The recent western cultural designation of all fallen soldiers (and in some circles, even all soldiers that serve) as heroes is both idiotic and cheapens the concept of heroism. Heroes a few and far between & many medals are given for political reasons (such as young Mr. Murphy's). To be heroic, one must have options, clearly understand what those options are and make choices that are extraordinary. To be caught in the blast of an IED is not heroic, it is unfortunate. To enlist in the military in a time of conflict is not heroic, it is doing one's duty.
Mr. Murphy made the what I consider the correct moral decision to not shoot a group of Afghans out of hand. Unfortunately, this fateful decision appears to have directly lead to the deaths of himself, most of his men, the soldiers that were dispatched to their relief and a large number of Afghans that attacked his unit. Once attacked, Mr. Murphy had few options. Without communication with the outside, he and his men were almost certain to die. Exposing himself to make contact was really the only viable hope for survival. It was brave to do so, but not heroic because there really was no other choice. Someone had to do it. And then misfortune thwarted the relief, sealing their fates. That one of his men survived was luck, not planning. And political necessity blew the incident up into public theater for the domestic audience.
In the case of young Mr. Collins, he had options. He could have done like so many other professional athletes & kept his mouth shut & took no risk & passed through life and his career without any repercussions. I don't know that I, as a straight person, see that as heroic & not just a brave act. But to those with a different sexual orientation, to those minority groups, heroic may be how he is seen because he chose to step forward when being silent would have been so easy.
And no, I'm not a knee-jerk, anti-military bleeding heart. The military service in my family is deep and long. My father served in the RCAF in the height of the Cold War. No one considered him a hero, especially himself. His grandfather served in the British army in the Great War & was gassed twice before receiving a medical discharge. Not considered a hero. My mother's father enlisted in the CEF in August 1914 and served continuously in the front lines in France and Belgium (over the top & all that) from spring 1915 (where his company nearly ceased to exist when caught in a series of explosions of tons of explosives planted in tunnels under their position) through to the end of of the war then served in the Occupation of the Rhineland until demobilized. He got through without a wound & only a couple of doses of the clap (according to his medical records, called "chronic gleet", and delayed his discharge from the military until it was cleared up in this time before modern antibiotics). Volunteered for active service again in 1939 but was turned down as too old. Not a hero. His father was a NWMP in what is now Saskatchewan in the mid 1800's. Retired, and then served in active service, including combat, in a militia unit in the Northwest Rebellion despite his advanced age. Hero? no.
True heroes are very few and very far between. And that is how it should be.
