Pete wrote on December 07, 2008 11:27 PM: Mr. Mitchell: Your point is well-taken, even if some misunderstand your argument. Of course one who sacrifices his life for his buddies by jumping on a grenade or defending against overwhelming odds is a hero, no one is denying that.

However, Mr. Mitchell is absolutely right that political correctness has so corrupted our culture that it is
now seen as bad form to praise the fighting achievements of those who "kill the enemy and break things" for a living, as if wars could be won by simply politely asking our foes to lay down their arms and go home.
Heaven forbid you should be unapologetic about the need for ending the lives of those who would kill you or express gusto for doing it to them first. Do't believe me? Read USMC veteran Nathan Fick's book "One Bullet Away" for proof; he discusses this phenomenon openly and without bias.

Pete wrote on December 07, 2008 11:12 PM: Another change that bears repeating is the frequent overuse of the word "hero," compared to years past, especially the WWII generation. I honor and respect all who have served the nation in uniform, but the idea that one is judged a hero simply for showing up is absurd and a stain on the memory of those who really were heroic.

The example set by the WWII generation and others of that time was that one wanted to do his duty, and that one did not seek recognition as a hero.

One former member of the military (a former Colonel of the USMC in fact), who has a show on cable TV, often refers to all members of the military as "our heroes." Well, no - not all people in the military are heroes. One could be excused for thinking that, given the preposterous number of ribbons everyone seems to be wearing these days. The most battle-hardened paratroopers in the WWII US Army 101st AB Division - of "Band of Brothers" fame - had nowhere near the number of medals most modern service people do, and if anyone deserves medals, it was guys like them.

The point here is not to diminish the service of people now in the military, merely to note that the definition of heroism has been cheapened over time. Citations should be for valor, not for managing a Pentagon acquisition project or doing powerpoint briefings well.

Lastly, decorations should not more generously-awarded for officers than enlisted people. General Douglas MacArthur was famous (notorious) for awarding medals on that basis; it was wrong then and it is wrong now.

Just my $0.2 worth...

Barbara Harris wrote on December 07, 2008 05:51 PM: Dear Mr. Mitchell:

What a wonderful observation you make in this column. Remember Sgt. York, and Audie Murphy? They came home. That's what we want for all of them. We had ROI that paralized our warriors. Gen. Petraeus got rid of most of that and we were able to win, but the stories of those who did that "winning" are not being told unless you read Michael Yon, Bill Roggio and others like them. All honor and glory and gratitude to them, medals or not medal.

Thanks for this important observation'

Barbara Harris

Kevlaur wrote on December 07, 2008 03:20 PM: What a few of the posters here have forgotten:
Any medal I am honored to receive is for my actions - regardless of who the president is.

I was not particularly pleased to have Clinton as my commander in chief. I did, however, receive medals (none for bravery). I was honored that my supervisors thought my work went above and beyond enough to recommend to my commanders the approval of those awards.

Bottom line? Our duty does not depend on who the commander in chief is or - frankly - what civilians think of us as long as our peers consider our service honorable.

Steve Stone wrote on December 07, 2008 03:02 PM: Anyone who accepts Thomas Sowell's pronouncements on US historical events needs serious soul-searching.

The military hands out medals like confetti when the battle's going poorly but stingily when winning.

Sometimes medals an be part of a cover-up as in the massacre at Wounded Knee when the Army awarded six Medals of Honor to soldiers who had slaughered 193 old men, women, and chidren with hardly a shot fired in return.

This article is simply a masterpiece of superficiality.

Edward wrote on December 07, 2008 12:54 PM: A medal seems a small reward for a life lost to a pointless war. We should be bringing them home.

Marcus wrote on December 07, 2008 12:28 PM: Under all the hang wringing about medals and sacrifices, this editorial is just another revisionist whitewashing that tries to make the neocon/corporate Iraq disaster equivalent to WWII. Not buying. The only thing that will honor soldiers appropriately for the last 7 years will be Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield in an American prison for life, or shackled in front of the World Court. No tainted medal touched by one of those disgraceful half-men are going to pay off anyone for the pointless video-game slaughter of the Bush years.

george wrote on December 07, 2008 11:33 AM: Having served a year as a medic in Vietnam, 9mos. in an infantry platoon and three in a batt. aid station may I say that all of the men I considered heroes ie: ALWAYS willing to walk point or go in tunnels were killers and damn good ones.

I was decorated once for aiding several men under fire and one of these guys told me I deserved it. Takes both kinds.

Thomas Mitchell wrote on December 07, 2008 10:09 AM: Sheepdog:
I was not implying that and said as much.

Paul:
Yes.

ppurcell wrote on December 07, 2008 08:48 AM: Thanks, Thomas for this wonderful editorial. When I see a service person in uniform. I thank them, or buy their meal (if I'm at a restaurant). Our service personnel are voluntary. They give their lives for us.
Thank you!

Read All Comments