04 October 2007
Heroes for Ideas
Are heroes people who risk danger, regardless of the goal? Or does their goal have something to do with whether or not they have acted heroically?
In his OpEd in the October 4, 2007, Wall Street Journal, Robert D. Kaplan argues that the soldiers in our all-volunteer armed forces should be respected, if not looked up to, for fighting. That adulation was common when they had no choice in the matter, either because of the draft or, even more fatefully, because their country had been attacked. However, our fighting men and women in Iraq are heroic mainly in the same sense that a prize fighter is – they risk physical harm and mental trauma because they choose to do so for a living. In contrast, even fire fighters and policemen and women are victims of fate – someone has to do what they do.
Indeed, loyalty to a particular territory – inspiring defense of ground as Mr. Kaplan calls it – has lost its primacy. The defense of ideas, which was often identified with territory in the past, has become more important in a “flat” world. This development does not mean that we have little need of heroes, however. That the nation-state is crumbling and nationalism is decaying are not to be lamented. Those archaic concepts have caused much of history’s tragedy. But we do need heroism in the defense of ideas like human dignity and self-determination.
Are heroes people who risk danger, regardless of the goal? Or does their goal have something to do with whether or not they have acted heroically?
In his OpEd in the October 4, 2007, Wall Street Journal, Robert D. Kaplan argues that the soldiers in our all-volunteer armed forces should be respected, if not looked up to, for fighting. That adulation was common when they had no choice in the matter, either because of the draft or, even more fatefully, because their country had been attacked. However, our fighting men and women in Iraq are heroic mainly in the same sense that a prize fighter is – they risk physical harm and mental trauma because they choose to do so for a living. In contrast, even fire fighters and policemen and women are victims of fate – someone has to do what they do.
Indeed, loyalty to a particular territory – inspiring defense of ground as Mr. Kaplan calls it – has lost its primacy. The defense of ideas, which was often identified with territory in the past, has become more important in a “flat” world. This development does not mean that we have little need of heroes, however. That the nation-state is crumbling and nationalism is decaying are not to be lamented. Those archaic concepts have caused much of history’s tragedy. But we do need heroism in the defense of ideas like human dignity and self-determination.
Comments:
Post a Comment
