Veterans are not victims

Home Opinion Veterans are not victims

Are veterans victims? Are the men and women of the Global War on Terror a robust warrior class or the damaged victims of bad foreign policy?

Anyone who has overheard veterans telling stories over a meal, or reliving old adventures between pints of beer, can tell you they do not sound like victims. You will most likely hear vociferous accounts of young men, many not even old enough to legally drink, merrily tumbling down some ramshackle dirt road in armored trucks, bodies and vehicles bristling with weaponry, covered in dust and sweat-induced salt stains, yearning for a righteous battle. You might hear about the guttural thrills induced by the electric energy and rapid percussion of a successful range exercise.

Impressions from the media, Hollywood, and much of the professional health industry, however, tend to imply veterans are the broken refuse of foreign policy blunders. But the answer to this question is more complex than pop psychology buzzwords or sensational representations in film and media.

As I pose this question, it is important I make clear that I appreciate the sentiments of those who sympathize with veterans. Compared to the tragic treatment veterans of other wars have endured, veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan have been well-received and we truly are grateful for the acknowledgment.

But the question remains: are veterans victims? I resolutely say no. The “victimized veteran” is merely an extension of the modern liberal preoccupation with victimhood. It is not an accurate reflection of the truth of war, killing, and the human soul. Exposure to the violence of war is not a psychological ‘coups de grâce,’ and does not necessarily condemn one to merely a life of striving.

The terror and pain a soldier experiences often serves to expand, not diminish, the potential greatness of his soul. It realigns the soldier’s moral paradigm with what is truly important and higher—a rare gift, considering that in peacetime experience it is so easy to mistake what appears to be higher for what is higher in actuality.

You might also hear soldiers tell the story of the Battalion Intel Officer who briefed a platoon that the probability of an IED attack on the next mission was 93 percent, but they all went anyway.

The virtue and moral courage of such men shines even brighter when one remembers that not only are they willing to lay down their lives for people to whom they owe no duty, but that they have all volunteered to perform this sacred work. Nowhere among the revelers will you see the visage of psychologically traumatized, emotionally crippled victims. In contrast, you might observe that these men are rather proud and feel little to no need to lament the costs each of them paid in the execution of their good work.

In a time when the moral profile of most influencers is largely postmodern, relativistic, and progressive, we find that many are happier sympathizing with victims than with those who have gladly accepted the circumstances of victimhood for a higher purpose, but rejected the persona on the grounds that suffering for the right reasons and in the right way is, in fact, not suffering at all, but a privilege to be fought for and one of the great glories of which man is capable.

The natural mode in our age of pop psychology is to expect brokenness and feebleness as necessary reactions to trauma of all kinds. The proud, unapologetic type does not meet our expectations and this is unnerving. But as for myself and my closest friends, we will continue merrily tumbling towards our next righteous battle, whether in uniform or out.