// War Literature

The task for your first paper is now available  in the Assignments section!

After watching Jarhead for a second time, I feel that I was able to enjoy it more this time around. The first time I saw it was in theatres so I did not have a chance to pause and rewind certain scenes/lines I felt deserved a second look. One of the scenes that stood out the most to me was when the Marine was killed in training because he began to panic and stood up. This scene captured not only the frailty of human life, where one mistake can end it all but also the fact that the horrors of being a marine extend beyond the battlefield. The men were not given a chance to grieve over their dead friend but rather watched their leader yell at the corpse in anger for his error. Aside from being shocked by that scene, the movie made me see just how many of these men live for the fight and for the kill. While in training, Swofford stated that “the sniper dies for that one perfect shot” and that he was now “hooked” in trying to get that perfect shot. Being in the Marines and preparing to serve in a battlefield clearly consumes you to the point that that is all you see, war and destruction. As we have read in our readings these are feelings deep within us all that are brought out by triggers. In Swofford’s case, we can see his aggressive nature come out when one of his friends accidently starts a fire and get Swofford in trouble. In anger, Swofford seems inclined to kill the other marine and goes into a trance state where he builds and takes apart his riffle 28 times and begins to recite marine mantras while pointing the gun at his fellow soldier. This scene truly captures what it must be like to have something overtake you and lose control, to be consumed by aggressive feelings and actions.

This movie not only captures what war was like for these men but for all men and women. As it was said in the movie “Every war is different every war is the same”. By that standard, it is safe to feel that all the outcomes and tragedies are, in some ways, all the same for every war as well. The ending scenes show that once a Jarhead always a Jarhead; how even though they are no longer in a position requiring that they always are ready for battle, they still feel that connection and identify with being a marine and that probably goes for every soldier. War changes you, you are constantly training to kill and it is impossible to turn off that aggressive side just because you go back to civilian life; that struggle is something which the movie Jarhead was able to show successfully.

I’ve actually seen Jarhead in the past and don’t remember liking it as much as I did this time. I’m not sure if it’s because I may be “older and wiser” or just more knowing now that I’ve read the thoughts of Clausewitz, Einstein and Freud on the topic of war, but I definitely seemed to understand the story a lot more this time around. This film showed the toll war took on a few young men, though they were comparatively little exposed to it, and yet so traumatized. There was just so much to think about regarding the psyche of a soldier and the war he is sent to fight, which really interested and resonated with me.

I was instantly drawn to Anthony Swofford, his growth from an innocent man to a war driven individual, almost killing another marine after being demoted due to both their follies. I was even more intrigued by his spotter and fellow marine, Alan Troy, when he is so adamant to have his one “kill” that he nearly goes mad. Both instances really exemplify what Einstein sighted as the reason for war and the obedience from soldiers fighting them; “How is it these devices succeed so well in rousing men to such wild enthusiasm, even to sacrifice their lives?…Because man has within him a lust for hatred and destruction. In normal times this passion exists in a latent state, it emerges only in unusual circumstances; but it is a comparatively easy task to call it into play and raise it to the power of a collective psychosis.”

I feel like the administrators of and superiors in a war play on this lust in curious ways, ways that dehumanize individuals and manipulate and mold them into common instruments of war, identified  only by the dog tags that can later list them as numbers, casualties. The film really shows these ways in such scenes as when the snipers are taught their mantra–“This is my rifle. There are many like it  but this one is mine. Without my rifle, I am nothing. Without me, my rifle is nothing,” and when the men are watching a war film and react wildly to the action sequences, and even more wildly when the loud speaker sounds “Get some marines, get some!”

Such moments are vivid reminders of the way the men are reduced to tools of war, and may they never forget it; “A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he’s finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands, love a woman, build a house, change his son’s diaper; his hands remember the rifle.” So, yes men may be inherently driven to act in violence, but I think that political forces take advantage of that and compel them to act on these emotions and they can’t ever overcome them. I don’t think these men were particularly menacing, but I feel as if certain infamous soldiers at sites like My Lai and Guantanamo Bay were, and they were so malicious because the circumstances of their war and those leading it forced that behavior out of them. Freud even mentions that there countless moments in history that may serve as evidence of this lust that makes men act in criminal ways.

Therefore, I don’t know that I may be optimistic on the view that perhaps man may collectively turn to pacifism, though. There’s more evidence to the contrary so I think that it’s an ambitious thought that I don’t want to get my hopes up on. War isn’t just between states but one simultaneously fought within the minds of soldiers and that barely ever ends.

I just finished Jardhead and thought it was a really intense film. The miles of sand, constant fear of being attacked, and raining oil all reinforced my beliefs that war is really destructive. It is something that I can never fully comprehend unless I head for the battlefield myself. I have great respect for all the men and women enlisted in the United States military. I can’t praise them enough for all the training they endure and experiences they face. They’re really strong people who protect our country. I honestly don’t know if I would have the mental or physical abilities to do what they do. Like Jake’s character, Swofford, mentioned in the film, I would be “f-ing scared.”

Freud’s theory of the death instinct was evident in the film. The latent aggression inside every marine came out during various points. One example was right before Swofford and the troops were sent off to war, they were being “hyped” up by a violent war film. The US air force was shown bombing and killing a lot of what seem to be Vietnam civilians — and the marines seem to love every minute of it. I certainly agree with Freud that the human instinct to kill is uncontrollable. The jarheads simply wanted to kill just for the thrill or sake of having a kill.

During the movie, I was also intrigued by the scene when the marines were being interviewed. When asked why they fought or how they felt, some of the responses amongst the marines were: honor, to protect/defend, and to “count for something.” The general vibe I felt from them was a lack of hostile feelings. All of the men were in “the Suck” by different means and for different purposes but most of them did not hate the enemy. They had hostile intentions but there wasn’t a moment when I thought that pure hatred towards the enemy (Iraqis) was present. Does anyone agree or think differently about this?

Why do you believe that Einstein picked Freud as an interlocutor on the matter of war?

Is there a scientist, writer/artist or intellectual living today that you would question about the persistence of war in modern civilization? Please explain your reasoning in one paragraph.

P.S. This is a short Youtube clip, in which we hear Freud speak about himself:

Freud on Freud

Dear class,

I have enjoyed the blog discussion on Clausewitz and would like to see other points of view about his ideas and their relevance today. For those of you interested in the history of military strategy, please have a look at Sun Tzu’s Art of War (500 BC):

http://www.chinapage.com/sunzi-e.html

Last class, we have watched a clip from Errol Morris’s documentary “The Fog of War.” This is the Youtube link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKE4uuef754&feature=related

Have great Labor Day weekend!

Best,

Sorin

Any thoughts about Clausewitz’s theory of war? Are there any ideas in the section we just read that we can consider relevant today?

Hi everyone my name is Kevin Delgado.  I am just testing this to see how this blog works.

Let me introduce myself, I am a transfer student from Saint Johns University and I am currently a junior. I am in the Zicklin school of business majoring in marketing management.  Its great to meet you all.

Welcome to Blogs@Baruch!

This is the blog for ENG 3950 The Literature of War. You are invited to contribute on a weekly basis.

Best,

Dr. Sorin