Intruders-Alert

I didn't want to crap in the memorial post because I do hold Medal of Honor recipients with the highest regards. However I do spend and have spent a significant amount of time reading MoH citations and histories. Having done so I found it rather interesting that many of the citations depict individuals who were simply doing what I think anyone would do if they found themselves in that situation.
There have been many that went far and beyond what I thought would be a normal for "anyone" in that situation. Obviously throwing yourself into a human shield scenario goes far and beyond what I would consider normal or routine.

I define a hero as someone who doesn't have to, or isn't responsible for doing something and does so at the risk of their own safety, for the benefit of other's. Say some pedestrian sees a home on fire and rushes in to save the occupant's. There's no expectations for that pedestrian but they put themselves in harms way for the benefit of other's.
I believe in the past couple decade's the title has been overly used. For example the firefighters and police on 9/11. Were they brave? Absolutely but there's an expectation that the job description demands that they act just as they had. Definitely brave but not heroic. Now if some passing bystander rushed in to save folk's, that would be heroic.
Same thing for our military people. There's an expectation that they will find themselves in life threatening situations, but that's part of the job description. Brave actions? Absolutely but it doesn't rise to heroic UNTIL a service man goes beyond the expected norms for the benefit of other's, by placing themselves in what could be a life threatening situation. A selfless disregard for one's own personal safety, for other's. For me THIS is what defines a hero, and for military personnel, someone deserving of our nations highest honor.

So the question is do you adhere to a high standard when defining a person as heroic, or do you apply a lower standard???

PLEASE let's keep this civil. There's no absolute right or wrong.

Courage for sure, but I don't think fearless.

Courage is the ability to do what needs to be done even though a person is afraid.

A hero is a person that goes above and beyond the basic requirements.

While I don't think every person in service can be called a hero, they all deserve respect for their effort. The Hero is that one that does just slightly more than the job, even though afraid. Sometimes it involves being to stubborn to quit.

In the military the awards system is screwed up and you are right that sometimes the awards are for doing what you have to and not going above and beyond. But in some cases I just never understood the thought process in approving awards. For example, once my platoon fought an hour + firefight against a lager force from a building in Samara, Iraq and got nothing because we were Infantrymen and it was expected. About the same time one of the Staff Sargent human resource (S1) guys processed awards and evaluation reports for the Brigade when the shop was short handed and he got a Bronze Star. For those that don't know Bronze Stars are supposed to be for combat actions.

Sgt, I actually agree with the decision to not give your platoon awards for doing what was expected.
Unfortunately as you pointed out, sometimes individuals who aren't rightfully entitled to a particular award, receive them. My favorite when I was in was the flight crew members who automatically got put in for awards based on flight time or some locally established timeline. They'd have every conceivable award on their chest and many of them multiple awards.
My thoughts were how could anyone be proud of receiving an award based on a policy and not based on the individuals merit's?
Don't get me wrong I have a ribbon rack full, but very few that I have high regard for. Maybe 4-5 that I consider special. The other's I could give a toss about.
Anyhow back to the subject at hand, how do you define a hero? I see Herb said above and beyond the normal requirements, and that's interesting, as is the definition of courage he posted.
I will say that I disagree with your position regarding respect. I believe it's admirable that an individual decides to serve in the military but that doesn't mean they are deserving of anything. I see military service from a completely practical position. NOBODY joins the military because they're patriotic. Anyone who says otherwise isn't telling the truth. People join out of tradition, for security, travel, recreation, education, training, etc... Now someone might say I'm wrong about the patriotism assertion, but it's easy to test. You ever get that person who claims otherwise, tell them to sign their paycheck over to charity since they're serving out of patriotism and see what the reply is. I used that on teacher's who would claim they became educators for the kid's sake.

sgtcall wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 19, 2024 9:24 am

In the military the awards system is screwed up and you are right that sometimes the awards are for doing what you have to and not going above and beyond. But in some cases I just never understood the thought process in approving awards. For example, once my platoon fought an hour + firefight against a lager force from a building in Samara, Iraq and got nothing because we were Infantrymen and it was expected. About the same time one of the Staff Sargent human resource (S1) guys processed awards and evaluation reports for the Brigade when the shop was short handed and he got a Bronze Star. For those that don't know Bronze Stars are supposed to be for combat actions.

Many times it's not what a person does as much as who the person knows. (or blows)

Herb wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:46 pm

sgtcall wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 19, 2024 9:24 am

In the military the awards system is screwed up and you are right that sometimes the awards are for doing what you have to and not going above and beyond. But in some cases I just never understood the thought process in approving awards. For example, once my platoon fought an hour + firefight against a lager force from a building in Samara, Iraq and got nothing because we were Infantrymen and it was expected. About the same time one of the Staff Sargent human resource (S1) guys processed awards and evaluation reports for the Brigade when the shop was short handed and he got a Bronze Star. For those that don't know Bronze Stars are supposed to be for combat actions.

Many times it's not what a person does as much as who the person knows. (or blows)

True.

Command structure. Doesn't matter what branch of service or emergency response service, how policy and practices are utilized becomes entrenched.
The example of the flight crews is a perfect example. Someone in the command structure decided to implement a practice of writing up citations for award's at certain intervals. They likely had the idea to improve morale. Unfortunately when it becomes common practice, it diminishes the award.
Another fine example are a basic training medal, the national defense service medal, and of course my favorite the good conduct medal. Everyone attends and completes basic training if they're serving. Is that deserving of an award? I think not. The national defense service medal, everyone who serves during an armed conflict receives it, Really, did they all get deployed to the theater or do anything to deserve it? Even those who just completed basic training receive it, really? And the good conduct, stay out of trouble ( the expected behavior) and every 3 year's you get another one.
Now if you were the top of your basic training class, maybe an award. If you did something that really impacts national defense, you probably are deserving, and if you behave yourself (I wasn't awarded all of mine) well frankly that's a total BS award.
So if you served, and received award's, in my book 90% are pure BS awards. You likely only EARNED a few of the many you received. In other words it doesn't matter who you know or blow as it was stated. The reality is just as Sgt stated, screwed up. Award's handed out like candy are worthless. So if you are looking at yours award's received through your service commitment, if you are being honest you probably only deserved one or two. Doing the job you were supposed to do isn't deserving of an award, that's the expected behavior. Dedication and acts above and/or beyond the expected norms is what the award's were intended for.
If you want to really understand the award's practice, look up how)why Washington created the medal of Merit or what we now call the Purple Heart. It was actually a close early example of the MoH. Regardless it's intent was to quell unrest brought about by the suffering our soldiers were enduring by providing a easily recognized item worn that let everyone know that individual had done something "exceptional" in service. Boy have we screwed that up

SJ, I have moved to this post to address your comments in the other for the reasons mentioned.

Okay, so you have a couple types of people when it comes to survival, those who fight and those who flee. However that doesn't take into account the variables that can prevent either of the aforementioned.
99.99% of all people will do whatever it takes to survive, it's a natural response. The very small % that won't are the same one's who purposely take their own lives. Everyone else falls into the first category.
So if faced with a potentially lethal scenario, folk's will react in a fashion their mind seems to be the appropriate course for survival. So if you are in a plane like Snuffy, and it's in fire, you'll react based on those survival instincts. In his scenario he surmised that he was better off putting out the fires, than jumping into the unknown. Yes he also rendered aide to other crew members so his sense of responsibility was clearly in play, but his motivation to do what he had was survival.
Now if you take someone like Roy Benivitas (sp) his actions were totally commendable. First he went to the fight, second he returned time and again for the men despite his own injuries and didn't stop until everyone he went to help was in the chopper and safe. That's above and beyond. The guys initially engaged in the fight were engaged out of survival but Roy didn't have to go or continue doing that rescue.
Hope that makes sense.... bottom line is most people will do whatever is necessary to survive. They may do just the minimum or go above and beyond. It's that drive to go above and beyond that defines heroic action.

I got to meet MSG Roy Benavidez once, he came to our unit to give a speech then had lunch at the chow hall. A few junior guys were selected by our units to sit at his table and I was one of those selected. Great guy and hard core to the bone.

Sgt, I met him and a bunch of other MoH recipients purely by accident in NJ. I was attending a Sr leadership school and went to the NCI club for some dinner. They were the only other's in the club and I was sitting alone at a table about to eat when I was invited to join them. I had no idea who they were until the introductions. To say I was humbled is a huge understatement. I have a signed copy of Roy's citation to accompany the award.

"What defines a hero?"

Just popping in for a sec, and didn't read the thread, but I'd say a hero is someone who puts themselves in harm's way while trying to give aid to others.

Also... ask Yooper.