Image courtesy: Staff Sgt. Joseph SwaffordVolunteering to put on a uniform and fight for your country is a heroic act. Even in a time when the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq rarely lead national newscasts, an overwhelming majority of Americans recognize the enormous sacrifices being made by our men and women in uniform and their families.
Polls like
this December Gallup survey consistently show that the military is one of America's most revered, trusted professions. Despite manufactured,
media-driven controversies like the
Haditha "massacre" and an endless front page
trumpeting of civilian casualties, the American public has evidently made up its own mind about our military's dignity and honor.
The same poll showed that TV reporters, who flock to cover
royal weddings and
sensational trials while often ignoring America's post-9/11 struggle against terrorism, are some of our country's lowest-regarded professionals. According to
Gallup, 76 percent had an average or very low opinion of the honesty and ethical standards of TV reporters, while just 26 percent felt that way about the military.
William Deresiewicz is not a TV reporter. According to
The New York Times, he is "an essayist and critic, and author of 'Solitude and Leadership,' an address delivered at West Point in 2009 and widely taught in the armed forces." While I have nothing against this writer personally, a
column he wrote in the newspaper's Sunday Review should be widely taught as an example of the widening disconnect between pundits and patriots.
"There is no question that our troops are courageous and selfless," Deresiewicz writes. "They expose themselves to inconceivable dangers under conditions of enormous hardship and fight because they want to keep the country safe."
No problem so far. The rest of the column is a different story.
"The greater the sacrifice that has fallen on one small group of people, the members of the military and their families, the more we have gone from supporting our troops to putting them on a pedestal," Deresiewicz opines. "In the Second World War, everybody fought. Soldiers were not remote figures to most of us; they were us.
"Now, instead of sharing the burden, we sentimentalize it," he continues. "It’s a lot easier to idealize the people who are fighting than it is to send your kid to join them. This is also a form of service, I suppose: lip service."
First, no American parent can "send" their "kid" to war. The men and women who join today's military do so voluntarily and selflessly.
Second, I read the World War II comparison to my grandfather, who served in the conflict, as we sat in the hospital with my sick grandmother, who he met in Germany. As expected, he scoffed at the notion that troops serving in World War II were not lauded for their efforts and treated as heroes. In fact, posters like
this one were everywhere, he said, rightfully depicting American troops as the world's greatest hope.
According to Deresiewicz, there is something wrong with saying "support our troops," which he laughably claims became prevalent during the Iraq war. Perhaps, after nearly a decade, it's hard to remember Sept. 12, 2001, when Americans, realizing the incredible burden our men and women in uniform would face in the aftermath of the previous day's attack, began showering our military with encouragement and praise.
Finally, the most offensive part of this New York Times column, particularly since it was printed during one of the deadliest months of the entire war in Afghanistan, is this passage.
"As the West Point professor Elizabeth D. Samet recently noted, service members feel uneasy when strangers approach them to — as the well-meaning but oddly impersonal ritual goes — thank them for their service, thereby turning them into paradoxically anonymous celebrities," Deresiewicz writes. "It was wrong to demonize our service members in Vietnam; to canonize them now is wrong as well. Both distortions make us forget that what they are are human beings."
Navy
Hospitalman Samantha Paulson's husband and fellow sailor,
Hospital Corpsman Second Class Christopher Paulson, is currently
deployed to Afghanistan, where he is caring for Marines on some of the world's most dangerous battlefields. In a recent e-mail to The Unknown Soldiers, HN Paulson explained the meaning of knowing that someone cares.
"Thank you for checking in on us," the selfless sailor and worried wife wrote on August 19. "It really does help with my morale to know that there are people supporting us out there."
This echoes the sentiments of countless troops and veterans who have told me that anything from a handshake in an airport to a care package while deployed does wonders for their spirits, especially while spending months apart from their families.
While thanking hundreds of troops for their service, most frequently at airports, I have never once received anything but a smile, nod, or polite reply. In fact, to my amazement, sometimes these men and women actually respond by thanking me, which of course is above and beyond anything I deserve.
What our troops deserve from Deresiewicz and The New York Times is either a clarification or an apology. Attempting to guilt-trip Americans out of saying "thank you," especially during one of the most painful months of an almost decade-long war, is counterproductive and shameful.
"Heroism is bravery and selflessness, but more than that, it is triumphant action, and in particular, morally unambiguous action," Deresiewicz opines. "In most of life — and certainly in public life — there is scarcely such a thing on either count."
I recently had the honor of
speaking with Sgt. Dakota Meyer, who will soon become the first Marine to receive the Medal of Honor for heroism displayed in Afghanistan. Like our last two living recipients of the nation's highest military award,
Staff Sgt. Salvatore Giunta and
Sgt. 1st Class Leroy Petry, Sgt. Meyer was quick to note that the only reason he did something extraordinary is because he was given the opportunity to do so. All three of these men firmly believe that fellow troops in their platoons would have performed just as brilliantly if given the opportunity.
The most trusted men in America are no longer Pulitzer Prize winners. They're Medal of Honor recipients, and their word is good enough for me. Yet according to the author of this New York Times column, the willingness to call a man or woman in uniform a "hero" should make us all uncomfortable.
"Perhaps no word in public life of late has been more thoroughly debased by overuse," Deresiewicz wrote. "Soldiers are 'heroes', firefighters are 'heroes'; police officers are 'heroes' — all of them, not the special few who undoubtedly deserve the term."
The word "hero" will continue to appear with frequency on this blog. That's because men and women who leave their wives, husbands, and small children behind to spend many months in strange lands are heroes. Without their willingness to risk everything in a troubled time of terrorism and war, 9/11 annniversary ceremonies wouldn't be held in American cities and towns next month. Our homeland would be a battlefield.
The next time a volunteer warrior is in your midst, shake his or her hand. Tell our warriors how much you appreciate them and continue to display that "support our troops" magnet without fearing the wrath of The New York Times. Then, the next time you see a journalist, ask what happened to a profession that once put Old Glory ahead of the ratings kind.
The headline of William Deresiewicz's column is "An Empty Regard." The valiant actions of our nation's protectors, backed by the support of millions of grateful Americans, speak with clarity and distinction. Despite the incredulity of an ungrateful press, the regard for our heroes is full.
Image courtesy: Staff Sgt. Andrew Smith