Steve Irvine, the Crocodile Hunter, died of a Sting Ray attack yesterday. For any animal and wildlife lover, Steve was probably one of the most endearing and inspiring figures with his antics in front of the world's most dangerous creatures.
With Steve, as with many of the world's war heroes (a lot of them very young Captains and Majors in the Indian Army), I fail to understand why they did what they did... was their sacrifice really needed? Or were they just consumed in the heroics and the glory, and sacrificed their lives for not enough reason... maybe a little less bravery and a little more careful planning and strategy would have made a lot more good to the world!
Why did Steve take so much risk with Cobras and Crocodiles? Would it make so much of a difference to his wildlife conservation efforts, or his popularity, if he wore protective clothing (the Sting Ray killed him by puncturing his heart with it's barb - a simple strong body suit would have prevented his death!)? Why do our young army Majors court glory (and death) by storming down a slope to retrieve an injured soldier, when they could probably do so much more for the country by staying alive to fight another day?
It's not about saving your skin, it's about evaluating the cost of what you are about to do, and asking yourself, is it better for me to die today, or to live another day?
2 comments:
You cannot compare war heros with Steve. They are two completely different set of people.
What Steve did might be stupid 'cos he was just being a curious person taking dangerous risks to play around with nature. But, people in the India Army take fatal risks which are neither out of curiosity or stupidity, they are necessity in war. You cannot leave your people lying around to die or get killed if they are injured, you gotta try n save them.. its a risk one has to take for your own people and country.
-Namita
I think you misunderstood the crux of my question.
Risks are part of a soldiers life. The only question is, is the risk you are taking at every step justifying the achievement with that risk? When you are a smart Major, with a unit under you, and the ability to wreck havoc on the enemy, I think you need to evaluate at each point - is this bravery, or is this stupidity? If your sacrifice means a critical bridge can be saved, or a major attack on the country repelled, go take the risk. However, if your bravery means that one of your unit's soldiers is saved - do you really want to sacrifice your life for him? Remember, you are answerable to your country, not to that one soldier!
While on the topic, thought you might find this interesting - in the Vietnam war, the Americans sent out some troops on missions, where the mission itself was not important.. and the troops on the mission had no idea about it. The commanders just needed information on the enemy movements and positions, and if the mission team was attacked and destroyed, they immediately had the information they needed. I do not know whether the risks were worth it, and it was probably not fair on the mission teams! But who am I to decide?
I am not demeaning our valiant army, or any army in the world. I could have joined the army myself, but I did not because I am scared of war and violence and of dying. And I chose a simpler, easier life. No question about that!
Post a Comment