to wonder what's so heroic about being in the British army?

[poppylongstocking]

Both my brother in laws are in the army and spend 6 months at a time away from their wife & kids in a country we are under no direct threat from fighting a war which was started on dubious grounds. They are risking their lives, yes, but I don't see it as heroic, I see it as a bit stupid to be honest. I could understand the label 'hero' if we were under direct threat and having our homes bombed as in WW2, but it's very different nowadays, aibu?

ZZZ If the bulk of our young people were conscripted now and sent along with the professional forces to Afghanistan, would they then be heroes?

Can you imagine the uproar?

Apologies loopy. My excuse- up very late with a stonking sinus infection but shouldn't have said it.

I explained that I felt the "greater good" being the aim is what makes someone's act either heroic or destructive/barbaric.

A hero to me is someone that does something for the greater good irrespective of their personal situation.

I don't think the fact that a load of deranged brain washed people who think a suicide bomber is a hero actually would understand the meaning of the word "hero" would they? E.g Karen Woo - a very brave woman who was putting her own personal safety after her desire to help others killed in Afghanistan recently.

Just because someone bandies the word "hero" around doesn't mean the person is a hero does it?

Maybe the deranged people think it's true but that doesn't make it true. If you think of the bunch of morons that latched on to Raoul Moat proclaiming him a people's hero!

These same people you say think the suicide bombers are heroes are the same "sheep" that burn an effigy every time they're told to dance. Do we really think that their version of the word defines the word? Even if you use "perspective" ie. the perspective of the deranged?

Isn't the Taliban ultimately about destroying the west - not live and let live. People whose desire is to destroy just for the sake of destruction could not be described as heroic. What greater good are the Taliban/suicide bombers trying to achieve?

If you did a survey at Broadmoor and asked for various inmates' opinions on subjects I think we'd find lots of peculiar names on their list of heroes wouldn't we? Perspective eh?

I really don't think it matters if the evil minded think the Taliban are right, Raoul Moat's a hero etc. and so on.

But Kettle, I have to be devil's advocate here: many people would sympathise with suicide bombers because they feel that we have invaded their country without cause. That we have, in fact, declared war against Islam. They would see us as the evil ones.

We invaded: But what is the ultimate aim? Is it to destroy and grind down the people or is to help them rise above the Taliban and their torturous regime?

War is always going to be complicated. Look at the Balkans once you start to unravel the history there it's well .... very complicated.

Twenty/Thirty years ago in the UK lots of people didn't understand at all what was going on in Ireland and were just sick to death of bad news but didn't have much concept of the history etc.

Wars are complicated and it's never going to be a case of "oh you stole my candy and I'm going to fight you to get it back". As I'm quite sure you are well aware war is going to be much, much, much more complicated. Start unraveling backwards as to what's the right and wrong thing doesn't get you anywhere. You have to deal with here and now and today and what is right and wrong.

Personally I'd much rather we didn't have anyone in Afghanistan. But like all wars it's complicated we're there, our intention is to do "greater good" that's what is ultimately the important thing.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Yeah but I think there's a fork in the road just before you get there - the one's with bad intentions go down further!

Kettlecrisps - I disagree. All wars are fundamentally simple. They are all about controlling resources. Ethnicity/religion etc. Are excuses, not reasons. It really is as simple in Ireland and israel/ Palestine that those involved just need to grow the fuck up.

Forgive my rather trite post.

I don't doubt that most of the armed forces do mean well. I just don't think there is ultimately anything to be gained by our being in Iraq or Afghanistan.

TCNY, I think a glittering career awaits you in international diplomacy.

People are very good at inventing reasons to justify the things they wanted to-do anyway. Name a war that was not about resources. Grown ups don't worry about who started it until it is finished.

The whole thing is so Orwellian.
Take Iraq.First we are told we are looking for WMD, then to overthrow Saddam Hussain and now we are being told it is all about human rights! Ditto Afghanistan, initially it was about retributionn for 9/11 and then a war on terrorism and now it is all about human rights.And its scary how many people just swallow it.'Minitrue' and double-speak are no longer fiction but fact.
How very arrogant to smash a country to pieces , cause the death and injury,ophaning and widowing of tens of thousands of civilians, destroy their infrastructure create chaos, and tell them we are helping their human rights.I think most women would rather be oppressed than have their kiddies arms and legs blown off

notyummy - thanks for your comments.

I had not read more than the first page at the time I wrote (and still have many pages to read) but one aspect I deliberately avoided was the word "hero" because (as seeker noted) in many views, a hero does "something above and beyond the call of duty", but for any parent or relative of serving forces, or family that have lost a member, going out to either of these countries takes them far from the safety and comfort of the UK, which we "armchair critics" can enjoy with hardly a second thought and complain about items which cannot compare with a sniper's bullet, or some IED, RPG or missile directed at a base or vehicle.

It is a very emotive subject, and views from 360 degrees about the good and bad aspects.

Finally, before I have a meal (and go to bed soon after), I'd like to echo chibi who asked about why forces are posted to Canada...

chibi/nwg - yep, training. units will deploy to work up to their operational state in the year before they deploy on ops. there is nowhere (as) suitable in terms of space/ terrain etc in the uk, (the training area here makes salisbury plain look like a field)

the canadians get a fair amount of money i imagine. and input to the local economy (see the recent threads on closure of uk raf bases to see how much angst threatening to close causes). there's also a fair amount of international relations involved - always useful when you are expected to work as part of a coalition force in a far flung part of the globe.

there are v tight regulations about the upkeep of the exercise area. without large training areas such as those in canada, out troops would be sustaining a lot more casualties than they already are when they do deploy. pppppp, as they say.

Glad to read that about DH, and I had been wondering how he had come to grief over there, IYSWIM, but had it in back of mind that such accidents occur.

Mad - pleased to hear your DH is 'pretty much fine' now - I know it happens, but I would be livid it had happened in training ( I know they can't use foam bullets/fake explosives etc but it still just seems wrong that they are actually in danger of being killed while on training).

the summer he was blown up, two soldiers were killed in similar training accidents (that was just here - there were obv more fatalities across the board). there are plenty of training accidents, sometimes just vehicle rollovers etc. i do like to think we've had our lightning strike, but you never know.

the engineers were practising demolitions. . unfortunately they didn't follow the timetable and detonated the explosion two hours early, when there were 45 people still training. no-one made sure the area was clear before they pressed the button. it's kind of why i'm happy to discuss the term 'hero' - often there's very little heroic actually going on. just people doing their jobs.

still, all involved were completely exonerated, and have subsequently been promoted. ho hum.

weirdly, he bumped into the guy who saved his life this week - someone just came up and introduced themselves, and said they had been first on the scene and had started first aid and called in the air evacuation etc. v weird for dh, who still doesn't remember a thing about the accident. cool for the other bloke though, who got to admire his scars but see him recovered. he said it's unusual you ever really know what happens 'afterwards' so it was great to know everything worked out.

i was 10 weeks pg with ds1 at the time. i wasn't sure if i was more worried about my husband dying or miscarrying and losing both of them. fortunately neither in my case, but not everyone is as lucky as we were.

I quite like this thread, and even though the OP did go down like a lead balloon, its good that its given you an opportunity to speak about something that some of us (ie me) don't hear about very often

all involved were completely exonerated - how the fuck did that happen I suppose it wouldn't 'look good' to 'punish' the troops would it :/

How cool for the guy to see your DH :) How did they get talking or was he introduced to him on purpose?

Jesus christ - 10 weeks pregnant at the time.... how much recovery had he made by the time DS1 was born?

'Military types need putting back in their cages until they understand civility.'Military types work for the Ministry of Defence, not Offence. They are very civil and in many cases highly educated.

What has not been raised on this thread is that our Armed Forces are not in Afghanistan on their own, or just with the Americans. They are there as part of the ISAF, which is a NATO coalition, so troops are there from Denmark, Germany, France, Australia, Canada, to name but a few. ISAF is mandated by the UN, so it isn't just the UK and the US rushing around for no reason, or because they are gung-ho, but because a failed state (and that is what Afghanistan was, Pakistan is heading towards and has been for some considerable time, and Somalia is), destabilises the region around it and the effects of that spread outwards.

It is no secret for example that there are those in the Pakistani Security Services who support the Taliban and funnel funds and materiel towards them. If we're looking at Afghanistan, then they hope we aren't paying too much attention to what they are up to with India and Kashmir.

In response to the OP, had I said anything like that to my sil when my brother was in Helmand, my Mum would have marmalised me, and so would my sil. It makes no difference if they are in Afghanistan or deep under water on patrol in a submarine - they have to give their attention to what they are doing, as not having your mind on the job can and does have fatal consequences. Yes, I'd prefer that dh and db never went away, but it's what they do, what they joined to do, and I am bloody proud of them when they go to sea/on deployment.

For those questioning the age at which some join up - my DH joined at 18 after A levels, had his degree paid for, and will retire at 53 having served the best part of 35 years. He has had a fantastic career, stimulating and varied, and will leave with an excellent range of transferable skills. That's more than many jobs give you.

chipping - the guy recognised him in passing, but wasn't sure, so went and checked his name on a staff list and asked someone else if it was the same guy that had been blown up , once it was confirmed he found dh's office and went and introduced himself - bit bizarre 'i don't suppose you recognise me, but...' and just said he was dead chuffed to see him looking so well. dh showed him his scars (he has an ear to ear scar going round his hairline where they did his brain surgery, and an impact scar further back) and the bloke told him a bit about what had happened. dh has obviously read the reports, but they are a bit meaningless. he said it was v odd to have the bloke telling him what happened (when he was there but not there iyswim) and what he did etc, from the blast up until he was picked up by the helicopter. his favourite bit was the description of the helicopter leaving, the guy said he had seen a lot of medevacs, but this was the first one he'd seen where the chopper was barely off the ground before it was full rotor and heading for the hospital... so at least they were quite keen to get him fixed.

he was back at work by the time ds1 was born - he did quite a while on part time/ light duties - but he did sleep most of the way through the labour in the chair next to the hospital bed...

dd1 was about 16mos when he got injured - i left her with the childminder when i drove to the hospital, and the next thing i knew i was accompanying him on an aeromed flight to another hospital a couple of hours away. i had to call the childminder and ask her to keep dd2 until i got back... whenever that was. after surgery he was on the neuro ward and no children under 12 were allowed, so she had to stay with the childminder for ages. we thought she'd freak out when she saw him for the firts time after the accident - he had most of his head shaved (apart from a really bad mullet ) and staples from ear to ear and everywhere. he looked like frankenstein's monster. in the end she just looked at him a bit oddly but climbed on his lap and barely noticed his new haircut.

i have to say it was interesting dealing with a toddler, a newborn and a recuperating head injury though...

having now outed myself totally to anyone privy to this stuff i'd probably better shut up.

my grandad fought in the war. It isnt heroic at all. They dont want us there, anyone who believes that we there for their good is silly, we only do things for our own interests make no mistake.

The things that go on in war are disgusting and people who choose to part take are a bit odd in my opinion. You know what you are going in to, why choose to kill people? If i decided to start my own campaign against a type of people i didnt like id be arrested even if i beleived it was for the greater good.

Its wrong.

However i do beleive that if they are going to do it they should at least have decent protective kit-fucking government

NordicPrincess Good post

Before I get flamed I would like to point out that I have family & a friend who have served/is still serving in the forces and have every respect for the job they do.

However I think the 'hero' label is a bit over the top. Yes they do a sometimes dangerous job, but they have chosen to do it, for all sorts of reasons, and some of those reasons are misguided IMO.

Personally I believe the 'hero' label is pushed partly by the media, and partly by the government, to romanticise and promote the idea of joining the forces. Who the hell would want to join if the grim reality of the job was really made clear to all the teenagers out there?

I agree, I think the 'hero' thing is used to legitimise and validate the war(s).

nah, 'hero' goes way back - has always been applied to 'warriors', always used to denote the epitome of manhood, prepared to sacrifice themselves for the fair maiden of the day. never mind if you get dragged around town behind a chariot - that's the way to go.

bugger all to do with media or government - although they are big on adopting the same rhetoric. it's not exactly new, is it? i mean back to the latin and good old wilf really. language is amazing.

i've spent some time up in the archives of the imperial war museum reading the correspondence of conscientious objectors - letters going in and out of prisons. very interesting.

i'm glad we've got a new epithet to denote the forces though - thick, thugs and now misguided.

interestingly, i find 'misguided' hilarious - that's pretty much our argument too. get us some proper guidance and all of this nonsense would be irrelevant.