I suggest service people who step up to the plate in dire moments are needed to perpetuate the role of war-as-entertainment. A civilian who jumps in the cab of a truck with a loose handbrake doesn't have centuries of history books and ABC docos to create the same aura. Interestingly we don't seem to have cowardice medals. Perhaps the peacekeepers who failed to prevent massacres in Rwanda and Bosnia could earn a reprieve by acts of heroism. Cowardice (-1) followed by valour (+1) equals a clean slate (0).

Another thing that troubles me about military valour is that it takes politicians to approve the context. For some reason Afghanistan is the right setting for heroes but getting cholera medicine to Zimbabwe is not. Of course some will say that the military laid down their lives for us. Maybe so but everything now seems chummy with Japan and Vietnam so I wonder what was the point. Moreover the billions the military gets for whizzbang machines could go to hospitals and clean energy instead. We don't seem to have heroes in those fields of endeavour.

I think Taswegian makes a lot of sense.

I don't want to detract from Trooper Donaldson's efforts, but it raises some problems in my mind.

What makes a person want to join the forces anyway? Those that I know who have joined seem to have a simpleton's "goodies v baddies" mentality, see war as glorious, look forward to combat and possibly enjoy the kill.

If Trooper Donaldson did what he was trained to do (his admission) was it really an act of bravery or was his mind running on empty at the time? Are they trained to take such risks?

Did he disobey an order when he went 80metres to save a life? Was he ordered to go back and save the life? Did he just do what he wanted to do? Who was in charge at the time, or do soldiers just do what they like in times like this? I suppose he just acted on his own initiative in the madness surrounding him.

I cannot imagine even John Wayne, in a movie he directed himself, would be able to drag a mate 80 metres under "heavy machine gun fire" and escape unharmed.

The citation associated with the VC just leaves too many gaps for me to fully understand the bravery of this young man, and the surrounding circumstances.

Let me repeat, I am not attempting to denigrate or undermine Donaldson's award or actions. Just trying to understand.

Actually, I don't know why we are in Afghanistan. To get Bin Laden? To gain revenge on those who might have protected Bin Laden? Because we don't like their religion? It can't be the last one, because our allies supported and funded the Taliban in the 1980s.

I have moved off topic to a considerable degree, but this seemed like as good a place as any to post.

For the record, I thought the article made a lot of sense

Hi Sasha

"Trooper Donaldson’s award of the VC has now well and truly put an end to the era of the media tough guy as society’s hero"

This is an interesting (almost heroic ;) juxtaposition of themes but the bestowal of a VC can hardly change the basic character of TV journalism.

The Government creating a legend of Trooper Donaldson’s bravery however may well influence the media and thereby manipulate the public attitude to the escalating war in Afghanistan.

At the ever presentl risk of dissembling an Official Honour I'd say the VC is justly earned but is also of use to the Rudd Government to legitimise Australia's involvement in this War. The Government may well be conditioning the Australian public for an announcement by it in 2009 of an increase in the numbers Australian troops to be sent to Afghanistan. My prediction is - maybe 200 to 500 extra troops in one or more announcements in 2009?

So I agree with the other commenters that there are inevitably political implications to this VC bestowal.

Pete
http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2008/04/anzac-day-songs-25-april-australias.html

I'm sure the three contributors thus far have missed the point, and aside from the insult to the valour of the Trooper, "legend" indeed, the thrust of Sasha as I see it is the for many years our alleged media professionals associated with defence have had no qualifications in the area other than their wont to project their implied testosterone to the viewer. Their analysis of the military events undertaken before their eyes was amateurish at best, and just fee earning at worst!

I'm sure that those that commit to the profession of arms deserve a journalistic analysis that is knowledgeable of their skills, the commanders tactics and their adequate (or otherwise) equipping. We have not had this level of informed critique for some decades.

Our deployment to Afghanistan has been replete with military cock-ups by those employed to know better, both military and political, but have they been revealed by the amateurs assigned by the media moguls? No!

Sasha has this quite correct, even if not by an explicit pointing of the finger. As a nation we deserve journalists whom are skilled in the military arts, and we see none in recent history and none on the horizon, other than Sasha...

'The 1960s were a turbulent time in Australia’s history with Vietnam seen as a controversial war and a conservative society undergoing dramatic change. The notion of strong young men undergoing military service as a rite of passage was seen as anachronistic and this view probably lasted until the 1980s.'

This is an extremely dangerous attitude, which is taking hold more and more in Australia's shrine-junkie, war-hero mad culture. It reeks of the cultural necrophilia that has traditionally and arrogantly exploited young men as martyrs to a military-mystique monster of our own design and in continual need of feeding.

Combined with the backlash against feminism - starting in the late 1980s - and its accompanying resurgent cult of masculinity throughout the 90s and 00s, I fear the ultimate endgame of this kind of 'new breed of hero' narrative is the re-introduction of conscription on a permanent basis, in order to expand even further on Australia's traditional role as obedient mercenary to the powerful.

'Those who are highly paid observers or futurologists such as the well respected Bernard Salt should be taking note of this trend and passing it on to those powerful people who shape our media agenda such as news bosses John Westacott of the Nine Network and his Seven Network counterpart Peter Meakin.'

Oh, please, Sacha. Quit the grovelling! As a self-proclaimed paparazzo-sympathiser and 'freelance photo journalist, blogger, and budding film maker whose mission is to return Australia's national defence/ security debate to its rightful owner, the taxpayer', save this trope for your CV.

Sorry for the angry sarcasm, folks. But this essay really got up my nose.

What exactly is a hero and why do we need them anyway?

We laud our ‘heroes’ for acts of bravery but how do we know they are acts of bravery? How do we know what motivates someone to act the way they do under stress? Many ‘heroes’ act out of fear of not acting. Suicide bombers are labeled as heroes by their supporters but that does not mean they are necessarily brave. Many of them are too afraid not to be a suicide bomber. The pressures brought to bear on them by their families and fanatical peers can give many young people the sense that they have no choice.

There is a lot of equally dubious emotional pressure heaped on soldiers in the West. It is quite possible that their acts of ‘bravery’ are motivated by the fear of the life-long consequences of not acting. The guilt, the derision of their mates, the scorn of family and society can all be powerful but irrational motives for acts deemed by outsiders as brave.

If the time ever comes when we can prove beyond doubt that the motivation is bravery then we can have our heroes but until then we should be very careful about elevating anyone on to a pedestal above their fellow citizens who may be truly brave in other ways.
Politicians, armed forces or media who try to manipulate public sentiment in this way are scraping the bottom of the barrel.