Pat Tillman killed by 'friendly fire'

[theloniusfleabag]

I do feel sorry for Pat Tillman, who gave up a lucrative carrer in the NFL to join the US military, and to fight for what he believed in. A courageous man.

However, I am not surprised at all to hear he was killed by his own troops. Throughout history, the US has been the land of 'trigger-happy morons'. Even Stonewall Jackson was killed accidentally by his own troops. In WWII, it was rampant. They shot down planes full of their own reinforcements, shelled their allies because they didn't believe their statements or in their abilities, and constantly refused to take much needed advice from other, more experienced veterans. They either drop their guns and run in panic or they open fire on everything and anything.

Far from being a 'random tragedy', it is actually very typical.

[shackwacky]

Armed forces training by Nintendo. I watched a clip one day, and I am sorry no I can't name it or post a link, that showed this very young man with a crew cut and pimples explaining exactly why fighting in Iraq was "just like in the game". It was creepy.

[Big Blue Machine]

It was an accident. Firendly-fire has and will always be accidents. You can't prevent friendly fire in the dark.

[caesar]

It was an accident. Firendly-fire has and will always be accidents. You can't prevent friendly fire in the dark.

Friendly fire accidents in the heat of battle can happen; however; this is much too frequent and done when evasive actions could be done until they confirm their target is enemy. The Brits did not have the same record of "friendly fire" incidents. The Americans are trigger happy bunch of scared sh..tless kids.Many others are simply trigger happy cowboys.

Remember our Canadian soldiers and how inexcusable were their deaths. The plane could easily have evaded the fire and take time to confirm the target was friendly.

[kimmy]

I read a very good article yesterday about Pat Tillman and the events following his death.

http://www.antiwar.com/bock/?articleid=4143

Although the article is from an antiwar website, it seems well-researched and balanced, and it talks about Pat Tillman the human being, rather than making him a comic-book hero or charicaturing him.

"Dozens of witness statements, e-mails, investigation findings, logbooks, maps, and photographs obtained by The Washington Post show that Tillman died unnecessarily," wrote the Post's Steve Coll, "after botched communications, a mistaken decision to split his platoon over the objections of its leader, and negligent shooting by pumped-up young Rangers – some in their first firefight – who failed to identify their targets as they blasted their way out of a frightening ambush. The records show Tillman fought bravely and honorably until his last breath. They also show that his superiors exaggerated his actions and invented details as they burnished his legend in public, at the same time suppressing details that might tarnish Tillman's commanders."

Briefly, after a Humvee broke down, the platoon was ordered to split up, with Tillman's half going on ahead to put "boots on the ground" in the little town of Manah. The other half of the platoon followed on the same road, which was not the original plan. Because of the terrain, they lost radio contact. When an explosion went off, they figured they were under attack by Taliban insurgents and fired back. It turned out the two halves of the platoon were firing at one another. Tillman was killed. The Army knew this almost immediately, but didn't tell the family and didn't release the information publicly (and then curtly, with no questions answered) until more than a month later.

As a Post story Monday related, the Army preferred "a distorted and incomplete narrative." The public release "made no mention of friendly fire, even though at the time it was issued, investigators in Afghanistan had already taken at least 14 sworn statements from Tillman's platoon members that made clear the true causes of his death. The statements included a searing account from the Ranger nearest Tillman during the firefight, who quoted him as shouting 'Cease fire! Friendlies!' with his last breath."

Here's an editorial from some paper I've never heard of, that seems to sum up things rather well.

http://www.valleystar.com/editorial_more.p...=55933_0_28_0_M

The citation for Tillman’s Silver Star stated that "his voice was heard issuing commands to take the fight to the enemy forces." What he was actually shouting, according to a fellow Ranger at the scene, was "Cease fire! Friendlies!" as he tried to stop the other element of his divided platoon from mistakenly engaging them with machine-gun fire.

Such after-action revisionism by the service not only taints Tillman’s posthumous decoration, but could have kept the Army from learning lessons from the incident, particularly about small unit maneuvers and communications in hostile terrain, that may save other soldiers.

Some have lampooned Tillman as a dumb redneck who signed up so that he could shoot Arabs. This article discredits that view.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file...SPG5K6FD091.DTL

Tillman talked about everything, with everyone. According to the speakers, he had read the Bible, the Koran, the Book of Mormon, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, and he underlined passages constantly. Garwood recalled how he'd mail articles to friends, highlighting certain parts and writing in the margins: "Let's discuss.'' A quotation from Emerson, found underlined in Tillman's readings, adorned the program.

Here is Tillman's player profile from ESPN.com

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/prof...le?statsId=4455

At only 5'11 and 202 pounds, he was a midget by the standards of pro football. But he must have been pretty good at it; the contract he turned down to fight in Afghanistan would have made him one of the highest-paid players on his team. He was also awarded as Defensive Player of the Year in college. Tillman's page at Wikipedia also indicates he was an outstanding student.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Tillman

He sounds like a truly unique individual.

It is unfortunate that the US Army decided to falsify information surrounding his death. It seems like they valued Pat Tillman, Recruiting Propaganda Guy more than they valued Pat Tillman, Remarkable Individual.

-kimmy

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear caesar,

Friendly fire accidents in the heat of battle can happen;

Indeed, as can 'collateral damage', and it is often attributed to 'the fog of war'. However, the USA seems to be the 'foggiest' of all. Evidently, one of Tillman's patrol emptied every round he had from his .50 cal machine gun into Tillman's half of the unit.

What if they were under enemy attack? An action like that is undisciplined and irresponsible. Especially when he didn't know who or what he was shooting at. In Vietnam, the US had developed the M-16 to fire a 3 round burst, to save ammo from trigger-happy morons.

[MapleBear]

"I do feel sorry for Pat Tillman, who gave up a lucrative carrer in the NFL to join the US military, and to fight for what he believed in. A courageous man."

Why do you feel sorry for him? No one held a gun to his head. He apparently died doing what he loved - shooting guns in the mountains.

Regarding the comment that Tillman wasn't stupid, I wouldn't be quick to agree. Just because he was academically gifted doesn't mean he had any common sense. Frankly, I think the guy had a few loose screws. He certainly didn't help his country by running around Afghanistan fighting for a lost cause.

I'm not a fan of the war in Afghanistan, and I'm not a football fan, either, so, for me, Pat Tillman adds up to a perfect zero. To put him in perspective, John "Taliban" Walker was probably at least as courageous as Tillman, obviously believed in something or other, and survived a Made-for-TV ordeal.

Though I don't understand why he would break bread with the Taliban, I have more respect for Walker than I do for the dumb jock.

[kimmy]

First off, I think the evidence indicates that Tillman certainly wasn't dumb.

Secondly, like most Canadians, I'm glad that Canada participated in the war in Afghanistan, and I greatly respect Tillman for giving up a lucrative career to participate as well.

The war in Iraq may be debatable, but the war in Afghanistan was widely supported, and that is what Tillman signed up for.

Even if Afghanistan had never harbored terrorists (although they did), destroying the Taliban regime was a tremendous victory for human decency. The Taliban regime was one of the biggest abominations that world affairs have witnessed since the Third Reich.

-kimmy

[kimmy]

As for John Walker Lindh, yeah, he obviously believed in something. After converting to Islam and going to Yemen to study, he decided to join a terrorist group in Kashmir. And while he was there, he became infatuated with the Taliban and decided to go to Afghanistan.

He might not have known he'd be expected to kill Americans (although he doesn't seem to have had any problem with joining up to kill Indians...) but he decided to join a terror group and then he decided to cast his lot in with the Taliban. You respect that? That's vile.

-kimmy

[caesar]

Any attack on civillians without declaring war is dispicable but unfortunately that discription does not belong to the Taliban alone; it fits the American's actions, too.

The whole situation seems to have come about because the USA did not try to broker a real peace in the Middle East. The USA has blindly supported Israel in its aggressive attacks on the Palestinians/ Muslims. It may have begun to protect Israel from the Arab forces that wished to completely rid the world of Jewish Israel but now the pendulum has moved way too far in the other direction. Neither Israel nor the USA shows any repect of international law or fair play. Why should they expect any better from those countries/peoples that it has displaced without a homeland while Israel grows larger on former Arab land.

[Black Dog]

Friendly fire is a fact of life in war time,. However, what this revalation does is highlight the ridiculousness of the posthumous lionization of Tillman and other members of the U.S. armed forces who are acclaimed as "heroes" for doing nothing so heroic as signing enlistment papers and having the bad fortune of dying in uniform. The fact that he was killed by his own side only underscores the ludicrousness of this trend. I'm sure if one was able to ask Tillman or indeed any other serviceman or woman if they considered themselves heroes, they would protests. They are doing their job (questionable as it may be) and accept the risks it entails: there's not much more prosaic than that.

[HalfCanuckistani]

You weasels have virtually ZERO military capabilities and you insult our troops? Screw you guys. Some day you'll push too hard and end up our 51st state. Except for Quebec, we don't need any faggot french-like appeasers in our country.

[kimmy]

Tillman sacrificed fame, a multi-million dollar career, and ultimately his life, because he believed it was important to bring the people who perpetrated the WTC attack to justice. Whether you believe that the leadership he entrusted his life to was pursuing the same goals as Tillman does not diminish the magnitude of the sacrifice he made. Nor does the fact that he was killed by "friendly fire" (although that might be emblematic of hundreds of soldiers whose lives have been lost to questionable leadership.) He gave up a lifestyle that most people can only dream of so that he could go risk (and lose) his life for his country. I guess hero is a subjective term, but I certainly have a lot of admiration for somebody who made such a sacrifice for pure reasons.

Lots of things reflect badly on the US Army in this affair... the report on his death indicates questionable leadership. The posthumous effort to hide the truth and create fictional events to create a recruiting-poster image also shows extraordinary bad taste. That's on the Army's conscience, if it has one. None of it diminishes Tillman.

Let's talk more about John Walker-Lindh, who Maplebear feels compares favorably to Tillman. I suppose that in one sense they're similar-- Walker-Lindh, like Tillman, went across the world to fight for something he believed in. Unfortunately, what Walker-Lindh believed in was first the Harakat-ul-Mujahideen al-Almi terrorist group in Pakistan and then the Taliban.

We've seen the political cartoon where Pat Tillman asks the Army recruiter "Will I get to kill Arabs?" As August1991 would say, "giggle giggle".

If one were to draw a similar cartoon about John Walker, how would it go?

How about having Johnny asking the Harakat-ul-Mujahideen al-Almi recruiter "Will I get to blow up buses full of civilians?"

Or maybe draw Johnny asking the Taliban recruiter "Will I get to drive a tank over fags?" or "Will I get to dismember adultresses?"

(Fair's fair, right?)

Here's an article about the group Walker-Lindh was in while he was in Pakistan: http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf...kistan.arrests/

Sounds like swell bunch to party with.

Bottom line, Walker went across the world to hook up with that group. And when he got bored of their scene, he hooked up with the Taliban.

How can somebody who would make choices like that be deserving of any respect at all?

You weasels have virtually ZERO military capabilities and you insult our troops? Screw you guys. Some day you'll push too hard and end up our 51st state. Except for Quebec, we don't need any faggot french-like appeasers in our country.

...uh-oh... spider-sense tingling...

-kimmy

[caesar]

You weasels have virtually ZERO military capabilities and you insult our troops? Screw you guys. Some day you'll push too hard and end up our 51st state. Except for Quebec, we don't need any faggot french-like appeasers in our country.

No thanks; we like to have some self respect. We don't like to go around acting like trigger happy cowboys. We grew up and want to be civilized. Try it.

[Black Dog]

He gave up a lifestyle that most people can only dream of so that he could go risk (and lose) his life for his country. I guess hero is a subjective term, but I certainly have a lot of admiration for somebody who made such a sacrifice for pure reasons.

So let me get this straight: because Tillman was rich, his sacrifice is far more noble than, say, the kid from the slums of Detroit who chokes out his last in some Baghdad alley? I think the fact that Tillman had a choice between a life of wealth and fame and death in Afghanistan says a lot about American society when you consider how many of those putting their lives on the line don't have the luxury of choice. They're in the service out of pure necessiity. Now, while that may not sound quite as noble as "giving one's life for one's country", it's a tragedy to me that that is the reality.

[kimmy]

Certainly it's unfortunate that in the United States' all-volunteer army, a lot of the people probably only volunteered because they didn't have many alternatives. I don't think any less of them for it; it's certainly a more honorable career choice than selling drugs or home invasions.

I do not feel Tillman's sacrifice was greater than anybody else who died in Afghanistan. However, his decision to make that sacrifice is pretty singular. I doubt many who joined the armed forces had more incentive to just stay at home. I am sure that many of the war's biggest supporters wouldn't join up to fight if you paid them $3.6 million, let alone pass up $3.6 million to join up to fight.

-kimmy

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear kimmy,

I do not feel Tillman's sacrifice was greater than anybody else who died in Afghanistan. However, his decision to make that sacrifice is pretty singular.

I agree, and it is not out of any 'hero worship' I feel badly about his fate, but I do think that it was an example of terrible waste.

Who knows, he could have been the next JKF, but instead he became just another toe-tag, shot to pieces, yet again, by trigger-happy morons.

[Black Dog]

I do not feel Tillman's sacrifice was greater than anybody else who died in Afghanistan. However, his decision to make that sacrifice is pretty singular. I doubt many who joined the armed forces had more incentive to just stay at home. I am sure that many of the war's biggest supporters wouldn't join up to fight if you paid them $3.6 million, let alone pass up $3.6 million to join up to fight.

Certainly that's a valid point. But the larger points I'm speaking to are the degredation of the concept of heroism and the miklitarization of American society. Someone who dies as a result of another's incompetence, negligence or stupidity in the civilian realm is usually considerd an unfortunate victim. Yet slap a uniform on them and stick a gun in their hand, and the same pointless, uneceesary death elevates the individual to the status of hero? Weird.

As well, the visceral reaction elicited by any critical evaluation of the role of the military in society (as evidenced by a certain comment above) is a sign that the military (and its members) is a sacred object in American society. Such unquestionable reverence and devotion to an authoritrian ionstitution is an unusual trait for a democracy to possess.

[KrustyKidd]

Black Dog, that was a fine post indeed. Kudos!

I think that the 'hero cult' going around there in the south is less what you think and more of people who abide by tradition. A tradition of however correct or mistaken dictates that one somehow serve their country in trying times. Simply by being in the area of adversity itself is the act of heroism. Other than make the fallen heros what other option is there? To villify them? Make no mention of them? Simply say 'whatever'?

The elected government makes the decision to go to war and young men die. They die for defending Europe from Hitler, they die from guarding an embassy in Jerusalem, they die in Iraq and they die while getting loaded in a nightclub in Germany. To make a differenciation of a military death is not unique to America. Here in Canada we were forever going on about the guys that died in Afganistan. They were the absolute greatest and were on the front page forever. No mention was made of the forklift operator that died when the parking brake wasn't set right on a truck he was loading other than a capsule on page ten. I mean, give the guys the credit they are due. Make it good for if you have nothing nice to say ......

I do think that America is unique in it's reverence to the Military though. They have fought for everything they have against a lot of downside odds going back to the Revolution and Texas as well as the Civil War all the way to WWII when they ceased being isolationists for real. It has helped the world I do believe and the underlying philosophy is that without force, the truely evil which is abundant in this world would quickly dictate economical, political, social and ultimately geographical change.

I can live with a strong US military. I don't care if anybody else can as I am me, here in Canada. I am not a European nor am I an Asian. Both of those would step in to take over in any way they could if it was possible. The strong US military keeps the bad guys from walking over their business partners to whom they pay fair dollar for their services. Without a strong US military, those services would be so erratic that they would be useless as a means of operating a business or country such as what we have here in Canada. Myself, while thankful for a strong US, also believe that democracy is a better proposition for world peace than letting dictators, fanatics and groups of discontents 'do their thing.'

[kimmy]

I don't think Tillman and others deserve to be considered heroes because they died while wearing uniforms. I think, however, the decision to volunteer one's life in the service of one's country deserves admiration. That can be said of everyone who signed up for altruistic reasons; Tillman is merely the most noted example.

And, I think the people who serve in the armed forces *do* deserve our reverence.

On this forum we talk about things... like "We should be doing peacekeeping in Sudan" or so on. In order for "us" to participate in these endeavours that we as a nation have decided are important, there has to be people who actually put on the uniform and go to these places and put their lives at risk. A military draft is one way... but in this country, thanks to the people who have volunteered, that isn't necessary. So yes, unless you'd like to see a draft or mandatory service as in many European countries, then you and I do owe gratitude to the people who have volunteered to serve in the armed forces.

One might think "Well, I'm glad we're doing peacekeeping in Haiti or Cypress, but I don't really think we should be involved in..." but the people who join the armed forces do not decide which conflicts to get into. They sign up, and put their trust in the leadership to make wise decisions.

This is a democracy: we decide... at least in theory. Maybe it really does work: Canadians supported going to Afghanistan, Canada went to Afghanistan. Canadians didn't support Iraq; we stayed out of Iraq.

When we as a nation decide that military participation is important to us, that can only happen thanks to the people who serve. If we place a value on the peacekeeping we do, then we owe that to the people who serve. They're in a dangerous situation with little tangiable reward, for the sake of doing something that the Canadian public feels is important.

In return we have to hold our politicians accountable for the choices they make. If they involve our troops in conflicts that we as a nation don't feel we should be in, then we have to hold their feet to the fire for it. That's how we can make sure that the sacrifices are troops are making are worthwhile. At least in theory.

-kimmy

[Black Dog]

Other than make the fallen heros what other option is there? To villify them? Make no mention of them? Simply say 'whatever'?

I think you're missing out on a critical option, one that is seldom employed: what are they dying for?

It's easy to get wrapped up in nationalistic jingoism, to fall back on catchphrases like freedom and democracy, but such words are little more than excuses that shut down potentially meaningful discussion over whether or not those who serve in a nation's armed forces are putting themselves at risk for something meanignful.

More often than not, these men and women aren't fighting and dying for freedom, or for abstract notions of patiriotism (even though those may be the factors that influenced tham to put themselves in that position), but for far more prosaic, concrete and oftentimes unsavoury motives.

Look at World War One: one of the worst meat-grinders in history and a stunning example of a senseless waste of humanity, a war that destroyed a generation. So many of the young men who marched off to the trenches believed they were fighting for their nations' honour, or for freedom from tyranny or other such lofty ideals. But the real reasons were cynical: power, treasure and prestige for an elite that never had to face a bullet. Such has ever been the way of war and so it is today.

I think that when we talk about "our" war dead today in terms of heroism, we actually do them a great disservice.

By calling them heroes and mourning their loss for 15 minutes before going on with our lives, we dodge the bigger questions of why they die in the first place, which means they truely die in vain. It's a form of obsequiousness that only benefits those who send the youth of our nations to kill and die on tehir behalf.

The elected government makes the decision to go to war and young men die. They die for defending Europe from Hitler, they die from guarding an embassy in Jerusalem, they die in Iraq and they die while getting loaded in a nightclub in Germany. To make a differenciation of a military death is not unique to America.

So we can say that the ideal (misplaced as it may be) that fighting to defend one's country is a act of heroism is universal. Yet that acknowledgment is missing from our discourse. By the standard above, the Iraqi fighter defending his Fallujah home from an influx of foreign invaders is every bit the hero as Tillman, or the four Canadian "friendly fire " victims. Yet ho woften are the "others" demonized, written off as terrorists, when for al anyone knows, their motivation for putting their lives on the line is just as pure.

I do think that America is unique in it's reverence to the Military though. They have fought for everything they have against a lot of downside odds going back to the Revolution and Texas as well as the Civil War all the way to WWII when they ceased being isolationists for real. It has helped the world I do believe and the underlying philosophy is that without force, the truely evil which is abundant in this world would quickly dictate economical, political, social and ultimately geographical change.

But reverance for the military (especially the fetishistic proportions its taking on in the States) is dangerous in a democracy. Indeed, a standing army is anathema to democracy because it creates a segment of society that is culturally distinct, unaccountable and heavily armed. It's akin to an attack dog: good for protection, but just as capable of savaging its owners. The U.S. has always been militaristic, but the war on terror /post 9-11 realities have driven the national obsession with the military into idolatry.

Your post also touches on something else: the myth of American exceptionalism and benevolance. You mention that without a (presumably) benign military force, the "truely evil" would call the shots. But that makes some very dangerous assumptions about our own motivations. Americans are taught from day one that theirs is a peaceful nation that only messes with others if messed with first. But the historical record of America’s colonialist, interventionist past and present serves up a list of meddling (more often than not, at the expense of democracy and freedom) as long as a country mile. This stands in sharp contrast to the national mythos and undermines the ideal that we need “good guys” to protect us from the ”bad guys”. We have met the enemy and he is us.

I can live with a strong US military. I don't care if anybody else can as I am me, here in Canada. I am not a European nor am I an Asian. Both of those would step in to take over in any way they could if it was possible. The strong US military keeps the bad guys from walking over their business partners to whom they pay fair dollar for their services. Without a strong US military, those services would be so erratic that they would be useless as a means of operating a business or country such as what we have here in Canada. Myself, while thankful for a strong US, also believe that democracy is a better proposition for world peace than letting dictators, fanatics and groups of discontents 'do their thing.'

I guess I have a really hard time understanding how that worldview jives with the historical realities of a U.S. government and military that has, time and again, used it’s power to undermine democracy, squelch self-determination movements and support corruption and despotism at every turn for cynical political-economic ends.

In that context, the "heroism" of those who do the bidding of the government is even more in question. I'm sure, after all, that your average Wermacht stormtrooper urgently believed they were makiing the world a better place, simply because the national narrative told them so.

[kimmy]

Other than make the fallen heros what other option is there? To villify them? Make no mention of them? Simply say 'whatever'?

I think you're missing out on a critical option, one that is seldom employed: what are they dying for?

I would hope that the question of what they're dying for is asked and answered long before any soldiers have fallen.

The invasion of Afghanistan had pretty clear objectives, approved by the UN and supported by many nations including ours. I think the question of why we should risk our soldiers there was answered before they left Canada.

-kimmy

[caesar]

And, I think the people who serve in the armed forces *do* deserve our reverence.

Well, after all the information we have been slowly shown about the actions of many of the armed forces; thay is too widespread to be just the individuals who are scape goated for the " greater good" . We have American military personnel now asking for sanctuary in Canada because they couldn't stomach being order to kill civillians in Iraq.

The young soldiers deserve and get my sympathy without a doubt but reverence NOPE. I am as indignant about the loss of innocent American soldier's lives as well as the innocent Iraqi civillians.

[PocketRocket]

You weasels have virtually ZERO military capabilities and you insult our troops?

Well, it seems like a few of the more radical types in this forum have done that, yeah.

Personally, I have a great deal of respect for anyone who is willing to put his life on the line to defend his country.

But one of the things these troops fight for is the right to free speech, which, as you can tell, is being exercised on this board.

Or perhaps you think that only your fellow Americans have the right to criticize your forces???

Check out some of the american forums, you'll see a hell of a lot worse than anything posted here.

Try Democratic Underground for one. At least we haven't seen anyone on this board calling the troops "Rapists and baby killers"

Your own fellow Americans do enough of that

Screw you guys.

And a very Merry Christmas to you too.

But waitaminute; "Screw you guys", kinda sounds like Bush's attitude towards the UN.

Come to think of it, sorta sounds like his attitude towards anyone who doesn't agree with him, after all, didn't he say "With us or against us"????

Hmmm. In Iraq, we weren't with him. I guess he'll have to declare war on Canada next, after all, we have some oil fields, too.

Good, solid diplomatic statesmanship. Yup. Gotta love him.

Some day you'll push too hard and end up our 51st state.

Methinks this person be watching too much WWE wrestling.

We can't end up being your 51st state. That's what Puerto Rico has become, in all but name. I think #52 is taken as well; US Virgin Islands.

By the time you get around to Canada, you'll be up to about 150 states.

Does anyone remember what happened the last time the USA decided to invade Canada??? Can you say "War of 1812"???

Nice job on rebuilding the White House, though.

But if you're determined to invade, then dress warm, but leave the beer at home. When you get here, you can enjoy some of the good stuff

Except for Quebec, we don't need any faggot french-like appeasers in our country.

Cool. I'll give you $500.00 for Lousiana. After all, lots of French-types there, so you should be itching to get rid of it. Good Cajun cooking, too.

Honestly, you should use some high-SPF sunscreen. Your neck seems to be getting a tad red.

In any case, HALFCANUCKISTANI, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you.

Keep your head down, and watch out for friendly fire.

[PocketRocket]

Back to some semblance of being serious.....

A lot of points have been raised here, from heroism, to jingoism, to friendly fire, to under-training of troops.

But it seems that many have ventured into the territory of whether or not any soldier is heroic.

My spin is simple.

A soldier does not become a hero when he gets shot. He does not become a hero after committing some daring deed in battler.

To me, a soldier becomes a hero the moment he enlists, provided he enlists under the full knowledge and expectation that he may indeed be called upon to give his life for his fellow troops, his countrymen, his country.

Those few who enlist just because they expect to get a good education through the military, and don't expect to ever go into battle are a slightly different story.

But their time to prove their own heroism comes if and when they a called upon to go into a war zone.

They do not need to prove their courage to me, or to you, only to themselves.

Some have bailed out because they never expected to be called upon to fight, and when the time came, for some reason or other, they refused to go.

But I will give the benefit of the doubt to anyone who enlists no matter what their reason, because the bottom line is this; they have answered the call. They are in the forces, prepared to do their duty, to protect their homeland. They are the shield behind which we all stand safe and secure.

They have not the luxury to choose where they are sent, nor have they the power to determine the quality of their own training,

In this they are pawns to higher powers.

But the fact that they stand ready is, in and of itself, enough to warrant our respect.

I salute anyone who has enlisted.