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.