Is War Necessary?

After reading another text I go back to one of the main questions that we are supposed to be asking ourselves throughout this course, which is whether war is a necessary cause?  I personally believe that there is always another solution to the problem at hand other than war but that is only my view on the matter.

            I feel that Slaughterhouse-Five provides a great deal of insight regarding the aftermath of war.  From reading the text I was able to gain a further understanding on some of the problems soldiers face when they return home post-war.  Some of these problems are re-adjusting to modern day society and even some soldiers returning home with major psychological problems.  The majority of these psychological problems were, like Will wrote about in his blog and we talked about in our last class, diagnosed as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).  When thinking about some of the problems that soldiers even face when they return from war it further questions whether war is a worthwhile cause.  Are the potential detrimental results worth the potential gain?  It really begins to question what a soldiers life is truly worth.

            If the reason for war is not truly justifiable then is it really necessary to sacrifice the lives of the people involved in the war?  I believe an important question to ask is that if a soldier does not agree with the cause for which they are risking their life, do you really want them fighting for you?  It is important to understand that the military takes as many willing soldiers as possible, due to the fact that the greater the number of forces they have the stronger the military will be.  But still is it worth having a soldier who is just there to fight even though he is opposed to the cause?

            I would love to hear how you all feel about some of the questions I have proposed and whether you agree with my stance on some of them.

US Civil War Media Coverage

With my recent presentation on the media coverage during the US Civil War, I could not help but consider the slanted coverage that the two opposing newspapers took.  While Will and myself briefly went over the concept in class, here is my two cents on the matter.

            I thought that it was quite interesting how the two newspapers, which represented the two sides of the war, had similar beliefs about certain events.  For instance, we told the class that both of the newspapers believed that the Emancipation Proclamation was a bad idea and would only prolong the war and make it bloodier.  I felt this was peculiar because I expected the south to oppose the Emancipation Proclamation, however the north opposing it also caught me off guard.  It just goes to show how two sides that are fighting against each other can agree on the fact that it might have detrimental effects to the outcome of the war.

             We also discovered that newspapers during the Civil War would exaggerate or lie flat out about the outcome of a battle or important event.  I found this particularly interesting because the newspaper was one of the only sources of information available at the time and the newspaper was misleading its followers.  While I understand that the newspaper might have been trying to keep patriotism high (in either the north or the south) I personally feel that the newspaper has a right to report the truth to its readers.

            Now looking at modern day newspapers, it is almost unheard of that newspapers knowingly provide false information to its followers because of the consequences and the information that is available to the public (such as information accessible through the internet).  While there are still newspapers that support different sides of the government (such as republican/democrat) with a slanted point of view, newspapers nowadays typically provide accurate information.  It is interesting to see the similarities and differences from newspapers during the US Civil War and present day.

The Better Leader

With the recent idea of playing the strategic military board game of risk in class (which I believe was a great idea) I cannot help but consider the military strategy that is involved in our text the Killer Angels.  In my previous post I went over the differences between the two highest commanders for the confederate forces and stated that a conflict was bound to erupt.  In this post, I will be looking at the two characters from strictly a military strategic standpoint and try and determine which commander is best fit for ruling the confederate forces. 

First, looking at Lee, we know that he has the complete respect from all of his men.  However, we also know that Lee is willing to sacrifice the lives of his men because he knows he has an excess of men at his disposal.  We also found out that Lee often made decisions through his religion rather than through the information that was available to him at the time of the decision.

Next, looking at Longstreet, we know that he was quite different than Lee in his regard for the lives of his men.  Longstreet does not feel that it is right to sacrifice his men, he feels connected to them and responsible for them.  As for his decision-making process, he unlike Lee used all available information and based his decisions around the concept of modern warfare.

Looking at these two commanders, they both clearly display different attributes that make them great leaders.  If I had to choose between these two commanders which to follow into battle it most likely would be Longstreet.  While Longstreet does show a sense of uneasiness in loosing his men, he also makes decisions based on the information that is available to him and does not allow religion to impair his judgment.  The best case scenario would be to combine Longstreet’s judgment in making decisions with Lee’s realization that men under his command are bound to die.

The Killer Angels

As a class we just went over our first reading of The Killer Angels.  We went over the concept that the story was based around the characters rather than the actual story itself, which we all seemed to have previous knowledge on.  It was interesting to see how the two highest-ranking commanders in the Confederate army could be so different in their military beliefs.

We first went over the character of Robert E. Lee, who is the highest in command of the Confederate forces.  We were able to conclude that his men revered him and that he was very conscious of his own reputation.  We also learned that he had his own opinions, for example he was not pro-slavery, he was also not for equal rights, and most importantly he cared more about his home state of Virginia rather than the Confederacy. 

James Longstreet, second in command to Lee, was similar to his commander in the fact that they both shared a respect for the chain of command.  Longstreet was also said to be near Lee at all times.  However, Longstreet was also very different to Lee in his military beliefs.  Longstreet believed in modern warfare, such as building trenches, protecting the lines, and defense first.  This was completely opposite to Lee’s beliefs because Lee made military decisions based on his religion.  Lee believed that his religion would lead to the decisions he made on the battlefield. 

After discussing these similarities and differences about two of the major characters in the story, Mr. Crotty told us to carefully watch out for the potential conflict that could rise about.  I feel that the opposing views by the two men on how to fight the Union could lead to a major disagreement, which we might see in our upcoming readings.

War's Affect On People

One of the questions we were able to ask ourselves at the conclusion of reading The Iliad, was whether or not war can bring out the true nature in people.  Or whether war brings out the worst in people. 

I believe that The Iliad is a great example of a story that makes the reader seriously think about these questions.  The cause of this is the characters actions throughout the story.  Achilles is one character that you can look at when asked these questions.  While we do not really know how Achilles acted before the story, during it Achilles seems to be more concerned with himself than others.  I believe that in war, this can be seen quite frequently, this is because when one’s life is at risk people mostly think about themselves first and then others second.  While people can argue that this was only because of the actions made by Agamemnon and the death of Patroclus, I still believe that partially the cause was the setting.  War always seems to have different affects on people, some people love it and others hate it, yet one of the key rules remains intact for everyone whether they love the situation they are in or if they dread it and that is to watch your own back and then watch out for others.

Another character in The Iliad that seems to be affected by war is Patroclus.  To me Patroclus seems to have war bring out the best in him.  He convinces Achilles to let him wear Achilles armor in order to fight the Trojans and not have all of the ships destroyed.  In my opinion, the Trojan War brought out the best of Patroclus’ character.

While war definitely has completely different affects on each individual person, they are all there for similar reasons.  These reasons vary from fighting for the cause, representing their country, or fighting for glory.  Personally I believe that war brings out a person’s true nature because if you are about to die how you act shows who you really are. 

Right and Wrong Actions of Warriors

            In the past week we discussed many things, but one question that stood out at me was one of the big ones we reached.  The question was, ‘What are the right and wrong ways for a warrior to act?’  This question stood out at me not only because it brings up how warriors are supposed to conduct themselves in and outside of battle, but how the question is still relevant in modern times.

            Our class reached this question through the actions of a few characters in The Iliad.  One character that exemplifies the question being brought up through his actions is Achilles.  Achilles, in trying to defy Agamemnon’s authority, can be seen as a disobedient and untrustworthy warrior.  While his participation will vastly affect the outcome of the war, he is too self-concerned with his own matters to care or concern himself with the rest of his army’s struggles.  Achilles even permits Patroclus to wear his armor (it took much persuading) and enter the battle allowing others to falsely think that it was Achilles.   While Achilles allowing Patroclus to enter the war under disguise and disillusion to the Trojan army can be seen as a better alternative than Achilles doing nothing, it can also be seen as a lapse in his judgment and a poor decision made by a warrior.

            This problem of determining what the right and wrong ways a soldier should act is still evident in modern day society.  We have soldiers being discharged for varying reasons more often than you would like to think (whether they are discharged because of good or bad decisions).  I saw a movie a while ago called Stop-Loss and it directly questioned the way a soldier should act if they were being forced back into military action and it ties directly in with this question.

            One of the problems I see in questioning the decisions and actions made by warriors is that many people can justify (or see reason in) why the decision was made.  While there might be more people arguing that the decision was wrong or right, there will always be people who defend the decisions made.  Another problem I have with the question is that in a certain circumstance one decision seems like the best one to make, while looking back on it one can say that it was a poor decision. 

The Cause of War and Resulting Conflicts in The Iliad

One of the big questions that we came up with towards the beginning of our study of the meanings and myths of war was the question regarding what were the causes of war.  In The Iliad, Homer establishes that the war is a result of a selfish decisions made by one man.  This man, Paris, chose to bring Helen back to Troy for his own pleasure.  While we do not know for sure whether Helen was forced to go to Troy or whether she went by choice, it was very selfish for Paris to even consider sneaking off with the wife of a married man.  Paris must have known what the consequences of his actions would be; yet he decides that his heart and bring a woman he just met back to Troy.  Paris decides that this woman is more worthy than the lives of his own people because he knew that one of the consequences of his actions could lead to the death of some of his people.  Because of this decision, which was clearly not well thought out, the Trojan army ends up having to fight the Achaean army. 

While on the surface this is just a simple answer to how the war itself started, it also leads to the question of what the conflicts following the initiation of the war are.  The conflicts following the initiation of the war, other than the obvious conflict between the Trojans and Achaeans, are usually revolved around one person against another or others.  Because of Paris’ decision to bring Helen back to Troy, he is the one faced with the majority of the conflicts.  One of the conflicts that Paris is faced with is between himself and the entire Trojan community.  The Trojan community feels hatred and resentment towards Paris because they feel he is causing an unnecessary war for the Trojans to fight.  Because of these feeling established by the Trojans, it leads to the question of whether the cause of this war is “sufficient” enough for the loss of Trojan lives.  It also brings into question whether the war itself is just.  Another conflict Paris faced was that with the man he took Helen away from, Menelaus.  Menelaus was so furious once he hears that his wife had run away that he went to his brother, Agamemnon, for help.  Together they decided to go to Troy and fight, for the conquest of Troy and to win back Helen.  Finally, there was a conflict between Paris and his own brother, Hector.  Hector feels that Paris should take responsibility for his actions and fight Menelaus when given the opportunity.  However, Paris gets afraid and Hector has to insult Paris until he agrees to fight.  Paris and Menelaus end up dueling to try and resolve the conflict.  During the duel Paris runs away to his room inside the palace out of cowardice.  Paris was forced into the situation where he had to fight Menelaus because of the decisions he made.  All of these conflicts involving Paris are a direct result due to his immature and selfish decision to bring Helen back to Troy.