I think some of the confusion in this sort of issue is the difference between the personal perspective and the societal or "higher" level perspective.
From a personal perspective, the story of a man who gives up a successful career to do something they believe in that leads to their death is one of heroism. That he died to blue-on-blue is a shame but it doesn't take away from his contribution as both a person on the ground and as an example for those whose conviction might flag without a role model.
However, from a "higher" level perspective (I hesitate to use "objective" but I mean wider, more societally focused) incidents of blue-on-blue are a product of armed conflict and simply to be expected when a nation fields their fighting force. As, indeed, are civilian casualties. And use of banned weapons. In fact, the whole notion of illegal weaponry borders on absurd. What do you mean that I can blow your arm off with a 7.62mm round but being burnt by white phosphorous is somehow less acceptable? Just ludicrous.
So, at a societal level, I feel that people need to man up and understand that if they're going to intervene with military means then people are going to get hurt, by both sides, on both sides.
But at the individual level, it still doesn't take away from one man's contribution.
That said, I do think it's a crying shame that the focus is on someone who already had the limelight and not, for example, on someone poor or unknown whose contribution can be equal in terms of heroism. I guess that's just the commercial nature of media and "news".
From a personal perspective, the story of a man who gives up a successful career to do something they believe in that leads to their death is one of heroism. That he died to blue-on-blue is a shame but it doesn't take away from his contribution as both a person on the ground and as an example for those whose conviction might flag without a role model.
However, from a "higher" level perspective (I hesitate to use "objective" but I mean wider, more societally focused) incidents of blue-on-blue are a product of armed conflict and simply to be expected when a nation fields their fighting force. As, indeed, are civilian casualties. And use of banned weapons. In fact, the whole notion of illegal weaponry borders on absurd. What do you mean that I can blow your arm off with a 7.62mm round but being burnt by white phosphorous is somehow less acceptable? Just ludicrous.
So, at a societal level, I feel that people need to man up and understand that if they're going to intervene with military means then people are going to get hurt, by both sides, on both sides.
But at the individual level, it still doesn't take away from one man's contribution.
That said, I do think it's a crying shame that the focus is on someone who already had the limelight and not, for example, on someone poor or unknown whose contribution can be equal in terms of heroism. I guess that's just the commercial nature of media and "news".
