202 AWARDED FOR VALOUR
vehicle out of the ambush before losing consciousness, which allowed his
platoon mates to extract him and the rest of the crew in relative safety.^73
The second VC won in the twenty-first century went to Corporal Bryan
James Budd of the 3rd Battalion of the Parachute Regiment for actions in
Afghanistan in the summer of 2006. On 27 July Corporal Budd led an attack
on an Afghan strong point after two of his squad mates had been hit and
were lying exposed to further small-arms fire. His leadership flushed the
snipers out of cover and allowed the survivors to be evacuated and saved.
On 20 August during a sweep through Sangin District Center, Corporal
Budd led his section through heavy brush in an attempt to surprise a group
of enemy fighters. Surprise was lost when the enemy caught sight of an
armed Land Rover supporting the operation. Corporal Budd attempted to
seize the initiative by conducting an all-out assault, ordering his men to
follow him. As they moved forward heavy fire knocked down three of
his men and forced the rest to take cover. Corporal Budd continued the
assault alone, killing the enemy as he rushed their position, continuing the
attack after being wounded. The rest of his platoon reorganized and pushed
forward. When they recovered Budd’s body he was surrounded by three
dead Taliban.^74
In the history of the Victoria Cross we see a momentous transforma-
tion in the nature of institutional heroism. In the Victorian period the VC
encapsulated and reified a romantic military ideal with a strong humanit-
arian component. The same officials responsible for evaluating heroic deeds
were, in addition, unable to offer a definition of heroism; like art, like
beauty, it was in the eye of the beholder.^75 This changed forever during
the First World War as the Cross became inextricably linked to aggressive,
enemy-killing actions. By the end of the war military officials could state
with confidence that winning the VC meant that you had to shoot someone.
The Cross was initially a product of a social climate that was receptive,
even eager for a national, egalitarian gallantry award. It reflected the growing
importance of middle-class cultural values, especially the ideals of personal
responsibility, self-improvement as a virtue, and the recognition of indi-
vidual accomplishment. It was a reflection of a jingoistic attitude in a nation
at war after decades of peace. It also reflected the desire of the British to
be as progressive as their French ally in the recognition of the individual
hero: certainly if a French soldier was recognized in the press and by the
government for gallantry, there had to be equally deserving British warriors.
The political climate was responsive to this social mood, and the creation
of the award could serve political needs on both sides of the political
equation. There was a call within Parliament for an egalitarian award for
lily
(lily)
#1