing to be acceptable (never mind laudable!) if it is done
with the 'good intentions' of war, or that it is not immoral if the person
being killed has been judged to be evil and undeserving of life by his
membership of a particular group alone, then we have become, in the absence of
an alternative word, much like Nazis, even if these groups are deserving of
hatred. If we demonise a group to such an extent (not that the Taliban or
Saddam Hussein's regime etc. should not be demonised) that the people who
fight, injure and kill its members are to be worshipped as 'heroes', and anyone
who says otherwise is attacked so voraciously, then we are no longer a
civilised society that values the life, equality and justice that many claim
soldiers are actively defending.
Perhaps even more dangerous is that hero-worship detracts from tackling the true
reasons why war, and specific wars, happen. Burying these reasons in a tide of
patriotism, and excusing the belligerents (at all levels) because they have ‘good
intentions’ runs the risk of creating a society that is apathetic to violence,
and uninterested in peace. It is time that we looked up to the conscientious
objectors – those who have inquired about what they are truly fighting for or
against, and have risked punishment and ridicule for doing what it right, and
refusing to play a part in organised homocide.
- Daniel
