The other day on the internet somewhere I ran across an item asking people to express their opinions about a recent Congressional move to allow certain government awards for heroism, death in the line of duty, and the like, to be granted not just to military personnel (as has been the case up to now) but also to civilian government employees in the same circumstances.
Now I can't find it. However, it was interesting because the opinions registered really covered the spectrum, from "no, never, these awards are for military" to "yes, civilians also serve with valor, often as much as servicepeople." (Also interesting was that the first opinion came from a civilian - the daughter of a military man; while the second came from a retired military man.)
There are fair arguments on both sides of this question. It's reasonable and traditional to reserve certain awards for the military. On the other hand, the world is changing and frequently, civilians (including, but not limited to, my own foreign service brethren and sistren) often find themselves trying to carry out their mission in conditions of conflict, lawlessness, or the specific targeting of U.S. facilities. One main difference is that the civilians aren't issued a weapon!
Still, though I suppose I should be "in favor," I actually oppose the idea of granting such awards to civilians as well as military personnel. That's because it's just another example of a pointless and possibly unhealthy trend -- that everyone has to be "recognized" for everything they do.
It begins in schools with silliness like middle school "graduations" and competitive events where everyone who competes gets a ribbon or trophy. I understand the arguments people make for these trends, but I don't agree with them. We teach the mindset that everybody can be a winner, and we foster the notion that whatever result is achieved is meritorious. Both these concepts are false.
The issue of military awards for civilians is part and parcel of the same process, as is the latest proliferative event: President Obama reportedly has agreed to begin sending condolence letters to the families of military personnel who commit suicide. And the word "hero," incidentally, has lost all meaning as it's commonly applied now to a wide swath of humanity who are just doing their regular jobs, tough jobs though they may be.
Some may argue that the recognition proliferation is harmless. I would suggest instead that it reflects warped values. So if asked, I would say "no military awards for civilians," let's stop the madness. And while we're at it, the trade-off is that we have to stop misconstruing what military service is. In the opinion poll mentioned above, one woman argued that civilians choose their professions freely but the military do not. That's oldthink. Our military services are - regrettably and to our detriment - all-volunteer now. They're pretty well compensated, they choose their profession, they're aware of the risks going in -- and yes, they could have chosen something else. The myth of the citizen soldier is as errant in the twenty-first century United States as the myth of the small family farm.
Of course, speaking of recognition, I recognize it does me no good to argue against the trend. The train of recognition entitlement has left the station headed for that valhalla where everyone gets applause for achievements even if there aren't any.
Cheapening recognition robs it of its purpose. It should be reserved for recognizing actions "above and beyond the call."
In response to one of my recent blog posts about a real military hero, an old friend sent some factoids about Harry Truman. One said, when he was 87, Congress began a process to award him a Medal of Honor. Truman wrote a letter saying if they made the award he would not accept it. He said they should reserve the medal for only those who had performed heroic actions, and he did not consider himself one of those.
Perhaps we need a few more Harry S. Trumans today.
Posted by: Gabbygeezer | July 12, 2011 at 05:24 PM