Writing Feedback / War -- victor or no victor? [45]

I thought you guys must be interested in reading this: it's an essay of sorts that I wrote for one of my English classes a little while back. Now, the professor didn't weigh the assignment all that heavily, so you'll have to excuse me if it seems a bit terse, or clipped off at the end. I hate it when teachers give you assignments, but they are for bread crumbs, and although you'd love to devote more time to it, you have to be obscenely practical, and cut it short.

Otherwise, let me know what you think.

In War is there a Victor?

People have a lot of different opinions on war. When I say that, I mean everything about it, and of it. Whatever your opinion, you cannot deny that war exists. Can we make war extinct? Can we lessen its incidence? Can we make more war and at the same time come out the better for it? Should we do one of those if we could? Those are all valid questions, but I think the answer, if indeed there is one, is elusive, and beyond the scope of this paper. Instead, let's answer the question of whether there are any "winners", in a combat situation. In order to say that you have won, there must be a stated objective; once you achieve that objective, you have won. In board games, chess especially, it is not hard to determine if someone has won or lost; either someone has declared checkmate and won, or there is a stalemate, tantamount to a "draw", where nobody has won. Interestingly in chess, stalemate can occur even when you have a superior "material" advantage over your opponent; still nobody wins. Clearly, if your perspective is humanity's, in war there is no victor; nobody has won, because war inflicts damage, physical, psychological, and mortal, on humans, by humans, and that violates the objective of humanity to do no harm (Turner Para 7, O'Brien Para 2, Weigl Para 6).

Brian Turner an Iraq war veteran said of the same war, "I cannot believe that the lives lost have been worth the cost (Turner Para 7)." Turner is arguing that the loss of life in the war is too much, compared to the alternative of no war. It might seem on its face a simplistic notion, but if you accept it, then you are accepting the notion that there is overall loss incurred in the Iraq war; there were no victors and there will be none - you'll find this even more intriguing when you consider that the former President and Commander in Chief Bush, also the person most culpable, if not solely so, for the Iraq War, in May 2003, gave a "victory" speech in front of a banner that read "mission accomplished (Murphy Para 1)." At minimum, this shows that the former president's objectives were not aligned with humanity's. But a lone person cannot supplant humanity or subvert its aspirations - the only scenario in which the Iraq war could have a victor.

Tim O'Brien chose to make a very personal account of his life public, in his short story, "The Vietnam in Me." The story is told from a first person vantage point and often refers back and forth between different times and places (O'Brien Para 18). Tim O'Brien as he portrays himself personally, by switching to the present in which he is writing the story - is a shell of a person. He reflects on his state, describing himself as variously depressed, guilty, anxious, and more than anything else he says in describing himself "If war is hell, what we call hopelessness (O'Brien Para 25)?" A large portion of his story is about the My Lai Massacre, an abominable mass-slaughter worthy of only the deepest disgust, perpetrated by American soldiers on the defenseless -- "...whatever could be killed. They killed chickens. They killed dogs and cattle. They killed people, too. Lots of people. Women, infants, teen-agers, old men (O'Brien Para 32)." He reflects on the ignorance of some Americans, which he has had the shame of witnessing firsthand, "In the colleges and high schools I sometimes visit, the mention of My Lai brings on null stares, a sort of puzzlement, disbelief mixed with utter ignorance (Para 37)." In my own experience, the American public is more prone to saying that we have achieved "victory in Iraq", than "victory in Vietnam." It seems the loss of American life is the ultimate determinant of whether a war is "winnable" or not, for America, that is. Did you win by the measure of American casualties being minimal, the others' loss of life unimportant? By that same token, can anyone "win" in a war against America, by their loss of life, their permanently disfigured, their psychologically tormented, being less than a given, with no regard for Americans?

I think the answer to those questions, and the question of whether in war there can be a victor, depends on whether you consider yourself: black, white, brown: American, Iraqi, or Ugandan: rich, middle class, broke: intelligent, ordinary, dull: Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or human first. Do you classify it first as: quarter, nickel, or dime, or money?

Works Cited

Murphy, Jarrett. "'Mission Accomplished' Whodunit." cbsnews.com 2003.

O'Brien, Tim. "The Vietnam in Me." nytimes.com/books 1994.

Turner, Brian. "An Interview with Brian Turner" alicejamesbooks.org 2005.

Weigl, Bruce. "Song of Napalm." poetryfoundation.org 1999.

Writing Feedback / I've vowed to change how I interact with people; Fruitful discussion. [5]

Guys, I'm sorry I haven't been able to contribute very much as of late. I've been very busy, what with finals, and some personal issues that needed working out.

The following is not intended purely to be revised; I would also appreciate very much your personal take on it.

I realize that for the duration of my time here I was a bit confrontational and acerbic; I've vowed to change how I interact with people on a personal level. To not do so would cause, and has already caused me, far too many problems.

This is from my English 112 class and like I said, the reason I'm posting is twofold; one, to get some constructive feedback on my writing: am I too verbose, presumptuous, pretentious, or can you notice a different from past prose, (which I think emanated from my desire to indulge in vain proclivity, and foolish childishness, rather than any genuine desire to engage in productive, discourse). Second, what is your personal take on what I said. Does it make sense, or is it that you have to disagree, and if so why?

I spent as much time as I did writing the reply (see below) because the topic means a great deal to me; this is a serious issue in our time that has incredible implications for the future, and being that, I think it is my duty, looking back however far I go forward, to say as a citizen of humanity that I wasn't apathetic or subservient in the the throes of great uncertainty.

If you wish to view the article that Dowd wrote, you can visit the following link.

(Edit: It escaped me that I accessed these articles from a database [opposing viewpoints] available generally to students (and also to those with a subscription I think). Probably then, I can't find the precise links in google or anything.

Nevertheless, if you want to try looking yourself, the author of the first article, whose views we were supposed to analyze, is Alan Dowd.

The title of the article is "The United States Must Commit to an Ongoing War Against Terrorism."

The second article was written by two authors, Kegley and Raymond, and is titled:

"Preemptive War Cannot be Justified")

I hope I will be able to contribute here more than I have as of late, in quantity and meaning.

------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------

Alright (redacted), I'll oblige you; just make sure you seriously consider what I'm saying. First of all let me address your submission within the framework of what the assignments required of you, then I will move on and compile a critique comprising the reasons why I feel you should step back and examine everything you know, ostensibly everything represented here and more.

Foremost, you were to summarize the authors' views; this is probably the single most important tenet of this assignment. Let's hold all other things secondary, because essentially if you can understand and paraphrase what these authors are saying, then really, you are fully competent per academic standards, even if you don't have a strong opinion or one that I agree with outside of school.

Look, I'm going to try to remain neutral; as best I possibly can when we all know that we harbor some bias, bias that can only be tempered, not withdrawn altogether.

If it was such the case that we could be compeltely neutral, I'm reasonably sure that there would be no grounds for disagreement, arguments, or differences.

So then, let me be quite frank; you did not submit an assignment fit of what the instructions of the assignment were, more to the point, the first and most important instruction to summarize the authors views.

I mean, your first sentence bade the tone of the rest of your paragraph.

Dowd said that civilization owes its origins to the warrior; quite true he said it, but can that confer what his thesis is?

If I was examining that sentence on its own account, invariably there would be a plethora of inferences I could reach. The assignment could well be related to anthropology, evolution, and a host of other subject areas.

Your second sentence is not much better; you include a quote that is in itself more revealing than your disjointed analysis accompanying it. Remember, we are supposed to include analysis, and the quotes should support it. Rather, you have merely included quotes that are pretty much unrelated to your analysis.

- "Dowd talks about America having to continue the fight against terrorism and terrorist states"

This is uninspired; I'm sure the vast majority would agree that he is talking about terrorism, but that is not an analysis, it is more a mere petty "report."

- "The United States, for the most part, has stayed neutral in the affairs of the world, and only getting involved when something negative happens to American's or our interests. But, when provoked, this country does not back down from a fight. This country was founded by the outcasts of other countries, and in time, others migrated here as well. What makes America special is the combined knowledge of our nation. We are not just Americans, we are German, we are Russians, we are Iranians and Indian's, (redacted)."

Ok, so the US has remained neutral in most cases, except where its interests are at stake. I would argue that this is the prevailing notion. Most sovereign nations, superpowers especially, are disinclined to intervene in scenarios that don't have SOME bearing on their interest. I fail to see how this ties in with the analysis of Dowds' argument, so correct me if I'm mistaken, that is, IT IS in a constructive sense tied in.

Your next sentence could be loosely interpreted to mean that the United States is tough, and the one following it that the United States has an incredible richness in diversity in that the people who call it home, come from different cultures, ethnicities, geographical areas of the world, and so on. Basically, the most salient point that leaped out at me while I was reading this portion, was "he's arguing that America is distinct, special; exceptional.

Again, I'm not badgering you, but this has little relevance to your analysis of Dowds' arguments. I'm waiting and waiting for you to tie this in somehow, but in hindsight, you don't.

- And yet, a man, under the disguise of a pacifistic religion, murdered 3000 people on a September morning.

This is your final sentence, and your last chance to salvage what is otherwise an unimpressive analysis of the first article. You are compelled to address Dowds' primary argument, even if you decide to include your personal opinion alongside it. Instead of that, you go so far off point that I'm left with nothing to dissuade me from the view that you didn't present ANY analysis, if by that we mean even a basic paraphrasing of the authors' contentions.

- Charles W. Kegley Jr. and Gregory A. Raymond write in 'Preemptive War Cannot be Justified' that the war being fought in the Middle East is not correct per international law (redacted), "This radical revision of customary international law is leading the world into uncharted waters. If it becomes permissible to attack other international actors who do not pose an imminent threat, then, without a moral principle to guide international conduct, war is likely to increase."

Sir, I'm going you the benefit of the doubt and judge your second paragraph on those first few sentences, and disregard the rest.

By that measure, you summed up his thesis, and provided an excellent quote backing you up.

I believe strongly that those few sentences address the requirements of the assignment in a more meaningful way than the rest of your submission combined, by the standard of most professors.

------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------

Moving on, this part now will be more based on an approach that is in line with discussion, outside the conventions of school.

Just imagine that I'm talking to you outside of school...

- Dowd talks about America having to continue the fight against terrorism and terrorist states

Again, as I alluded previously, Dowd IS talking about terrorism, but here is my personal opinion on what his basic, superceding contention is.

Dowd fully supports unconvential, needless, criminal and abhorrent tactics, in this so called war against terrorism; but he is pretty intelligent. Most reasonable adults -- the constitutents of the United States who are at base responsible for deciding the electorates who represent them, choose those electorates which they feel most share their personal convictions. That said, most Americans would not support electorates, and in turn their policies, if they did not have a good reason to change their views -- mold their views in unison to those of their elected leaders -- because the status quo dictates that their beliefs about what is right and wrong in this circumstance, conflicts sharply with what their elected leaders have espoused publicly. So, if the most powerful elected officials are advancing these new radical methods -- otherwise unacceptable -- they must also make well sure that they don't leave the voters hanging; otherwise their careers as politicans will inevitably come to a grinding, halt. Dowd is merely interlocuting on behalf of the selfame beliefs that are those of crafty, unscrupulous politicans, who full well realize that they must in short, justify their deeply criminal misconduct.

Invite this new paradigm that we are in a new age, the likes we have never seen or read about in our lifetimes, and that's a pretty compelling reason for us to abandon our moral compass, which is shaped by arduous trial and error -- the mistakes that we have learned long ago that we should avoid repeating.

In a nutshell he alleges outright-- this is a "war against civilization." That's a very strong allegation sir; if we accept the premise that these rogue, intangible, factions are colluding to bring about the end of civilization as we know it, I'm positively sure we have enough reason and justification to consider new methods, irrespective of any morality carved out through our careful study of written history, the trials and tribulations of our ancestors that necessarily led us to where we are today, and which, thus, in all but the most extreme circumstances, should play a strong role in how we view conflicts of our time, and more to the point, how we respond to these serious issues.

In my opinion, Dowd is saying the hell with the past; we are in unchartered territory, thus the hell with preconceived moral objections fashioned through the careful study of our history; essentially, all of it has no relevance now. Sept. 11 [the attacks] he argues, constitutes the erasure of anything preceding it.

So we are absolved from our conscience; the old rules don't apply. We are newborn in a dark, dangerous world and we must adapt to circumstances which have no conscienable precedent.

Mustafa