Final

Writing Diagnostic: Why Are They Different?

         What makes the soldiers on the other side any different than the ones on your side? Other than which side they are fighting for there aren’t many differences. In the song “The Day After Tomorrow” by Tom Waits he sings “you cant deny, the other side don’t want to die anymore than we do. What I’m trying to say is don’t they pray to the same God that we do?” Soldiers on neither side wish to die yet they risk their lives every day, but for what? Most of the soldiers on both sides eventually question themselves about that everyday. They both think they are fighting for their country, for their families. Whose family is more important, your side or theirs? Soldiers on both sides of the war have more in common than they would ever think.

Both are strong, brave men and women who risk everything for something they probably don’t know much about.  When you hear the words “fighting for our country” or “fighting for our freedom” what do you think of? To me it sounds as if they are protecting the country from invasion or take over. In reality, the last invasion of the US was when Mexican troops crossed over the Rio Grande in the war over Texas territory. That was in 1846, nearly two hundred and sixty-seven years ago. The US hasn’t been threatened to be taken over nor would any country we have fought have the power to. So are these soldiers really dying fighting for our freedom? Now in the war on Iraq they truly couldn’t be. Iraq never attacked us on 9/11 as some so wrongly claim as the reason for the war. We would be retaliating on a confined group not a whole country. In his article “They Fight and Die, But Not For Their Country” Ted Rall writes, “Iraq never had weapons that could hurt us or means to hit us with them if they had. And we know that they didn't attack us--not on 9/11, not ever… But since Iraq neither threatens our freedom nor our borders, they're neither protecting our freedoms or fighting for America. The best anyone can say is that they're fighting for our country's geopolitical interests”. Do the soldiers know why they’re fighting? Who decides which sides country is right?

Both are trying to protect the friends fighting alongside them.  They not only have to worry about keeping their own lives but those of their fellow soldiers. They spend every waking moment with their colleagues so seeing them getting injured or worse, killed isn’t a welcome feeling. Soldiers die everyday in war and if it’s not you it may be your best friend, your bunkmate, your boss, or maybe even a family member fighting in the war alongside you. When you see a friend in need what do you do? You try and help them. Soldiers get injured or killed all the time trying to help the wounded. Does your best friend deserve to die? Or does your enemy’s best friend deserve to die?

Both sides have families waiting for their return home.  Moms are waiting for their sons, wives waiting for their husbands, children are waiting for their parents. Neither family on either side of the war want to get that call or that knock on their door saying that their loved one wont be coming home. No child should have to go through losing one of their parents but some lose both to war. In his song, Tom Waits also sings “I’m not fighting for justice, I am not fighting for freedom, I am fighting for my life and another day in the world here”. The song is written like a letter back home to the people waiting for him. Millions of soldiers have died fighting in war. Millions of fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, husbands, wives, and best friends will never get to return home to their families. So whose son or husband deserves to die? Which sides family gets to lose?

No soldier goes into war hoping to get injured or die. They are just doing their duty and following orders. They may all have different reasons for joining the fight but they all believe what they are doing is right. They believe they are helping and protecting the well being of their country and in turn their family.

So which side do you think deserves to die fighting for a war they didn’t start and can’t end?  

"The People Behind the Pictures"

How do you think we have war pictures such as these?

Captain Eric Meador on a mission in Helmand province.

Army troops covered in flames from a petrol bomb under attack in Iraq during the war. 

Photo by: Damir Sagolj for REUTERS

U.S. Navy Hospital Corpsman HM1 Richard Barnett holding an Iraqi child in central Iraq

Its because of brave journalists such as these:

War correspondent: Terry Fincher of the Express (left) and Larry Burrows (right) covering the war in Vietnam in April 196

War Correspondent Kevin Sites with Afghan fighters.

War correspondent Joe Galloway.

CBS war correspondent Lara Logan. 

These war correspondents risk their lives to inform the people about the war. They go to the most dangerous war zones with no military training . They are brave and ambitious and they should get more protection and recognition. 

Documentary vs. Movie

      War movies usually tend to gross more than war documentaries because they are more dramatic. Even if they are advertised as a real event or based on a true story they are usually stretched, edited, or dramatized to attract viewers. Documentaries, on the other hand, are meant to tell a true story or to educate viewers on real life situations.

 A documentary’s purpose is to give true facts on an event. Some of the situations dealt with are how the soldiers and veterans, which actually went through some of these things, feel about this. Many critics point out a movie’s inaccuracies, such as military lingo, uniforms, or military culture. However, they do enjoy the action and special effects of the movies. A documentary, on the other hand, is less worried about spicing up the show with special effects and extras. Critics of a documentary might point out how well the documentation was, or how well the cast received the documentation.

Movies such as The Hurt Locker received mixed reviews. Some critics were upset at how the cast portrayed the army. The main character was reckless and insubordinate. Soldiers became upset at the inaccuracy, it made them look reckless. Other critics liked the portrayal of a rugged and courageous soldier. It was entertaining and made him look more heroic.

 Documentaries such as Restrepo also had mixed reviews. Many critics liked that it was real, with no actors or exaggerations involved. The documentary’s creators, Sebastian Junger and Tim Hethrington, said that they wanted the documentary to show the real version of what the soldiers went through so that they can truly be honored as heroes. One of the creators also stated that he was afraid of how the military would react to them having as much access as they did. He said, "It has certainly raised eyebrows within the US military establishment." Movies may be action-packed and dramatic, but in my opinion, watching a truthful and accurate documentary is more entertaining.

Innocent Weapons

          In the movie The Hurt Locker we see one of the several ways children are used as weapons. One of the main characters, Sergeant First Class William James, who plays a member of an elite bomb squad, was forced to defuse a body bomb that was sewn into the corpse of a young boy.
         Children have increasingly become a popular weapon for terrorists and insurgent groups. They are used for body bombs, militia, menial workers such as cooks, planting bombs, and even as suicide bombers. Children are recruited for several different reasons. One reason would be that they are vulnerable or easily coerced into doing what they are told. People are also not as wary of children because they are viewed as innocent so its easier for them to not get caught before the act is done. Children don't always join of their own free will, some are threatened and forced to comply. Some are promised protection, food, money, and a chance at a better life if they join the fight. John Horgan stated in his special for CNN that   the TTP , a terrorist group in Pakistan, have been recruiting children as operatives for years.

        The children are recruited, taken, or even given to the Taliban by their parents. They are trained in special camps to do whatever the group orders. Most of the children told of horrible treatment, beatings, and, for some, even rape. A rehabilitation center for the children who are arrested or captured by officials, named Sabaoon, works hard to help them turn their life around and escape from the Taliban.  
       Children in the program are helped by a team of psychologists and spend anywhere from 6 months to 3 years in the program. Since it was created in the 2000s, Sabaoon has had 188 students graduate. Just like any program, Sabaoon is not 100% effective, but most graduates never return to the fight. The children trained to do unspeakable things get a new chance at life and a bright future. Wether or not the child is innocent or completely rehabilitated is something to question.  Can you really rehabilitate someone who has spent their whole childhood brainwashed to kill innocent people? Are these children truly innocent?

Prisoners of War : Ignored and Abandoned

    During the Vietnam War there were thousands of prisoners of war captured. Some were returned but some weren't so lucky. After the war-ending treaty was signed in January of 1973 the Senate Select Committee on P.O.W./ M.I.A. Affairs started their job on finding and returning the lost soldiers. Former Massachusetts Senator and presidential candidate John Kerry was appointed as chairman of the committee. It has now come to light that Kerry  may not have been as honest as we thought.

    Though North Vietnam returned 591 of the captured prisoners, evidence shows that there are many still held back as a bargaining chip for the $4 billion in repairs promised by the U.S. It was the Committee's job to investigate the integrity of the evidence. Sidney Schanberg argues in her article "When John Kerry's Courage Went M.I.A." that Kerry had other plans. Schanberg argues that instead of focusing on the lost soldiers, his main objective was normalization of relations with Hanoi. Though that goal was not a bad one, it largely interfered with the retrieval of those men.

   There has been evidence of more than 1,600 firsthand sightings, almost 14,000 secondhand reports, intercepted radio messages about prisoners being moved by captors,reports from informants, and clear satellite photos of rescue signals. All of this evidence was labeled "inconclusive" and ignored. There were many complaints by senior U.S. intelligence officials that live-prisoner evidence was being covered-up and that the Pentagon was destroying files to keep the families and public from finding out. Kerry has consistently denied all of the allegations of his cover-up. 

    Colonel Millard Peck, former head of the Pentagon's P.O.W/M.I.A office, resigned in disgust in the first year of Kerry's leadership of the committee. In his last address he said, "The mind-set to 'debunk' is alive and well. . . Practically all analysis is directed to finding fault with the source. Rarely has there been any effective, active follow-through on any of the sightings . . . The sad fact is that. . .From what I have witnessed, it appears that any soldier left in Vietnam, even inadvertently, was in fact abandoned years ago, and that the farce that is being played is no more than political legerdemain done with 'smoke and mirrors' to stall the issue until it dies a natural death."

    How many prisoners of war were left behind? The evidence claims that hundreds were never returned home. Those who were abandoned by the country they fought so bravely for. The country they risked their lives for. What happened to those who never came home?

Untold War Crimes.

  Anyone that has done any research on the Vietnam War has some knowledge about war crimes. Some argue that it wasn't a large widespread occurrence but just a exclusive few. A very popular and well researched newspaper The Toledo Blade did a four day series of in depth articles about the war crimes of the "Tiger Force" unit of the army who were infamously know for carrying out the "longest" series of war crimes. But even the Toledo Blade argues an "exceptionalistic view" that the war crimes such as My Lai and the Tiger Force were isolated events. None of the Tiger Force were ever prosecuted or punished for their actions.

 Turse stated in his article "The Vietnam War Crimes You Never Heard Of" that body count was the goal of most troops during the war and the units with the highest were rewarded with various prizes. They were many stories of artocities such as the "mere gook rule" which said "If its dead and vietnamese, its VC". One member on the Tiger Force , Sergeant Roy E. Bumgarner, was rumored to have gathered civilians and taken them out to a secluded area and murdered them. He would set off a grenade and plant weapons on their bodies to make it look like they were enemy militia. Unlike some other troops accused Bumgarner was actually charged with premeditated murder but got off with a mere manslaughter charge, fine, and a demotion and later re-enlisted.
 
    The Tiger Force was only one of the many incidents though most were undocumented. Turse lists many formerly classified documents of crimes such as: a sergeant severing the ear of corpse to use as a hood ornament, a 13 year old child being raped, the murder of 2 small vietnamese children, the gun down of 3 innocent working civilians. Turse argues that though these types of war crimes weren't an everyday occurrence for these soldiers it wasn't as rare as people try to argue. Atrocities such as the My Lai massacre and the Tiger Force may be some of the most well know and publicized but they are just a few of many.