How the Vietnam War Changed America

Vietnam was the first war in which the media was allowed front line access and complete, unmasked coverage of a war. America, absent of the internet, cell phones, and all the techonoligical splendors of today's society, was naive to the atrocities that took place on a battle field. How could they not be? What little they could know was the information of the surviving veterans, who, as we saw in the brilliant Slaughter-House Five, are mentally beriddled by conditions such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and others like it. And not only was information about war limited, it was also glorified by the government to try enhance the military power. For example: The United States government during the second world war generated positive hysteria by demanding a sense of nationalism and pride and calling to its people a cry for heros. Before Vietnam, people believed that war was a place to build a legacy-stories like the Iliad, and situations like Mr. Crotty talked about where fighters were idolized and placed on pedestals (he also said that today we rarely see that). Before Vietnam, war was essentially a secret, a pandora's box to civilian life, and the Vietnam war, without warning and without regard, shattered the box, releasing the horrors of war and the reality of death for all the world to see.

Because of the capabilities of the American media during the war, the nightly news became an anti-war pacifists ultimate oximoron. The fears these anti-war advocates held were materialized by the pictures of death and destruction. The oximoron lies in that these newly published images of war solidified their thoughts and most likely enhanced the rage and sadness towards war, but it also became an outlet to spread like wildfire this young campaign which denounced force and war as it led essentially to death. The access journalists and photographers were granted, demanded a full fledged portrayal of the extremely unknown and otherworldly atmosphere war permitted. This exposure (no pun intended) most certainly was fueled by the vague and indirect reasons for the costliest loss in American war history.

Now, the question does not become one about the change in war as a result of the revelations about the subject to the everyday citizen, the answer to that is obvious (yes, it did), the questions which I believe become increasingly more important are ones that assess the "for better or for worse" conflict. Even better, I believe, is a question like, did these depictions of war alter foreign policy and better the chances of waging peace as opposed to war? We have been fighting for all of eternity, but, those not fighting, which is usually the majority, may not have been aware of the realness of the atrocities that were taking place.

I feel like the potential exists for me to ramble on and on and on and on....etc about these conflicts. For every point I make that supports the idea that we have hope for less war and more peace in the future, I can make a point that claims the inevitability of war. For Example, since Vietnam, where the media was first granted access to reveal humanity's most atrocious tradition, America has yet to win a war (we still havent won in Iraq) and if America is not winning, and the other country certainly is not, we then discover that no participant is victorious and we can potentially claim that if there are no winners why fight? But to counter that, I could argue that all this idealism is good and well, but when enemies like Jihadist militants are willing to give their life to defend their cause, we simply have no choice but to take their lives before they take ours and theirs at the same time. And to take their lives we must wage war.

So, it seems that with every question I try to answer a million more arise, all I can say is that the role of the media and their capabilities is changing the fundamentals of warfare. Good times on the blog.

Death in War

In class the other day Mr. Crotty spoke about the soldier at the stars game whos seats were changed with better ones, as a soldier's are at every home game. We discussed the idea that we do not know the man, we do not know whether or not he even fought in Iraq, or whether or not he is worthy of getting the seats. We asked ourselves why do we glorify our soldiers today when we do not fully understand anything about them at all.

One way or another it got me thinking about the idea of whether or not soldiers who die in wars die honorably, like we so often deem as the reason they join the army. To be concise, we have concluded that some soldiers join the army, marines, navy...etc, because they will be fighting for something for which they are willing to die. Because they are willing to die for this thing, they enter with the comfort that they will have died honorably, and for a noble cause.

I agree that dying to defend a cause is highly honorable, even more honorable than abiding by the honor code at Greenhill. Even more honorable I believe than taking a job with a lower salary over a higher paying job that has potential to force someone outside their moral comfort zone.

The question that arose within me, is whether or not soldiers who fought and died in the civil war died and were treated with honor. And not just the civil war, plenty of wars have been fought where casualties were so high that proper treatment of the disposed bodies was simply impossible. In The Iliad, an entire day was given where both sides could collect the dead. But what did they do with them? What happened to the thousands of soldiers who died at Gettysburg? Today they are given the respect of a memorial, but the dead were not all necessarily buried in Gettysburg. Often times, I would assume, people were so badly wounded they were unrecognizable. I can only imagine an instance where a living soldier walked past the body of his best friend, recognizing him not by his eyes and features but by the nuances of his uniform or the uniqueness of his body. Or the times where a man was wounded so badly, he was unidentifiable. To me, all these questions bring light to a prophecy that all soldiers do not join the military because they want to die honorably. Often times people join the military because they have no other option. Or because they believe if they dont they could get involved in immoral and unethical activities. I feel like ive crossed paths in this post and then digressed, crossing back over the path i already laid. My main point, I suppose, is that war is often so glorified by so many people that we are forgetting that it is a profession, granted a very different one and risky one, but it is one after all. It provides simpler more practical outlets other than spiritual or ethical escape. Lastly, I want to know what you all think: Say a man has murdered someone. Hes gotten away with it because of the circumstances of his life, maybe he lives in a neighborhood where death by murder is not uncommon. The man, weary of an imminent retaliation, decides to join the military. He does, and after a tour of Iraq, he returns home to find a family member waiting with tickets to a Dallas Stars game. He goes, and lucky for him gets selected as the soldier who gets to move to better seats. Not having known the story, we look to the person next to us, stand up, and applaud. The man, a murderer turned soldier, stands up and waves to the 20,000 people saluting his duty to America. American flags are waved all over the jumbo-tron. Is the man a hero, or should he be in jail where by American law he belongs?

Leadership

Because football and war are so often compared, I feel obligated to continue with another example that connects the two. To be a great coach in the NFL, one is required the ability to demand and receive the respect of his players. Whether this means they love him to death and are willing to give everything for him, or because they respect the regulations the coach puts forth and must abide by them in order to stay on the team, a player must respect his coach. Over the years, the Cowboys have seen coachs from both extremes and in between. Tom Landry was an incredible coach because he demanded of his players the highest sense of character and order. He established inredibly strict rules and never feared implementing a consequence. Jimmy Johnson was much of th same. While they understood the necessity of the relationship between themselves and the players, they also understood the necessity of allowing for distance between themselves and the players because it kept their authority at a maximum. Wade Phillips took a different approach to coaching. He believed that befriending every player and completely wiping away the gap between them and himself would benefit the team on an even greater level than Landry or Johnson could. After arguably the most dissapointing season in Cowboy history, and failing to make the playoffs when the season was deemed Super Bowl or bust, we see that in football, the best head coaches are the ones who remain authoritative first, friend second.

In war, this same tactical position is imperative to success. To be a general and the ultimate leader, one must understand the reality of his situation. He must recognize that because he is in a war his men will die, regardless of whether he wants them too or not, and to be effective, he must distance himself to a degree so as to not form close enough bonds with his soldiers that he cannot demand them to act according to plan. The general must understand that he absolutely has a responsibility to his country first, and a responsbility to the people fighting to defend his country second. The fact is that war is a very powerful and emotional thing. Often times, after years as a leader, the amount of deaths to an army can begin to effect the leader. At this point, it is essential that the leader recognize his humanistic trait, and step down so a better suited general can take over.

War, human nature, and inevitability

A few days ago the room was split into two and a debate was held about whether war is inherent in human nature or it is not. I was on the side that was attempted to argue that war is not inherent in human nature. The best argument my side could come up with was that human nature, at its root, is uninfluenced. By uninfluenced I mean that the origin of our nature, human nature at its beginning, is unaffected by fear, hunger, ego, and pride. These are just four driving forces that lead to war. We argued that because true human nature exists without the influence of these feelings, the idea and need to go to war simply does not exist.

Now for my real argument. I believe that human nature is not as simple as a state of being without the influence of outer situations. If the redundant but true phrase goes something like "we are defined by the way we respond to adversity" then I believe that our response to an influence is where our true human nature exists. And under this mantra, if a human being becomes hungry, he will try to find food. Or if a human being feels threatened, he has a self-righteous duty to defend himself.

I also believe that war is inevitable. Last year in nature in uses we studied people and the inner workings of thought and intuition. I learned that we are defined by our unique experiences and that these experiences give each one of us a different point of view. Because we can simply only see the world through our own eyes and with our own experiences, we will inevitably have different views on certain subjects. It is simply impossible to agree with everyone on everything. Even further, we hold some experiences closer to our hearts because they have had an even greater impact on our makeup. For example: religion, family, friendship, and one's country are four incredibly important subjects to most people's hearts and minds. Each person has had his or her own experience to define what those subjects mean to him or her. When someone's experiences differ to someone else, seeing eye to eye is simply impossible. Unless other experiences allow these two people to find a common ground. Look at the "War on Terror." We are fighting against people who believe that their one God does not believe in our existence. They believe that what they are doing is absolutely necessary for the goodness of their own people. We believe that what we are doing is necessary for the goodness of our people. While we have to in order to win the war, these two conflicting thoughts are the reasons war is inevitable.

Legacy

The story of Achilles in the Iliad is well known. Essentially he chooses between life and legacy. Thankfully, as the story could not have been crafted if he selected life, Achilles chooses to be remembered as the greatest warrior in the history of time. This story of his legacy is crucial to the seminal value of the Iliad.
It is incredible to me how parallel the story of the Iliad has been to Homer's writing. He has left behind an incredible legacy of epic creation to remembered for eternity. The story of the Iliad, as Sam and I portrayed in through our presentation, has been documented and expanded upon since it was created thousands of years ago. From the story, books, movies, paintings, sculptures, strategies, and even condoms have taken Homer's story and in some form or fashion made it their own.
I think these actions are paramount in displaying education. We often sit around in classrooms discussing a certain topic or idea. We debate, agree, depict our unique thoughts, and sometimes we argue and attempt to pursuade others that our belief is superior. Most times, we each portray our own idea and in turn collaborate and form a big conclusion. To me, these offsprings of the Iliad do just that. They portray many different angles and motifs Homer attempts to express in his epic poems. For example, there are various pieces of art ranging from theater to sculptures that attempt to answer the open ended question Homer leaves about Achilles' relationship with Patroclus. These collaborative pieces about this debatable subject attempt to forge an argument that best fits the reality of their relationship. Even further, when in the classroom we are still unable to form a final conclusion, it becomes evident to me that we are simply missing the bigger picture. In this case, Homer's writings create points of argument that actually lead to bigger and more important arguments. But most of all, Homer left behind the very phenomenon he expresses through his main character and Hero: the importance of Legacy.

The Armour and Shield

What we wear plays a huge role in the way people perceive us. This should not surprise anyone. My best and most relateable comparison to the Iliad is the meaning of "appearance" in football. Often times, the best player on the field simply looks the best. Bulging muscles, unbelievably tight-to-the-pads jerseys, and a unique use of accessories such as facemask visors, long sleeves, half sleeves, etc all contribute to a superstar's appearance. Sure, there are a few exceptions where a team has a player who looks a lot better than he plays, but for the most part, the players that look good can play well. While the armour and shield of Achilles supports this simple claim, it delves deeper and provides great examples of what this impressive outwear actually represents.

In the Iliad, Achilles' armour is everything. Sure, like on a football field, it can be an indicator of how strong a warrior may be, but here the analogy must be separated. In battle, at least in the Iliad, you simply did not have impressive armour if you did not demand respect. Achilles, the greatest warrior alive, has this venerable armour and shield. It defines him. When Patroclus goes out in battle with Achilles' armour, the inevitable happens: Patroclus is killed. This death shows the importance of the armour as it belongs to its owner. When the Armour, or status represented by it, is compromised, unfavorable outcomes are the result. The death of Patroclus shows the power the armour and shield have. By not being worthy of wearing the armour, Patroclus shows disrespect, and pays the extreme consequences and is killed. In this story, Armour is more than just the protection from the death, it is an indicator of the quality of fighting a warrior posesses, and when a man wrongfully attempts to achieve more respect than he deserves, like Patroclus he pays the price.

The Ultimate Irony

In our first few classes we discussed the different reasons for war. The reason that was most compelling to me was the claim that to make peace, we must wage war. We encounter odd ironies every day. Not to dampen the mood, but just today my mother called me telling me she had been in a bad car accident. She told me where she was and immediately I was off to the races. I was going a good 20 miles over the speed limit, which ironically is the very act that causes car accidents. Again, we experience ironic situations every day, but no situation, no action is more ironic than the claim that to make peace, we must wage war. Not surprisingly, I have a difficult time finding the moral logic in this. From a strictly strategic point, this makes perfect sense. If a country or group of people with conflicting ideas becomes threatening enough to disturb peace, we must kill them. But from a moral and human standpoint, is there really a legitimate chance that these people can harm me. Is it necessary to kill the people who are opposing us, and even more, is it necessary to kill innocent people who have no control over the situation into which they have been thrusted. Thus the question arises, and I think we got to it in class, where do we draw the line?