The Effects of the Vietnam War

Throughout the past few months of this class, many of us have raised the question as to why we are more conservative with the lives of soldiers in modern wars. After reading about the Trojan War, Civil War, and WWII, we have seen how many casualties some wars have had. Today, it seems that we, as a society, are extremely angry when less than 5,000 lives have been lost in the Iraq War. After Shanil and Ed’s presentation of the Vietnam War, I realized that our thoughts and ideals for present day wars is a product of the fight against this former communist country. In my post, I am going to focus on how the media and poor execution in the Vietnam War has molded the way we think about war.

Being the first war to be broadcasted on TV, citizens’ eyes were opened to the horrors of war. Compared to the way people originally glorified war, Americans saw the true and terrible nature behind war. In a way, our society started to value human lives more because of the dreadfulness the American troops were going through overseas. This ability to see the action firsthand rather than on a painting brought an aspect of realism to the war that changed our views forever.

Similar to the effect the media had on the war, the poor execution of the Vietnam War revealed another aspect of war. This new characteristic was the war’s trivial nature. Ultimately, the people started to see no reason for the war against communism, and having massive casualties and a draft forced people to look at the government in a negative light. When a society starts to distrust their leaders, it takes time, effort, and a good track record to establish the faith again.

While Vietnam was a terrible loss for the US that led to the death of many soldiers, it nevertheless changed our country. Whether you believe this is a good or bad change is up to you. Personally, I think seeing war in this light is a good thing. I think we should only risk our soldiers’ lives if we really have to, and while war should be an option, it should never be the first. I think people tend to not recognize the effects the Vietnam War had on the ideology of the American people. Ultimately, I think the values we have created as a product of the Vietnam War have been a positive influence for our nation

The Same Story Since the Civil War

Will and Jack’s presentation on the media coverage during the Civil War was very interesting to me. In their lecture, they showed the differences between two opposing newspapers, exposing bias from each side. Relating this to the media outlets today, I realized that very little has changed. While there are some talk and television shows that are moderately moderate (cool use of words I know), a majority of our media outlets have a political agenda based on their own views. In turn, the American people benefit but also lose, and as people, we need to realize the best course of action to get the true coverage of important events.

Today’s media has many matchups, if you will. For every conservative mind, there is a liberal one. These are a few competitions I created.

Rush Limbaugh vs. Al Franken

National Review vs. Air America

Bill O’Reilly vs. Keith Olbermann

FoxNews vs. MSNBC

In these particular cases, the names on the left are the more conservative while the names on the right are more liberal. However, in the end, one’s views on a particular media outlet are strictly based on his or her particular perspective. For example, for a liberal like myself, I happen to agree with many of the views Keith Olbermann and Al Franken take on issues. For a conservative, the situation would be reversed. Ultimately, each on of these people or shows is catering to a specific audience of liberals or conservatives.

I first want to point out the some of the problems I see with the way our media presents stories. First, through these extreme views, we end up polarizing Democrats, Republicans, and different views. Furthermore, we create a politics of hate that. Also, rather than cover stories fairly, these hosts turn this into an ego contest, where we end up resorting to elementary type recess fights where the hosts call each other names and bicker at each other (a good video for this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHx0oLrGjKY&NR=1). The last problem is that people only see their particular views. Americans that watch these shows only hear the opinions that cater to their own beliefs, once again polarizing the people of the US.

While this may be more difficult to do, I want to point out some good things about the way our media is constructed. These political adversaries try to balance each other out. They also make politics more interesting for a nation of highly apathetic voters. These hosts also show the freedom the US poses in terms of free speech and the ability to speak against or for the government. Finally, if people watch the shows they disagree with, they can gain a larger perspective in terms of political issues. I would highly encourage people do this.

Last week, Rush Limbaugh, a conservative talk show host, said he “hopes Obama fails” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4xY0G90rHc). While this statement has been somewhat taken out of context, it nicely sums up the American mass media of the 21^st century. While it seems obvious there is a terrible nature to this, there is also some good. As an American, I challenge myself to take everything the media presents with an understanding that there is bias so that I can really understand what is going on in our country and the world. In the end, I would highly encourage everyone else to do the same.

 

Chamberlin

I think it’s safe to say that Chamberlin is not the average colonel. He is overly thoughtful and at times even poetic, the novel continuously bounces between Chamberlin the college professor and Chamberlin the soldier, giving him a unique and rich background.  However, Shaara still uses Chamberlin as the main voice for the union. While this seems strange, I understand why the novel is set up this way. Ultimately, Shaara wants to show the differences between Chamberlin, Lee, and Longstreet, who each represent a different ranking and value system. Most importantly, I think it’s important to identify Chamberlin as a successful yet different colonel in the Civil War.

In class, we looked over the passage where Chamberlin starts to think about giving his own brother a doomed fate. At this moment, the novel switches from Chamberlin the colonel to Chamberlin the thinker. He begins to think about the war in terms of both sides, questioning the lives lost. He even starts to imagine how he would tell his own mother about his brother Tom. However, Chamberlin does not allow his thoughtfulness to get in the way of the task at hand, surviving, and he decides he will think about things later. In this short passage, the reader sees Chamberlin’s emotional depth and his thoughtfulness behind each of his actions. Through this, we can see that rather than take things lightly; he ponders every situation, revealing an inability to simply act out of impulse. Through this description, we would assume he would be a terrible soldier, however, he proves himself to be one of the best.

At the fight for Little Round Top, Chamberlin is commanded to take the farthest left point for the Union army. Because of this, he and his men were not allowed to retreat because doing so would result with the South taking over from behind the Union forces. Fending off the confederates for hours, Chamberlin realizes that his men are out of ammunition. In an act of desperation, he commands his men to charge down the hill with bayonets and swords to try to get the Confederates to flee. Leading by example and shouting at the top of his lungs, Chamberlin’s risk is rewarded, creating on of the most powerful moments in the battle. As a leader, this action tells a lot about Chamberlin. Had he not have thought about saving his own men without retreating, he would have never thought of a bayonet charge. It seems that, ultimately, his thoughtfulness saves the Union army during the fight for Little Round Top. Perhaps it is the thoughtful leaders that are the most successful. In the end, the thinkers are the ones who weigh out decisions, trying to find the best situation available. In Killer Angels, I think Shaara tries to show the differences between Lee and Chamberlin, showing a leader who simply acts and then showing one who over-thinks everything. Maybe it pays off to think about risk and reward even in times of something as impulsive and sudden as war.

Human Nature & War

In one of the most heated and interesting classes this trimester, we debated if war is an inherent part of human nature. After Ed and Brad had a their verbal combat, I found myself really questioning what I thought. Thinking in terms of history, I debated the issue, and I knew I would write my blog on this topic because I would have the chance to get a full thought out in the class battle. While it’s hard to argue, I do not think war is part of our inherent nature.

As people we do not yearn for war, however, our society accepts war as the way to handle a conflict between nations. If I had to guess, I would assume war has simply become the way to deal with these types of problems because it’s the best method to state dominance.  As tribes, city-states, and other groups of people in history conflicted with others, wagging war was the most extreme. In this case, one group would have to defend itself. I think because of the looming threat of war, states would build up a military and other armed forces in the event that they would have to defend themselves. Through this, war has become a part of our culture today. What I’m trying to say is that war is a part of our culture because it is the most intense way to resolve a conflict, and to seem strong, nations use this to fight an opponent.

I think it’s important to understand the difference violence and war. People are aggressive and this often translates into violence. However, when two people fight, they are not waging war on each other. War is a conflict between two groups of people on a large scale that deals with declared differences between the peoples. In fact, violence is typically a product of irrational thinking while war is typically a calculated and a thought through act. In this way, aggression or anger contradicts the basis of war.

Finally, I hesitate to believe that war is an inherent part of our nature is because I think it’s important to be optimistic if we truly want peace. How can I say war is part of our human nature if I want peace? I must believe that we are not warmongering creatures if I truly want to live in harmony with others. Ultimately, the only way peace can exist is if we convince ourselves that war is not part of our inherent nature. I hope that this idea resonates with you. 

Unexpected Victories

Yesterday in class, Mr. Crotty talked about the Falklands War, the war between Great Britain and Argentina for the Falkland Islands off the Argentinean coast. One of the main reasons for this unexpected victory for the South American country was due to what the nation was fighting for. Ultimately, winning this war came down to which country wanted it more. In this particular case, Mr. Crotty explained, Argentina fought for its pride, unifying the Argentinean people, while the UK fought for a few islands that meant very little to them. It made me think of other wars that seemed to be “upsets” and the reasons that the underdog came out on top.

Since its formation in 1948, Israel has been in constant dispute with its Arab neighbors, and somehow, this tiny nation has been able to defeat countries like Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Yemen and Saudi Arabia, as well as terrorists groups. Today, because Israel is so closely linked to the US, many nations realize that Israel is a stronger power than it would seem. However, The Israeli Independence War in 1948 was an incredible victory for Israel that solidified its reputation as a strong military power. This war began after the Jewish nation declared its independence, and as a reaction the Arab countries I listed above attacked Israel.  After 10 months of fighting, somehow Israel defeated the Arab nations. The way Israel won that war is still hard to understand. Keep in mind, the US did not support Israel the way it does today. Ultimately, Israel’s victory was a product of good strategy, a unified people, and a real reason to fight. The Arab countries were poorly set up. The different nations were not unified, and finally, they were not fighting for survival the way Israel was. 

Anything can happen in war. While the stronger military power usually wins a war, if a country is fighting for survival or pride against a nation who is fighting for something less significant, I think that the country who fights for something important can win. Israel defeated the Arab armies for a few reasons, but the fight for survival fueled the nation towards victory. Another example of this pattern can be found in the American Revolution, where the colonial army was weaker but fought for more. Another example would be the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in 1943 where the Jews in a Polish Ghetto refused to be taken to Treblinka extermination camp. These men, women, and children held off the Nazis for almost an entire month, longer than the entire country Poland. All of these examples are extreme cases of the underdog coming out on top, and in all of these wars or battles, the winning side was fighting for pride and, more importantly, survival. I guess a large factor of winning a war is not based on the actual fighting but being unified as a nation as well as fighting for something more than your opponent.

Why Achilles Changes

In The Iliad, after Patroclus dies in battle, wearing Achilles armor, Menelaus sends word to Achlles, Patroclus’ closest friend. When Achilles hears the news, the once bitter warrior changes. While his transformation seem to alter the course of this story, his movement from an egotistical fighter to a concerned soldier not only changes the course of the story but also exposes Achilles for the character he really is, exposing some patterns of human nature in similar situations.

One of the most distinguished themes in The Iliad is the ego. Arguably the person most obsessed with this idea is Achilles, so when he puts his feud with Agamemnon aside, it made me. Throughout the majority of the epic poem, Achilles and the Achaean leader constantly conflict, usually in regards to power and influence, so I began to question, why does Achilles put all of these quarrels aside? One answer exposes something true about life. When you put things in perspective, the smaller things start to become less important. If you think about it, these kinds of things happen quite often. After the Attacks of September 11th, for example, George Bush’s approval ratings were hovering around 90%, some of the highest numbers in American history. However, less than a year earlier, the President lost the popular vote in the 2000 election, so it seems strange that he would have such high approval ratings. While this is a strange example, what I’m trying to show is that when there is a common enemy/idea or something much larger going on, internal feuds suddenly seem petty. In this case, Achilles sees Hector as the main enemy and vows to avenge the death of his closest friend. Also, Achilles starts to limit his ego, perhaps solidifying that the famous warrior has put this war ahead of himself (unlike Hector, who becomes more self-centered at this point). After Patroclus dies, Achilles sees this war in a new light, and is able to abandon some of his proud tendencies.

However, there is another possibility why Achilles changes so much. Perhaps he used Patroclus’ death as a vehicle for him to fight. The only thing that is harder than placing yourself lower than another person is doing so after you have established that you would never do that. It’s similar to the idea that once you have established your views, its impossible to go against them without seeming weak. It only heightens the problem if you are an egomaniac like Achilles. I think Achilles may have wanted to fight for the Achaeans, however, he thought others would see him as weak if he would back down from Agamemnon if there was no distinct reason why he would, especially after stating he would never fight for him. Perhaps Patroclus’ death was the only way Achilles could abandon his pride (and even stubbornness) to fight for the Achaeans, and therefore change the course of the Trojan War. I think that this idea is natural as well. People tend to hate grudges, and it is part of human nature to let some things go. A piece of evidence for this theory is Achilles being able to control his rage and stay levelheaded long enough to get new armor. Perhaps this shows that he has been ready for this situation for some time before it actually occurred. Nevertheless, the true reason he changes is unclear.

Because the true reason behind Achilles changing is impossible to know for sure, it makes his change so much more interesting. Perhaps it is the idea that when something big happens, people start to act and put their lives into perspective, causing them to forget the grudges that once occupied their lives. However, it may be part of our inherent nature to look for excuses to reconcile differences and let go of grudges, and perhaps Achilles uses Patroclus’ death as means to do so. In my eyes, each answer is valid, however, only one can be true. My question to you is, which one do you think it is?

Self-Sacrifice

As we entered the class, Mr. Crotty asked us a strange question: “What would you die for?” After I listed everything I think I would die for, I found myself questioning what I wrote down. On my list were my family, friends, America, Judaism, and Israel, but was all of this true? It occurs to me that there are natural things to place above one’s life, but there are some concepts and ideas that only few but above themselves.

 

Probably the most common thing a person would die for is a family member, primarily a parent for a child. However, I found myself questioning whether I would die for my friends. Ultimately, I realized while I would not be eager to fight and die for my friends, I would feel somewhat obligated to. Essentially, the new question is not what would I die for, but “What would I not let die.” While they sound similar, they have completely different answers. It would torture me forever if I let a friend die when I could have saved him or her. In reality it’s not a noble reason to sacrifice myself, but it is a way to escape everlasting guilt. True nobility is when a person sacrifices himself or herself for an idea or belief.

 

Saving family and friends at your own expense is a semi-realistic yet self-interested view, but dying for a cause is an idealistic way of thinking. As Mr. Crotty went around the room, asking what a person may die for, some answers were America, freedom, democracy, and religion. I see these answers as idealistic yet completely valid. I was one of the people who put this on my list. However, I started to question my ability to die for democracy or even for freedom. I realized that it’s nice to think I would, but when push comes to shove, I have no clue how I would act.  I realized that the people who have died for a cause are martyrs. From Jesus to Martin Luther King Jr. there have been people who have died to stand for something. Ironically, their deaths lead to their immortality as martyrs. While martyrs are typically idolized, there have been those who fought for a cause that we find backwards, or even wrong. Examples of this are suicide bombers in the Middle East. While we see these people as murders, they believe they are doing something for a cause or idea all to praise God. Essentially, a Palestinian suicide bomber is very similar to the story of Thomas Jefferson, Paul Revere, and George Washington, committing treason to establish their own homeland. While I am in no way condoning a person to kill himself or herself in the name of Allah, in their communities, these men waging jihad on Israel and the US are seen as heroes, similar to our nation’s founding fathers, and while there are fundamental differences between George Washington and a suicide bomber, their desires to make the world better for their people are the same. Ultimately, a person must act with morals, caring about other lives as their own.

 

Finally, while this is an intriguing topic and idea, it is impossible to really know what I would die for. When confronted with extreme situations, we may react differently than we would think we would. Ultimately, I would like to believe that I would do anything to save my family and friends, but I am pessimistic I would die for a cause. Perhaps this is because I am not involved in a cause of that degree, but nevertheless, I would do anything to survive. Like US soldiers, firefighters, and policemen putting their lives in danger to make life better for others, I feel that those who would be willing to sacrifice themselves should be admired, at least for their dedication to something. They could do something I could never.