Argumentation #3

The concept of courage and cowardice have been accepted within our society as two complete opposites for many generations. It has been presumed that courage, above all, is the first quality of a warrior, and that there is no room for cowardice on the battlefield. On the contrary, it has also been presumed that a coward is a hero with a wife, kids, and a mortgage. The decision whether a soldier is cowardice or courageous has been a controversial subject among numerous countries, including America. In the midst of war, American's perception of a courageous soldier is a warrior who is heroic, brave, and capable with the abilities to protect his/her fellow citizens. This is not true.

People say that soldiers filled with courage have the ability to protect their country, to protect their citizens, and to protect their justice. However, this is not always the case. Yes, there are some soldiers who can be perceived with those qualities. Nevertheless, soldiers are rather cowardice than courageous. Someone may believe that during a battle, a soldier may go home alive due to an injury caused by his courageous actions. How can someone be so certain that the soldier even did any courageous actions? In reality, soldiers go home not because of their injury, but because of their fear. Their fear is what brings them to descend from the war. Soldiers are typically afraid of death, afraid of pain, and just afraid of war in general. Soldiers don't fight to protect their morality, they fight because they were trained to do so and taught to follow orders. When cowards leave the war, they leave their comrade's pale corpse lying on the steady ground, they leave their country in a state of uprising war, and most of all, they leave all their so called "courage" behind. The image of a soldier is rather fake than what we had expected.