The time was when this country knew what the accolade, "war hero," meant.  To be sure, those were times of great men and great deeds, a time of triumphs and tragedies, a time of dedication to purpose and principle.  In short, not now.

Our whole concept of "hero" has changed.  Sports figures are openly referred to as "heroes."  Popular entertainers, many of whom have done nothing notable, are thought of as "heroes."  And politicians who just happened to have been in the military go about proffering their hero status.  All of this is as phony as a three dollar bill.

So, what, exactly, is a "hero?"  I want to offer the following thoughts:

1.  A hero must have intentionally done something extraordinary.
2.  That which was done must have exhibited an unusual degree of courage.
3.  That which was done must have been unselfish and for the greater good.
4.  A true hero must maintain an appropriate amount of humility.

It can be seen that a wide range of persons would qualify as heroes.  And, it should be equally obvious that a wide range would not.  For example, a firefighter who puts himself in harms way to rescue victims would clearly fit into this definition.  But, a football quarter back would not, regardless of how talented he is on the gridiron.

And, what about the "war hero?"  We certainly have had many true war heroes.  Audie Murphy occurs to me as a perfect example.  A war hero must be someone who achieved hero status by acts of war, primarily in action against the enemy.  Although it is certainly possible that courageous acts of a chaplain, or corpsman in time of war would qualify.

So, where, exactly, does Senator John McClain fit in this analysis?  I hear him repeatedly referred to as a "war hero."  I have no reason to believe that McCain acted in any way other than as a brave and loyal naval aviator.  I know he was shot down and held prisoner in Hanoi.  And, I know that he was subjected to torture and other suffering there.  But, I have never heard of any particularly heroic act performed by McCain.  I would not fault him for his misadventure, but the time was when being defeated and captured was considered to be a disgrace, not an honor.  All I'm saying here is that being captured, and surviving captivity, is not in itself a heroic act.

I think it's enough that we recognize the Senator's loyal service to his country as we should for every for veteran.  I think that lauding that service, and elevating it to heroic status does a disservice to every true war hero in our history.  And, I think it sends the wrong message to every American.