While any terrorist isn't a hero to me... we can not deny that terrorists are indeed heroes to SOMEONE.
I'll slice and dice them, but that doesn't mean that somewhere, someone isn't praying for their safe return.
`
Debussey thinks that a requirement for being a hero is to possess the personality traits of being a true hero.
Then, if the overwhelming majority of the population that judges the "hero" (since the only universal criteria for judging the higher ideal = if many people agree with it at a certain point in time) agrees with the ideal the hero fights for, then he is a true hero.
Then, what people thinks varies througout time, so a "hero" today can be a "zero" in 100 years because the ideal is seen in another light.
How the majority of the people in the US evaluates the ideal the soliders are fighting for (not just the war, but also the ideal of doing your best as an army representative (the internal army ideals, lot of honor associated with that, no matter what the war is fought for) and how they see their courageful efforts is the best way to determine if a solider risking his life = a hero.
We need to split the "ideal" into several sub parts, like:
- The reason for the war
- the general view of a solider following order
- The general view of the US army
- the romantic view of somebody sacrificing themselves for something greater
- the historical way this war will be seen
- the long term effects of removing Saddam. Perhaps the arabic world will be better off by this war in the long term (50+ years)? Who knows.
- spreading western values
If the majority of the sub parts of the "ideal" turns out positive, and is supported by the majority, then a soldier fighting in Irak is a hero, based on the criteria for which a true hero is judged, as described within this post.
Another distinction: A desk job in Irak does not satisfy the requirements for being a true hero. One has to either contribute strategically through tactical genius, or be out there risking ones life on the battlefields.
