War and Peace

The topic I would like to discuss is centralized around this question; Is our understanding of heroism flawed? As with any such question, it is incredibly naïve to offer an answer that would satisfy all of the required elements to solidify it as absolute truth. It is easy to speculate that comic-book superheroes, sports figures, and literary ideologies have diluted the designation to something less prolific than it, perhaps, should be.

I was intrigued by the stories told about the veterans who returned after the Vietnam War – they were not welcomed as heroes. It is interesting to note that 2/3 of the men who served in Vietnam were volunteers whereas 2/3 of the men who served in World War II were drafted. Those who returned from WWII were lauded for their valour, but it was a war that they were forced to fight in.

Were their individual contributions noteworthy? Absolutely, the issue is not one of military prowess, but of political ineptitude. It is difficult to convey the story in detail, as it has been incorrectly recounted from the start. General William Westmoreland outlined a three phase plan that put the Americans on the offense and increased their efforts to win the war. The plan was approved by President Johnson and marked a profound departure from the previous administration's insistence that the government of South Vietnam was responsible for defeating the guerrillas. Westmoreland predicted victory by the end of 1967. President Johnson did not, however, communicate this change in strategy to the media. Instead he emphasized continuity. The idea that the government of South Vietnam could manage its own affairs was shelved.

I will try to use discretion and objective reasoning to explain how I imagine returning veterans would have felt. I think that the stories of men coming home and being very emotionally unstable are probably true, but statistical evidence indicates that those who suffered in this way are far fewer than we have been led to believe. We could look at the Canadian soldiers that have fallen in Afghanistan. Those who are killed on duty and those who commit suicide while based in Afghanistan are collectively reported as the “loss of troops.” A distinction is not made between the two; they are expected to occur simultaneously.

I don’t know if I am any closer to arriving at a decisive answer. I am, however, left asking; what is the difference maker? Is it simply our perception? It is easy to recognize heroism when the appropriate action is made obvious. If someone rescues someone from a fire, that is heroic. However, it is much more difficult to intentionally determine to be a hero before an incident occurs. The nightmare doesn’t happen unless there is a conflict of interest. Here we discover the meaning of phrases such as

In war, truth is the first casualty. ~Aeschylus

A soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon. ~Napoleon

War is fear cloaked in courage. ~William Westmoreland

I would also like to add two quotes of my own.

Throughout history we have been acutely aware of our projected personal identity and even embraced our corporate identity, but have forgotten to look in the mirror. – Nelson Windsor

It’s comparatively easy to write history… it’s another matter to change it. –Nelson Windsor

My original plan was to talk about heroism in its purist form, but I don’t know whether or not that is an aim after which I want to pursue. I think that there is no greater course of action that can be taken, if it is the right one. I absolutely agree that freedom should be something we fight for, but not without weighing the cost. What is glory, what is honour? I think they can be as illustrious as we imagine them to be; when the altar is built, and pride is obliterated.