Copy That Two-Niner

As we started reading Going After Cacciato, I found a very interesting subject matter in the opening pages of the book. On page 13, the lieutenant radioed that they were in pursuit of the enemy. When the voice on the other end replied he asked if they needed any gunship or artillery support. The lieutenant said it was not necessary, but the man on the radio continued to push the lieutenant into allowing them to give them supporting fire. He said, "We got a real bargain going on arty this week- two for the price of one no strings and a warranty to boot. First-class ordnance, real sweet stuff. See, we got this terrific batch of 155 in, a real shitload of it, so we got to go heavy on volume. Keeps the prices down."
"Negative"
"Well, jeez." The radio-voice paused."Okay, Papa Two-Niner. Tell you what, I like the sound of your voice. A swell voice, really lovely. So here's what I'm gonna do. I'm gonna give you a dozen nice illum, how's that? Can you beat it? Find a place in town that beats it and we give you a dozen more, no charge. Real boomers with genuine sparkles mixed in. A closeout sale, one time only."
"Negative. Negative, negative, negative."
"You're missing out on some fine shit, Two-Niner."
"Negative, you monster."
"No offense"
"Negative."
"As you will, then." The radio-voice buzzed. "Happy hunting."
"Mercy," the lieutenant said into a blaze of static.

Now after I read this I had to stop reading for a second and think about what just occurred. Tim O'Brien put a soldier in the shoes of a salesmen. The man on the other end of the radio tried to convince the lieutenant to allow them to bomb something because they were getting some artillery two for the price of one. This blew my mind. Now this might have never happened, but it would not surprise me if it did. I imagine that if you were not directly in the line of fire, Vietnam was a very boring war. I can understand that this man was bored and he was trying to give himself something to do by swaying the lieutenant to order in a bombing. But still the idea that a person is so bored that he is running the risk of killing innocent people just to give him something to do. The only sane person over the radio was the lieutenant, we refereed to the other man as a monster. The lieutenant is an older man, he has probably seen and been around war and death and understands that war is horrific. It is one thing for say a used car salesman to pressure you into buying a car, but for someone to pressure you into allowing them to possible kill innocent people then you know you are in the wrong situation. I just thought that this conversation along with Slaughter House-Five give us the readers another perspective on the US during times of war.

Your Team Might Not Always be the Best

Since reading Slaughter' House-Five I have been thinking about what war can do to a person's mind. We hear stories about people with Post War Stress after being involved in a war. We always say how disgusting our enemy can be to kill that many people in that horrific way. Kurt Vonnegut, the author of Slaughter' House-Five, was a POW during WWII. He was held prisoner in the German city of Dresden. The city is best known for the controversial bombing during the later years of the war. Vonnegut first hand saw the horrific sights of war, not by an enemy, but by his our country. Not many people get to see two sides to war. What I mean is how one side reacts to certain events, and also how their enemies react. Kurt was able to see the reactions of Dresden's people after they found the bodies of their loved ones, or the stench of burning flesh. Kurt saw life changing views, but he also had his eyes stretched wide open. He was able to see that his own country is capable of such distruction, and mass murder. He could see in people's eyes what did we do to deserve this and he took a step back and really thought about all that was going on. He understood that even the most powerful and glorified country in the world was capable of doing such a disgusting and disgracful thing, the mass murder of innocent people. This is what I believe Kurt took from his experience, I could be totally wrong, but let me know what you think.

Reflection

The character of Joshua Chamberlain is very detailed, but he also has the ability to change. Chamberlain might be the best leader out of the three that we read about. He came from an educated background and was willing to do what is necessary to win. The book ends with Chamberlain sitting on a rock looking at Gettysburg and reflecting over the last couple horrendous days. He thinks about Pickett’s Charge, and how few people see a sight like that, and most that do don’t come out of the better end of it. He also contemplates how he will explain what happened there to his grandchildren. How he was a part of a change in this country’s history.

Chamberlain’s unique side is his ability to make rash decisions in crucial situations. When his lines were falling he put his brother's life on the line and ordered him to fill in the gap. "Chamberlain remembered using the boy to plug a hole in the line, stopping the hole with his own brother's body like a warm bloody cork, and Chamberlain looked at himself." (pg 342). Chamberlain loves the aspects of war, but when he takes a step back and looks at what war truly is, he realizes what it can make people do in certain situations.
Later on Chamberlain is talking to his brother Tom and the reason why they were fighting came up.' "Thing I cannot understand. Thing I never will understand. How can they fight so hard, them Johnnies, and all for slaver?" Chamberlain raised his head. He had forgotten the Cause. When the guns began firing he had forgotten it completely. It seemed very strange now to think of morality, or that minister long ago, or the poor runaway black. he looked out across the dark field, could see nothing but the yellow lights and outlines of black bodies stark in the lightning.'(pg 343).I think that it is interesting how some soldiers did not even know what they were dying for. This passage is a great example of how people think in a war. When that first gun goes off you are not thinking of the causes, but better yet what can I do to get through this.

Great Minds Might Not Always Think Alike

As we start our new book, The Killer Angels, we began to look at the Confederate's highest officials. The commander Robert E. Lee was a man that kept to himself. He never drank, chased women, smoked or gambled. He loved his state, Virginia and he kept his life in control. He was also a man who believed in traditional warfare. On the other hand, his second in command was Lieutenant General James Longstreet. Longstreet valued the lives of his men because in one winter he lost three of his kids due to a fever. Both Lee and Longstreet are smart men, but when it comes to their tactics they do not agree. Lee understands that he has men and a lot of them. He can afford to lose lives if it means victory. On the other hand Longstreet invented the defensive strategy of trenches which approve the chance of survival for his men. So with two men so close to each other is it beneficial for them to have different strategies on the field, or could it make the men choose what general to follow into battle.

The Wrap Up

As we wrapped up the Iliad in class, we constantly talked about honor. The idea that if you died in battle it was the highest honor anyone could receive and i was wondering how the mindset of war has changed throughout the years. Especially the evolution of war on a person's mind. I was doing some research and I looked up, in my opinion, the most important weapons in history.
1. Stick and Stones- Since the beginning of time
2. Swords- Bronze Age-(around 3300 B.C)
3. Bow and Arrow- 5th century B.C
4. Cannon-1132
5.Musket-1440's
6.Machine Gun-1862
7. A-bomb-1945 (when it was first used)
Now thinking of today, we are able to kill someone thousand miles away. Compare today's warfare with the Trojan war and it is incredible different. Now imagine you vs. an enemy, you both have swords in hand and a shield. Now you kill that person. You actually had that person die arms length away and you saw the life drain from him. Now imagine that you are fighting today, you are able to shoot someone from hundreds yards away and you might not even know if your bullet killed that person. So if you look at the development of weapons, each weapon has allowed a person to kill from a greater distance allowing them to have a better chance for their survival, but it has also taken away from the glory of defeating your enemy. Yes different cultures view war differently, but for the time of the Trojan war using your strength and will power to defeat your enemy was one of the greatest accomplishments a person could have. So with the development of weapons, the mental aspect of killing your enemy has changed over the course of history.

Achilles's armor

In class, we have been talking a lot about Achilles's armor and what it meant. It is more than just protective clothing, it is a symbol. People knew who Achilles was by what he wore and that is why everyone thought Hector killed Achilles, when he really killed Patroclus. When Achilles's armor was stripped from Partroclus's dead body Hector wore it. He believed that if he wore this armor he would be the best warrior that ever lived. The turning point in the Iliad is when Patroclus dies, and in this scene, Achilles loses his armor while Hector obtains it. After this scene Hector's ego starts to sky rocket while Achilles starts to think things through. I think that since Achilles lost his armor he is becoming Hector early in the book, while Hector is now becoming the cocky Achilles. I also believe that Achilles is dependent on a piece of armor, to feel that he is safe and protected. When he loses his original armor, the god Hephaestus makes him the famous shield and with this shield Achilles was able to defeat Hector and have his revenge for the death of Patroclus. Homer does a great job of making the armor more than just metal and in literature today, we still see that an object posses more than what meets the eye.

Conflict between armies

As we were looking at all the conflicts in class, we came across some really interesting points. The biggest ones were Conflict with the Gods, Conflict within the Trojan Empire, Conflict within the Achaeans, and Conflicts between the Gods and Mortals. The one that I thought was the most interesting was the Conflict within the Achaeans and also within in the walls of Troy. In Troy the conflict was with two brothers, Paris and Hector. If you were to look at Hector and Paris side by side, they would be the exact opposite. Now Hector did not want this war, but he loved him brother and understood why he took Helen. Also there is doubt with the people of Troy, wondering why they are fighting for this kid’s love? What really differs from the Trojans and the Achaeans was that the Trojans are fighting for there homeland and it was one city vs. independent massed together. With the Achaeans, it is a bunch of small independent providences that were concurred by Agamemnon and by defeat are forced to aid the Achaeans whenever they are call upon. So with a lack of central power and unification of the army, there is much diversity among the soldiers. As time goes on and they saw less and less progression the men start to wonder why they are here and what good does it do to fight a battle that has lasted for the last seven years. When Agamemnon tested the soldiers to see if they truly believed in him and wanted to fight, he was surprised to see the men flee to the ships. The only people that really have any leadership skills and the respect of the soldiers are Odysseus and Achilles. I was wondering if today it was the same way with the soldiers. Do most of them question why we are fighting in the Middle East? Is there a true leader who has the soldiers respect and can trust that person?  Also does much doubt and lack of respect and trust happen in modern times? I believe that the revolution on war has changed the mindset of it. Also it is the organization and structure of our military it does not allow one person to be command of everyone. So as we see in the Iliad every army in a war was conflict within that army and how they handle it could determine who the winner is.