The Final Post...

As I was reading our final book, Going After Cacciato, I drew a lot of similarities between it and our last book Slaughterhouse Five. The first of which was the obvious fact that both were written by war veterans. Being war veterans and writing about war gave me the feeling of authenticity as i read both books. The second thing that resonated with me was the theme Vonnegut and O'Brien demonstrated so well: how soldiers deal with war.

In Slaughterhouse Five, Billy Pilgrim has clear issues. As we later diagnosed him in class, he had a strong case of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.  Whenever memories triggered feelings of war, he would find comfort through certain coping mechanisms. He would often times time travel or find comfort through the Tralfamadorians.

Thus far in Going After Cacciato, O'Brien presents two characters that struck me. Though the do not have PTSD as Pilgrim has, they both find different ways of coping with their anxiety. The first and obvious one is Cacciato himself. He had issues with the military and its presence in Vietnam. To deal with that discontent, he left and headed towards Paris. That was his way of coping with the rigors of war. Next is Paul Berlin. One of the ways that he deals with war is demonstrated on page 10- "Paul Berlin sat alone playing solitaire in the style of Las Vegas. Pretending ways of spending his earnings. Travel, expensive hotels, tips for everyone. Wine and song on white terraces, fountains blowing colored water. Pretending was his best trick for forgetting the war." It's pretty obvious from that quote how Paul Berlin occupies his mind in order to stay stable during the war.

The two points I'm trying to reach here are as follows: 1) War is the most physically and mentally damaging thing one can put him or herself through. We have seen time and time again that no matter how hard you try, there is no coming back from war the same. The experiences permanently change you- it's inevitable. You just have to hope that you are fighting for something greater than yourself and stick to that belief. 2) Being able to read these novels through the eyes of two men that were there and experienced the war is great.  Who better to tell the terrors of war than those who lived the terrors?

Perception

So I was driving to school on this lovely, wet, 32 degree day, when I heard something very interesting on the radio (ESPN radio...here comes another exhausted sports analogy).  They were discussing Dallas Cowboys' head coach Wade Phillips and his coaching style.  Wade Phillips, for those of you who don't know, is a very laid back coach.  While that may be good to some players, overall, it is not effective in football, nor war.  They said that he will never gain his players' respect because you cannot go from being laid back, where your players don't respect you, to being a hard-ass and demanding their respect.  On the contrary, they brought up Tom Coughlin, head coach of the New York Giants.  After being criticized for being too hard on his players, he took his intensity down a notch, and the Giants won the Superbowl.  This led me to think about perception and how the way we are perceived drives how we act-- in football and in war.

Very much like they way players perceive their coach, the way soldiers perceive their general is important. As we have seen throughout the literature we have studied, different leaders leads to different leadership styles, which all impose different perceptions upon soldiers.  Agamemnon was seen as greedy, so he could not get his top soldiers to fight for him.  Robert E. Lee was seen as too risky, so he couldn't get his top generals to agree with him.

To go along with the perception of leadership in war, one thing that conflicts Americans today is global perception of our military.  Does our being in Iraq send a bad message about ourselves to other countries? Does water-boarding at Guantanamo Bay give America a ruthless perception?  Perception has completely changed the way we use our military.  It's why we abide by the Geneva Convention and get a U.N Sanction to go to war.  It is why we call into question the ethics of winning. Is it worth winning if we lose all credibility in the process? Because the way we are seen may is what gives us credibility, we have had to adjust the way our military works. Torture is unethical to us, even if it can save lives.

If I could say all I was thinking about this, I would ramble on forever and lose an audience to read it, so that's why I'm cutting it off a little abruptly. To wrap things up, I decided that perception has a lot to do with the way a war works.  How effective a leader can be, and the way in which armies operate. Mr. Nevelow once said in 9th grade Wellness that "perception is reality." To be honest, I never understood that quote until now, but I think it's fitting. Though the way others see us really isn't our problem, it creates realities that do affect us, making perception reality.

Balancing Act

So today in class, we began to wrap up our discussion on The Killer Angels. Mr. Crotty asked us if we liked the book, so naturally I thought about what aspects of the book I liked and disliked. Overall, I enjoyed reading this one more than the Illiad and Troilus and Cressida just because the language is slightly easier to understand. However, thinking back on our fishbowl excercise, I thought about one thing that really resonated with me after we finished the book.



We read out loud several passages that gave us a good idea about the styles of leadership among those in command. For General Lee, we decided that he saw the men as expendable pawns, and had no problem sacrificing them for what he thought could better the army. I, and most of our class, agreed that not only is an odd way of seeing people, but it is also wrong from a tactical standpoint.



Next we looked at Longstreet. He was very defensive with his decisions, seeing the men as people and not just numbers. Again, I, was not completely sold on his philosophy of war. Sure it's better to value your men, however as a leader you cannot put the lives of individuals before the survival of the army. I'm glad that Longstreet doesn't want to throw his men into a gauntlet like Lee does, but not wanting to get your hands dirty takes away from the overall effectiveness of a leader.



Finally, we looked at Chamberlin on the Union side. We read a passage in which he sent his own brother to defend a pass. His brother likely died, but that action demonstrates why I think Chamberlin is the better leader of the three. He is willing to make risks (i.e. sending his brother to his death), but he is much more aware of when the situation calls for actions like that. He won't just send people to die if there is no purpose. He thinks logically about his actions. While Lee just does what he wants and Longstreet who over thinks his decisions, Chamberlin is a perfect balance of the two, which is what makes him an effective leader.



An important part of being a leader is being open minded. If you just do whatever you want and ignore those who oppose you, there is no way you will come out successfully. To me, leadership is having a balance of logic and risk; a balance of a killer and an angel.

The Great Debate

Like probably 90% of our class did, I am choosing to write on that fierce debate that we had the other day.  Is war inevitable? Is it part of human nature? A lot of people brought up a lot of interesting points, so I just want to toss out my closing ideas on the matter.

I was on the side that took the "yes" position, so even though I can choose my stance here, I'm going to remain on the side.  I do think war is inevitable. However, I do not think it is human nature.  A lot of people on the "no" side used the argument that even when you're pushed against a wall, most people still could not end another person's life.  I know Mr. Crotty said that war is not necessarily equal to killing, but I just do not think war and/or killing is in our DNA. Conflict, yes. But war, no.  To me, war is inevitable for a different reason.  It is not human nature, but it is a direct product of other qualities of humans.  I know there are tons of pacifist and altruists out there, but as a whole, I would say that humans are greedy. I'm not calling out anyone, but looking back on history, every nation that has survived has done so by conquering others.  I don't think Caesar woke up and felt the desire to wage war, but I feel like he, along with every other emperor, saw land that was not theirs and desired to take it using any means necessary.  This is what I think is the root of war.  The human desire to expand, to conquer, and to flourish.

Be it over land, resources, freedom, or any number of causes, when  something that you are willing to die for is threatened, most will do anything to protect it.  So in terms of war being human nature: I think war is a response to many other aspects of human nature, which in turn, makes it inevitable.

What Could Have Been....

I really had nothing else to write about, so I couldn't help thinking how the Iliad might have ended if Patroclus did not die. We can all agree that Patroclus's death was a turning point in the story, and was actually instrumental in the Achean's victory. To me, the death of Patroclus symbolized the complete downfall of the Trojans.

From the moment Patroclus died, Achilles became a great warrior who finally had control over his rage, and Hector was filled with hubris. So as we closed our discussions about the Iliad, I thought that the war would have gone completely in the Trojans favor had they not killed Hector. Let's go back to the moment when Patroclus died: Achilles, the Achean's best warrior, was pouting in his tent as a result from a feud with Agamemnon. Hector, the Trojan's best warrior, was leading the Trojans in a calm manner and making a strong case for being the "hero" of the poem. Had Patroclus not entered the battle and been killed, there is no reason to expect the war not to follow this early trend. Achilles would have stayed in his tent for the remainder of the battle, and Hector would have grown stronger (while remaining a solid leader). Achilles's selfishness would have eventually completely imploded the Achean army, and the Trojans would roll to an easy victory. I know that this is not the most pertinent blog post that I've had, but it was on my mind.
Paul Stanley

War in Simpler Terms

When I study something complex and multidimensional, like war, I find it helpful to put it in simpler terms.  As we did in class one day, Mr. Crotty used the analogy of athletes with big egos and whether or not the benefits of a having a talented player outweighs the negative effect of that player's ego.  In the Iliad, the Achean army faces this same dilemma.  Although Achilles is the most skilled fighter in the war, his ego prevents him from seeing the battlefield for much of the war.  My opinion on this subject is that whenever there is a skilled warrior or athlete who will put himself before the team, there needs to be another skilled person who can keep the other down to earth.  I have seen this scenario most often in football (sorry Tess).  Like Achilles is as a warrior, Randy Moss of the New England Patriots is one of the most talented players on his team.  Unlike many other ego-maniacs, Randy Moss is able to be kept in check by Tom Brady.  Brady is a superstar on his team, but without the superstar mentality.  The reason that the Patriots had a historical season a year ago is because Tom Brady was able to get the most out of Randy Moss, while keeping Moss's ego in check.  Brady was able to utilize Randy Moss's extraordinary talents, but did not let his ego become a distraction as it did in the past.  Had the Acheans had a better leader, I am confident that their army would be unstoppable.  However, Agamemnon was just like Achilles, so their egos clashed and nothing got resolved.  Although the Agamemnon/Achilles conflict is extremely complex and never ending, thinking about it terms of something that I do understand helps me out a lot.

  Like in most real life instances, when there is internal disunity, such as the conflict within the Acheans, tragedies can often times trigger a group to come together.  Again, to put things in simpler terms, I thought about September 11th when reading the Iliad.  Following the attacks in 2001, America was more unified than it perhaps had ever been.  Crime was at an all time low, and the patriotism that followed the tragic attacks was incredible.  While I of course think that the terrorist attacks were horrible, the nature of how external conflict can cause internal unity and thus good things resonated with me as Patroclus died.  While Patroclus's death was very sad, like September 11th, it definitely had some positive outcomes (I am in no way saying September 11th was good, nor was it even on the same scale as the death of Patroclus).  It made Achilles put away his problems and fight for the betterment of his country and avenge his fallen friend.

Paul Stanley

The Basics about War

In studying war, I believe that it is important to have a clear idea of what exactly war is.  Although everyone has a general sense of what war is, most people have a different understanding of the details of war.  To me, war is a military conflict between two or more countries (or civil war) over a clear issue.  Last trimester, I took Understanding September 11th, in which towards the end of the trimester, we were able to analyze in depth America's response to the September 11th attacks.  We were able to then formulate our idea of war based on America's responsive actions in the Middle East.  After Bush ordered the American military to invade Iraq, he coined this conflict the "War on Terror."  In order to understand this phrase, you must then identify the enemy of Bush's "War of Terror."  In class, we identified the enemy, Terror, as being a group linked to an individual (not a nation) who imposes terror.  Because I feel the war is between countries, not organizations, I  did not classify the current situation in Iraq as a war.  

Secondly, it is important to know why we stud war.  Learning about battles and skirmishes in world history is completely meaningless unless you know why these wars happened and how they have shaped society today.  To me, the most important reasons to study war are to learn from past mistakes and, further to learn how to "wage peace."  It has been often said that history repeats itself.  With that being said, if history does repeat itself, studying wars is the only way to learn how to avoid them.  Not only can wars be avoided, but if we study war, we can learn how to do the direct opposite of waging war.  Understanding how and why wars are started gives countries the opportunity to see what has worked and what has not, which should help create not only a war-free environment, but also a genuinely peaceful world.

Thanks for reading, and you stay classy Greenhill.

Paul Stanley