Class Films

Many aspects of the Generation Kill episode that was shown in class were not only striking but also reinforced many of the themes we have seen in this class regarding wartime and patriotism. First, the mental and cultural divide between soldiers conditioned to war and the civilian populace was most obviously presented through the soldier's reception of the letters from students. A well-intentioned letter from a student became the object of ridicule by a marine due to its perspective on the war. The soldier made it very clear that he did, in fact, want to fight, and this reveals an aspect of modern war that we have not considered with much thought: that due to the mental conditioning imposed on these soldiers in wartime, the have a genuine desire to kill, to make use of all of the hard work they have put into sharpening their soldierly skills. Coinciding with this idea is the show's commentary on the fighting tactics in Iraq. The group had an opportunity to kill armed Iraqis (the soldiers did not know who the Iraqis were) that would later turn out to be one of the death squads that a group of refugees were trying to escape.
Regarding the experience of being in the military, the show portrays the marine corps as a kind of massive family. The unit has its levels of loyalty, with the commanding officer of one of the units lying to a superior officer in order to protect his men from disciplinary responses. Furthermore, the superior officer serves as a father figure while the subordinate officer works as a big brother for the men. When one of the sergeants orders one of his men to tuck his shirt in while doing some mechanical work, the man's immediate commanding officer permits him to untuck his shirt when the sergeant isn't looking. There are family squabbles that operate on a different level of decency than most interactions back in the states would; for example, racial and sexual comments pervade the atmosphere of the camp.
Moreover, it is interesting to see how the reporter was received into the camp. Immediately, he was the source of ridicule; however, he soon was accepted through his experience writing for Hustler Magazine and ability as an unlisted personnel to buy large amounts of what would otherwise be considered contraband, like chewing tobacco. He was rejected through his stereotype as a reporter, someone who has made the lives of soldiers harder since Vietnam, but was then accepted through his utility to the rest of the company. Obviously, the reporter is not a soldier, as shown when the entire squad put their gas suits on while the reporter is left in the middle of all of the trucks, struggling with his suit and stumbling while trying to duck for cover. The reporter's character serves as a test subject regarding the exclusivity of groups within the marines; how well would a civilian "outsider" would be accepted, much less integrated into the unit.
One thing Generation Kill struck home was the frustrating and dangerous inconsistencies in command that damaged the initial war effort in Iraq. Marines were not allowed to open fire on armed Iraqis that ended up being members of a death squad. À captain, in a lapse of professional and command conduct, was hysterically yelling about the lack of armor support for the marines. The lack of armor is a military lapse in planning, but an officer's loss of composure in a wartime scenario is unacceptable. Finally, Generation Kill comments on modern war, modern soldiers, their relationships, and the war in Iraq. These perspectives give us a greater understanding in examining and understanding war and patriotism.

Esquire Article

Colby Buzzell's description of his happenings back in America after returning from Iraq is angering in several ways. I can only imagine that it would be infuriating that an individual would attempt to do the whole "face-up at the bar, I'll see you outside" drill to a returning soldier. To put one's self in the position of the soldier in that situation, some person who thinks that he is the man for some reason or another is challenging the masculinity or toughness of a person who has shot and been shot at in a foreign country would be simply pathetic (Buzzell). Buzzell's actions are entirely understandable in this kind of framework. However, it is interesting that an individual who has fought to promote a kind of social idea to construct a new society is now legally entrapped by that very same idea which he fought for. The common reason that is given for the Iraq War is that we are promoting freedom, sability, and safety (like we have here in America, it is implied). Freedom also means that people cannot illegally force others to do things, especially since people are all equal in the eyes of the alw. Since all people are viewed as political and ethical equals, they all have an equal right to the safety that American society provides for that individual. However, if one were to look at Buzzell's situation as a drunk, violent, crazy ex-soldier injuring an individual. In this case, the soldier's previous record of service is irrelevent in that the society that soldier has worked to defend (while being included in it) now is forcing its law on the soldier in that his experience is not important, but the fact that he has committed this act of social betrayal makes him worthy of being arrested (Buzzell). This must be the most infuriating part of all, though a soldier has given a superior effort to defend one's way of life, that way of life will not allow an excessive sense of entitlement in the soldier's actions.

Buzzell, Colby. "The Making of the Twenty-First-Century Soldier (Part2)." Esquire, 1 April 2005. Retrieved from http://www.esquire.com/ESQ0405COLBY_150 on 24 February 2009.

Letters Home

The last reading provided an excellent insight to the personal perspectives and experiences that occur during war as well as the social circumstances that were present at the time. For example, John Garcia's story describes how the Hawaiian was subjected to a battery of social imposition of beliefs when it came to race and religion. Upon joining the military, people began to ask him his race, which he said never happened in Hawaii. He was deemed to be white and was separated from the Hawaiians when he answered that he had some European ancestry. Moreover, he describes how the whites had told him not to speak to three Jews because they had killed Christ, to which Garcia replies "'It's my understanding he was killed about nineteen hundred years ago'" (Terkel 19-20). This is fascinating to me in that it is clear that even though individuals were fighting for the same side, they would segregate themselves into different, exclusive groups. In the face of intense Pacific Theater-combat, Americans were still isolating themselves. I found this form of patriotism different than the form that I saw after 9/11. People of all kinds were coming together, there was no "different" Americas, each with its own invested group; rather, all of the nation was united in mourning and righteous anger. In discussing patriotism, it is important that, since the nation as a whole is the subject of the phenomenon of patriotism, that the fragmentation or divisions within a nation be exposed to really determine its nature. Therefore, attention should be paid to the civil attitude of individuals at the time when one is discussing patriotism.
Furthermore, designed outward signs of patriotism seem to a degree pointless. Yes, they may improve the moral of soldiers and the general populace, but Garcia describes how "we've been practicing this show for two months[,]" when discussing all of the preparations that the soldiers had to take for General MacArthur and President Roosevelt (Terkel 20). This seems like a waste of manpower in a war, but when the war was so vast as World War II was, it may be necessary to show the leaders the strength of the people they are commanding. Overall, patriotism is a useful tool in war, but it is not always the tool used in war. A nation's capital (wealth and people) is what is used in combat, but in a war, shows of patriotism are necessary in order to keep the feeling and point of the war in perspective.

Terkel, Stud. The Good War. New York: Ballantine Books, 1984.

Depiction of War

William Broyles Jr. brings up an interesting point in his Vietnam: How the War Became the Movie: it is basically impossible to describe war to individuals who have not encountered it for themselves. I respect the attempt of all of the individuals who have been in these kinds of circumstances, especially in Vietnam, but unless it is to force a political movement or a person attempt at catharsis, I don't really understand why it is that movies are produced on Vietnam. With the comparisons of Iraq to Vietnam, I can understand the recent surge of fascination with Vietnam, but I feel that when something as serious and extraordinary as a prolonged war is to be displayed to the general public, the issue of the meaning of the movie goes more into the question of the purpose of film. Is the purpose of the film to educate, to purge from oneself, or to make money. There are many different kinds of movies throughout the group of movies that have been made about the Vietnam War. Some are absurd with the glorified brutality, such as the Rambo series; however, some try to show the horrors of war. I am confused in that I understand that on a profiteering front, a cathartic front, and a artistic front that the Vietnam War is rich with material that will shock moviegoers. Because I am simply eighteen years old, I can only percieve the Vietnam War through what appears to be the aftershocks of a culture clash that have been softened and perverted by time and interests. Young people nowadays go to war movies to see the action of war, not to truly absorb the meaning and horrors of what happens. This is why I question what the meaning of these kinds of Vietnam films really is.

Rhetorical Strategy

In Andrew J. Bachevich's The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War, he often changes his approach to his topic in sometimes confusing but overall captivating fashion. Starting on page 9, the first chapter, "Wilsonians Under Arms," he is more colloquial and approaches his topic in a flourishing, story-telling way. This is understandable when one considers that this is the beginning of the first chapter of the book, and Bachevich must engage his reader and persuade them to a degree to continue to read the book. However, this kind of diction continues to a degree past the itial section of the first chapter. For example, he writes regarding political leader's love for militarism, "The ensuing affair had and continues to have a heedless, Gatsby-like aspect, a passion persued in utter disregard of any consequences that might ensue." (Bacevich 14). This is language more apt to be seen in a work of literary criticism rather than a more academic work. I wonder whether this wording is proper when considering the context of the text. It is still very early on in the book, and the author must continue to grab the reader. Also, he is talking about a general observation on a trend through history, which is difficult to capture in concrete terms, so it seems plausible that the author is fitting the language to his topic.
I think that the previous discussion is plausible especially when one sees that whenever Bachevich makes a major point, his writing style shifts to a much more technical and logical fashion. For example, he writes that "Under the terms of that consensus, mainstream politicians today take as a given that American military supremacy is an unqualified good, evidence of a larger American superiority." (Bacevich 15). Here he is much more forward with his point in comparison to the much more circumlocutious style earlier. I don't exactly approve of his sweeping generalities though, as exhibited by the statement. Because many people would accept this statement as a trueism, I feel that generalities such as this are even more precarious because the author himself can fall into the trap of not backing up his work. It's good to talk about overarching themes such as Wilsonianism, but I would like to see a more detailed explanation of how this ideology has effected people worldwide. I personally believe that this is true, but his arguement would be stronger if he had more substance within his arguement.

Andrew J. Bacevich, The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Wilsonian Perspective of the World

I feel that the first chapter of the reading is especially relevant when viewed in context that today is the Inauguration of President Obama, and we may experience a "new" place in the world when it is obvious that we will be continuing in the same manner as before, though with some minute details. I am simply worried that with the shift to a "softer" form of diplomacy, individuals will approach a militarily inefficient way of combating threats in the name of a "peaceful" and "respectful" way of doing business. As Bacevich admits on page fifty of his text, The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War, Colin Powell made a mistake by trying to make the Gulf War a quick event without any gratuitous killing (Bacevich 50). This permitted a large part of enemy Iraqi Combatants to continue to be used as a resource for Saddam Hussein to impose a tyrannical regime. Also referenced in the text was the concession made to allow Iraqi helicopters to continue to fly, which were then used to put down dissenting forces within the Iraqi border (Bacevich 50). Within this context, I feel that it is important not to view the Iraq War as a unique and singular war in itself, but rather the result of the continuation of bad policy and poor wartime decisions that have effected the American presence in the Middle East. I feel it is ignorant to blame Bush for our problems in Iraq, though mistakes were made in how that war was conducted, our issues and interests in the Middle East have existed for a long time.

One way I believe our dependence on militarism in the Middle East could be decreased would be by making our interests there less vital. Though I personally believe that the Iraqi War was fought for more reasons than simply oil, it is a major factor that extends from beyond the ideological sphere and into the everyday domestic world within the most culturally sheltered part of American society: suburbia. One can believe in global warming or not, but I believe it simply makes political and economic sense to emphasize alternative sources that take advantage of the natural resources of the United States. This is not so much a call to isolationism, as the United States depends on its living standards to a degree on the labor and resources of other nations, but the ability to seal off one way other countries can try to effect our living standard and economic prosperity.

Andrew J. Bacevich, The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

A "Just" War

In the first reading of Chris Hedges' War Is a Force that Gives Us Meaning, I was struck by what I saw as a contradiction; on page 16 Hedges writes that "We in the industrial world bear the responsibility for the world's genocides because we had the power to intervene and did not." (Hedges 8). It seems that he is calling for what most people would consider a "just" war, a war that is done with humanitarian interests in mind, to help save the innocents from the thugs who are intent on slaughtering human beings. I would love to help stop the genocide in Darfur or have been able to stop the Rawanda massacres, but if Hedges is going to focus on how our society needs "humility" in our actions, I am sure he must then recognize the limits of our strength (Hedges 17). Our operations in Iraq, when looking through the neoconservative view of the Bush administration, should be justified because, in general terms, what could be a greater goal than to "liberate" a group of people from a tyrant who oppressed and gassed the citizens of his country. Our resources are pooled at this moment within Iraq and though we have bases all over the world, if we are to maintain our position as hegemon within a world that is globalizing and developing, it becomes an imperative to have our security protected abroad rather than on home soil. Thus, though a noble goal to go and intervene, I believe that it is important to continue to emphasize the necessity for armed interventions, but the global community, who seems so concerned about the humanitarian issues that are occuring throughout the world cannot expect to criticize the United States for being unable to carry out worthy armed interventions because we are in Iraq. It is easy, worthy I think, to criticize the planning done before the invasion, but the rest of the world needs to step it up in our place if they are going to justified in their criticism of the United States inability to act.

Hedges, Chris. War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning. New York: Anchor Books, 2003.