Heroes?

The front page of the Toronto Star this morning read “On guard for heroes' homecoming”. It was referring, of course, to the bodies of the soldiers who were killed most recently in Afghanistan.

Now, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary there are several definitions for “hero” including “a mythological or legendary figure often of divine descent endowed with great strength”. I assume that the intended meaning here would be “one that shows great courage”.

And this is where I have a problem: exactly what is courageous about getting blown up by a bomb? It seems more like a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Someone who is hit by a car and killed in downtown Toronto is not considered a hero, so what is the difference?

I suspect the response would be that these people gave their lives in defence of their country. Which would be a reasonable explanation if it were true, but it isn’t. They were not defending their country, could not possibly have been doing so, for the simple reason that their country was not under attack.

So if they are not heroes, what are they? Victims? Not innocent ones, certainly, as they were killed in the process of occupying a foreign country that has done us no harm.

“Casualty” may be the most appropriate term. Back to Merriam-Webster: “a military person lost through death, wounds, injury, sickness, internment, or capture”.

I know that the “Highway of Casualties” doesn’t sound nearly as dramatic, but it would be a lot more honest. And being honest with ourselves is a good place to start, if we want to stop producing more “heroes”.