posted
was reading a discussion on a military forum... link (rough language) and I think they are making a good point. Audie Murphy, Greg Boyington, Joe Foss, Robert L. Scott, Alvin York... their stories were well known...
Why did we stop reporting on Heroes? You'd think from the news that Pat Tillman was the only one who did anything good since the War on Terror was announced. Even at that, has his sacrifice gotten anywhere near the attention of Wassef Ali Hassoun, Jessica Lynch, or Lynndie England (not that I am at *all* trying to equate those three)?
Why did I have to watch the movie Black Hawk Down to find out about the extraordinary heroism of Sgts Shugart and Gordon? Their posthumous medal of honor was reported, but not what they did to earn it, nor really, was the work of their comrades, except for repeated scenes of dead bodies being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. But, around the same time frame, Scott O'Grady received tons of attention for, basically, screwing up so badly that he was shot down by an antiquated defense system and then nearly killed by his own rescuers.
Nearly everyone of my generation knows who William Calley is, but how many know of A1C John Levitow or Lt James Fleming?
posted
Because a lot of the media is against the war and don't wish to glorify or ennoble it, which doesn't explain why the pro-war media outlets aren't doing it. Because the DoD doesn't want the flack that would ensue if they posted military honors. Because ever since wartime activities were broadcast and Americans could actually see what war was like, the blood and the gore and the cute little children covered in napalm, stories about war heroes are tougher to sell. The enemies have faces, now. Because a good chunk of the country now believes this the Iraq war may have been a mistake and has no interest in hearing people brag about it.
At least we're not still in the Vietnam mindset where the soldiers were blamed for the government's actions.
I'm not the one to do it - no interest in war stories, even in fiction - but stories about Iraq war heroism would make a hell of a book.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because the military, ever since Viet Nam, has not been viewed as a particularly dignified or perhaps respectable career in some circles?
Perhaps it was the 60's that so indelibly stamped an inherent disdain for the actions of our soldiers and the interest of our actions abroad.
Or the lack of overwhelming popular support for any military action since WW2.
Although I wonder how many people would recognize the name York - beyond that of a candy snack.
-Trevor
Edit: It should be noted that I am as guilty as anyone else in not showing a particular interest in heroics.
Posts: 5413 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry. I don't know who Joe Foss or Robert L. Scott were.
I do know that war hero's had something behind them in WWI and WWII--a well organized propaganda machine who's sole purpose was to build up heros to sell war bonds. The enemy was always stupid and mean. The hero's were always good and perfect.
Even then, things didn't always work out well for our hero's. Greg "Pappy" Boyington was soon forgotten after the war, and made his living as a wrestling ref for a while, until the late 70's when a book and TV show revived his story.
Besides, heroics by the common soldier make the non-heroic commonplace officer look bad.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
they were pilots, Dan. Most of the names I listed were pilots, which in itself adds to my question.. I'm only aware of ones I have researched in my own interest, but in WWII there was a common set of reporting on this.
I guess one of the things I'm questioning here is that some people maintain a huge propoganda machine is currently in place. I don't see it at all... and, in fact, I don't see newsworthy things being given "equal time". There's a difference between hero-making and simply actually reporting on heroic actions... of which the Jessica Lynch/Pat Tillman comparison should be ample evidence.
posted
That was mentioned on an NPR interview with an ex-State Dept official.
One of the biggest problems with the war in Iraq is that while the bad news comes across our doorstep every day, the good news is severely under-reported.
This is a mistake made for a few reasons.
1) The danger of reporting the good news. Driving to a new sewage plant, a new office building, or a new hospital to determine its effect on the population could get you shot, blown-up or kidnapped. Its safer to just transfer reports given at briefings, and those reports have been mostly about security issues. Besides, if you are a reporter on site, you are more likely to report what you know--security problems, then what has no bearing on your life--a new hospital built or a soldier giving his life to save others.
2) Little to no thought was given to reporting on the progress, so it wasn't hyped to the point that even the Iraqi's don't know what all has been done for them.
On a different tact, its hard to be heroic when you have most of the advantages. Sgt York was outnumbered and out gunned. We refuse to allow our troops to be either out numbered or out gunned. If they are, its due to a mistake on someone's part, and not a call for heroistic praise.
I'm honored and a bit surprised that you found this at the edodo! The site was founded and run by US Air Force Academy cadets and graduates around the time (I think a little before) the paper version, The Dodo, was banned from the campus.
Honored because USAFA is my alma mater. Surprised because edodo is a bit obscure.
posted
I'm an edodo fan from way back and a former cadet, though non-grad. I post on the edodo RM as "Wannabe".
Dan,
Iraq did have 30 planes, they just parked them in neighborhoods or buried them rather than fly them. But you are right, if someone has an opportunity for heroism these days, it's generally thought of as a mistake, and it probably is. Thing is, mistakes are made... especially in operations of this scale.
posted
no worries, man... there's some one else running around here familiar with that site, too. I like to plug it a bit when I can, because it's a damned interesting group of people.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder if part of it is because it is harder to pinpoint the real "enemy," either. In some interviews I have seen with soldiers on duty or ones who recently left duty (which is rarer and rarer because many are being called back) you see them showing a lot of anger towards the Iraqi's...the very one we are there to "liberate!" In WW2, the Nazi's were the faceless badguys and we weren't liberating the Germans, we were liberating everyone else! On the other half of the war, we were fighting off an empire that had attacked us and they were easily parodied in the daily newspaper as "little yellow devils." We can't do that with the Iraqi people. So we are killing Iraqi's to save Iraqi's and I think the line between the two can get pretty hazy.
How do you make a "hero" out of that? As noted about, they had more powerful propaganda machines in place during WW2 that they just won't get away with today with 24 hour news coverage and access to just about every point of view in the world at any time with the internet.
It is also telling that a lot of the wartime heroes were pilots...sexy in their fine uniforms and usually the only people they killed were other pilots (except those like Boyington who bombed things). It removes us a step or two from the grim reality of war when we put it in the skies.
Interesting question, though. I wonder if now that the War in Iraq is "over" will we start to hear the kind of heroic stories that you are looking for?
posted
fil, I'd have to disagree with you, because there are a lot of Medal of Honor winners who were recognized not necessarily for killing the enemy, but for protecting or saving their comrades (Levitow comes to mind, as does a pararescueman named Pitsenbarger). While it may be true for fighter pilots, it doesn't necessarily have to be true for anyone else in the air or on the ground.
And rubble, I'm the other person familiar with eDodo. The forums there have even sparked the same community-type atmosphere, and I've hung out with a bunch of the poster there IRL, both in my cadet days and more recently. I go by Blade92 over there, but I haven't posted in a while.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fishtail, I was just thinking of the ones that Jim-Me posted and in general the ones we remember, especially from WW1, were the pilots. There are a TON of Medal of Honor recipients but the ones that make the best stories (in the two big wars) seemed t be mostly pilot types.
As noted, the most popular "heroes" of this war was one guy who gave up a lucrative football contract and a woman who was captured (and, oddly enough, was discredited a lot by conservative sources upon her re-release...check out Fox News on her).
And for Jim-Me, I think Black Hawk Down (a book first...could have read about it there...but I digress) was a bad situation that went even worse...and while there was heroic actions by the individual soldiers, the whole reason we were there was problematic and its resolution tragic. Not exactly something people want to read about all the time. It is more enjoyable to read about the exploits of Sgt. York taking it to the Krauts or Boyington's harrowing bombing runs than big losses like Black Hawk Down or the bloody house to house fighting in Iraq.
posted
Part of it is how those heroes of the past became heroes. In short, they were most often created in pitched battles against enemies who were equivalently equipped. The heroes were also borne out of situations where the American forces had been in a losing situation, but an individual action brought about better results.
Alvin York cleared out numerous German trenches and captured hundreds of soldiers who had been slaughtering Americans.
"Commando" Kelly single-handedly turned back a Nazi assault group in Italy. Audie Murphy did pretty much the same as the rest of his unit fled from a Panzergrenadier attack.
More recently, Sgts Shugart and Gordon demanded to be set down in the heaviest fighting in Mogadishu to protect a downed helicopter crew, using their skills as Delta snipers and giving their lives to protect one of their own.
Heroes are made when they throw themselves into "holding the line". When no one else remains to fight, they move to the forefront and through sheer courage withstand horrible odds to protect those around them.
And today, well, we haven't fought a foe that was a direct threat to our troops. Our soldiers through superior training and equipment have literally rolled over whatever opposition they have faced. Being a hero is never about how many of the enemy you have killed, but how when the enemy is killing your own folks, you step forward and trade your life for those of your comrades. And somehow, that sacrifice saves not just other lives, but the day as well for the Red, White and Blue.
Pat Tillman was a man to be admired and he's been made into a hero because his sacrifice (the one most often talked about) was what folks in the media can understand the best... he sacrificed his career and money. Look at the coverage he received. They spent more time pointing to his giving up a pro-football career than what he did in an attempt to save his fellow troopers. He lost his life, but the media had felt we, as Americans, could connect more with the loads of money he had sacrificed to become a Ranger.
And that's sad, so very sad. To be a hero nowadays, it seems that your story has to not just play on ABC News, but on E! as well. We're conditioned that our heroes are only palatable if they are celebrities (no matter how minor) before they do something heroic.
How many publicists would George Washington have needed in this day and age. And what could spin doctors done to save the career of Benedict Arnold?
Valor made Audie Murphy a hero and Hollywood went on to make him a star. Today, don't you think they would prefer to have it in reverse order. Much more marketable, much more.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
fil, not to be too picky, but Jim-Me did mention Levitow.
And Sop, I think what Jim-Me is trying to say is that the types of heroics that make for a MOH may actually be happening out there, but they may not be being reported. And what I was trying to say is that heroics can happen in more than just the stereotypical Hollywood combat situation. And heck, small squads of Marines or soldiers may be in pitched battles where they're outnumbered, even now in Iraq and Afghanistan. But would we know it's happening?
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fish, you're right and I agree with you. There may very well be instances where CMoH are warranted in the current conflicts, true heroism can happen at any time.
I just think that the idea of a hero in the traditional sense won't play in our current media which is much more comfortable with pre-manufactured stars.
It may have something to do with journalists not wanting to go to where the fighting is. It may have something to do with the media not wanting to glorify war in any way.
And it may also be a government that doesn't want to show the flag draped coffins. If you won't acknowledge the price, you can't celebrate someone willing to pay it.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: And it may also be a government that doesn't want to show the flag draped coffins. If you won't acknowledge the price, you can't celebrate someone willing to pay it.
For those connected with the USAF, how is the news of Schmidt's lawsuit being interpreted by the rank-and-file?
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
a thing about the pilots-- it's more a reflection of my personal bias as I was/am fascinated by flight. I don't think the pilots are given *that* much more credit, though there is undoubtably more romance associated with them. Also, please see the following about Pat Tillman.
Sopwith,
an interesting thing is that there almost seems to be a tone of contrast between Tillman and (for example) Shugart and Gordon when, in fact, he did something similar. I guess another thing that is not being well reported is that his death was not only noble because of what he gave up to fight, but because he did, as you point out, give his life in a pitched battle coming to the rescue of pinned down comrades-in-arms. He did not get the Silver Star because of his noteriety, but absolutely earned it.
Richard,
I have not seen much sympathy for Maj Schmidt within the AF community...
posted
My personal opinion is that Maj Schmidt's lawsuit is frivolous, as the info that was released could probably have been obtained by the public through a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
As a completely off-the-subject aside, I used to work for LtGen Carlson, who was mentioned in that article.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
