The Hero Fallacy

It happens with striking regularity. A soldier returned from the Middle East will get up in front of a group – church group, fraternal organization, community service organization, etc. -- and describe the terror and hardships of his tour of duty in Iraq, Afghanistan, or wherever. He will describe the deaths of comrades, the injuries, the plight of the civilians... and, of course, the viciousness of the enemy. He will shrug modestly when the master of ceremonies describes him as a “hero”, the thought – oft expressed – being that “anyone in that situation would have done the same”. (Except that not just anyone would be put in that situation; the military is, as we know, still fairly selective as to who it puts in harm's way. It may not be the best and the brightest, but it's also not the worst and the dumbest.) In any case, there is applause... tears are shed... and one and all agree that they have been fortunate to meet, and speak with, and touch the hem of the garment of, one of our “brave boys” (or girls... I mean “women”). And everyone goes home, happy and secure in the thought that... what? That there are still real heroes in the world? Or that even their modest home town is capable of producing them? That would not be a bad thing to go home with. But it doesn't end there. What they are just as likely to take with them from this encounter is the conviction – firmer than ever – that our military exertions in that particular place were, and are, worthwhile because... well, because they produce heroes! Somehow it is the heroics per se that validate the larger effort... and the heroics are seldom seen as occurring despite the questionable validity of the campaign, or the questionable motives of the national leadership. No, they are used to lend credence and credibility, and to, basically, vindicate whatever machinations the leadership had to go through to get us over there... no matter how sleazy, self-serving, corrupt, or fanatical.

The psychological term for the phenomenon described above is “cognitive dissonance”, which can be described as “an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously” (from Wikipedia). In this case, the notion of a good and brave soldier being forced to fight in a bad, or unjust, or illegal, war would be the source of the mental conflict. So what's the solution? “The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, or by justifying or rationalizing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.” (also from Wikipedia) Another way of putting this is that when people are confronted with sufficiently conflicting perceptions, ideas, or concepts, something's gotta give – and what usually “gives” is one of the two opposing ideas. So, when confronted with our home-town hero who came home in one piece (more or less) from a bad, unjust, and illegal war, what is the most likely solution? We could decide that our hero is not a hero after all, but (as was said by many about returning Vietnam veterans) a “baby killer”, “soldier blue” (from the movie), “universal soldier” (from the song), or simply a faceless, mindless, robotic killing machine in the mold of (allegedly) John Demjanjuk. But hey, the guy's standing right there, he was in Boy Scouts with my kids... a great football player... delivered our paper... married a great gal... I've known his dad all my life... and so on. Right out of “Our Town” or “It's a Wonderful Life”. So what has to give, then, is one's opinion of the conflict. Suddenly it seems good, and right... and “OK” after all, despite all of one's former misgivings and despite all the evidence of scheming, corruption, and undue influence. Maybe those were just appearances, or rumors... or hey, what if some people _are_ getting rich? Does that mean the war is wrong? I mean, someone has to make the weapons, right? And are they not worthy of their hire? Isn't it possible also that we (America, that is) occasionally do the right thing for the wrong reasons? I mean, Vietnam may have had its sleazy aspects, but how many cases of communist aggression can you name that started post-Vietnam, huh? Maybe on some level it worked – even if it was a social, moral, and economic disaster for this country (and even if a unified, communist Vietnam has come out smelling like a rose). And by the same token, who is to say that someday we might not look back on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and decide that, well, they were basically for the good as well? Maybe it really is true that any war America undertakes is a good war simply because America undertakes it.

So this is the kind of thinking that follows close upon the heels of our confrontation with our hero. The alternative – living with the contraction – is too difficult, too stressful. And yet, the notion of outstanding heroism in an unjust war is not only not new, but it has been widely accepted in the case of Vietnam, for example. How many Vietnam war movies present evil soldiers fighting an evil war... or good soldiers fighting a good war? (Yeah, I know – John Wayne. But besides that?) No, this is the sort of contradiction that we have come more readily to accept in the post-modern age, when absurdity is more familiar, if no more palatable. And it also reflects our ability to distinguish between the soldier – i.e. the citizen – and the government. They are not the same, assuming they ever were – the government is now an independent, autonomous entity no more answerable to the American people, and no more concerned with their welfare, than is the government of North Korea. If the interests of the power elite and those of the people happen to coincide in a given instance, then the propaganda mill will put a good face on it and say, “look at all we're doing for you”. If those interests don't happen to coincide, it's more like “you have to be willing to make sacrifices”. Or just, “stuff happens” (AKA the "George W. Bush line for all occasions"). Frankly, I cannot think of a single government program at this time that operates unambiguously and consistently in favor of the ordinary citizen... and, in fact, I will argue that the vast majority operate in direct opposition to the interests of the ordinary citizen – and yet we are powerless to do anything about it. (And don't confuse the “right to vote” with power – how much power did you have to determine who ran in the primaries? And how much power do you have if you're a member of a “third party”? Or an independent?)

So the home town hero may, in fact, be a genuine hero – but he is used by the Regime as a propaganda device, just as in wars down through the centuries. Who can forget, for example, Sergeant York, or Audie Murphy? They may have been the real McCoy, but they were used in a shameless way to promote wars, and stifle dissent, as were the countless who did not make it back alive. (“How dare you imply that they died in vain?” -- and so on) You see it in the parents, spouses, and loved ones of the war dead – perhaps the most exploited group of all. “Take the triangle-folded flag, lady, and shut up about whatever misgivings you might have had about him joining the military.” The Regime is never any more despicable than when it exploits the aggrieved in this way – and yet people fall for it (as do the aggrieved, with very few exceptions – and those are made into social and political pariahs by the compliant media). How many will stand up in public and say, no, they _did_ die in vain... they sacrificed themselves for no reason that makes any sense... the price they paid was collected by the war industries, the political operatives, the fanatics, and by foreign interests; the American people profited not one iota, and in fact their losses mount with each passing day.

So have your heroes – but don't make the mistake of “heroizing” that which ought never to have happened... and wouldn't have, if liberty still prevailed.