The Dominoes of Communism

Monday in class when Shanil and Ed presented, one of my favourite moments was they mentioned the domino effect and showed this image: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Domino_theory.png. I had never heard of the domino effect in terms of communism, so I decided to look up some information on it.

As it turns out, Eisenhower coined the term domino theory as justification for the Vietnam War. As the image shows, if Vietnam fell to communism, Laos would be next, and then Cambodia, an then Thailand… All the way to India—a major trading country with the US (more so now than in the Vietnam era, but nonetheless). Eisenhower even argued in 1954 that Communists would have a geographical advantage that would enable them to take over Japan, the Philippines, and even Australia.

Clearly the domino theory is applicable in terms of the Vietnam War; after 1975, South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia were all “taken over” by Communism. Supporters of the domino theory claim that the US’s intervention in Indochina kept Communism from spreading further. Of course, at the same time Communism did not take hold in Thailand or Indonesia as Eisenhower predicted it might. Critics of the theory say that Communism was not a world force, and would not be able to spread beyond some fractured countries (after all, with both Laos and Cambodia, Vietnam had ambitions in those countries and outright attacked them until they could no longer defend themselves).

Personally, I think the domino theory is a bit too dramatic. Eisenhower used it as justification for Vietnam, and I have trouble imagining anything that could justify that war. When Germany first came under Nazi control, there was no domino effect. It took very aggressive actions on the part of the Germans before Poland came under Nazi control, and even afterwards Nazism would not have spread without some very deliberate and forceful work. (it’s not the perfect example, but it works.)

Any thoughts? Does the domino theory have any validity? Can you think of better examples than mine (I’m pretty sure you’ll be able to)?

Vonnegut's Soldiers

I have only really liked three pieces of literature (not including poems) that I have read over my Greenhill Upper School career for my English classes. One was Elie Weisel’s Night. I stayed up until two in order to finish it. One was Death and the King’s Horseman, a play I read last year. Most of you probably didn’t like that one very much at all but for some reason it appealed to me. I can definitely add Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse Five to this list.

Not only was this book weird and quirky, it jumped around to the point of being incomprehensible. It was easy to hate Billy Pilgrim, with his cowardice and un-warlike attitude and physique (or so I imagined him). The end was frustrating and empty. I still loved the book—especially the part at the end when Derby is arrested and shot for stealing a teapot in the ruins of Dresden.

One of my favourite quotes out of the book was from the woman who served the American captives in Dresden before the bombing. On page 159, she comments on how unlike soldiers the three men in front of her appeared. When they respond, she says, “All the real soldiers are dead.” I thought this was one of the most revealing quotes about Vonnegut’s war story. Billy represents so many soldiers in WWII who are not the “ideal” soldier: the built, strong young man, and this woman is right. Most of the stereotypical soldiers have been killed, either because they are brave or because they are stupid—depending on your viewpoint.

The soldiers who do remain are weakened, and nothing like those in the Iliad. There is no place for Achilles, Agamemnon, or even Paris in this sort of a novel. I think Vonnegut is pointing out that war isn’t nearly as great as the classics would have you believe, and I think he proves it though Billy’s situation.

Kurt Vonnegut had several lines equally strong as this one; any other favourites, or ones you really thought didn’t belong?

The Turning Point of War

One of the most central conflicts of Killer Angels is the disagreements and miscommunication between the two main Confederate officers, Lee and Longstreet. Because their views of the situation differ so greatly, they have trouble managing the army successfully. Longstreet believes in defensive tactics and protecting his men, while Lee fights in a more traditional, Napoleonic manner. In many ways, this conflict reflects how the progression into modern warfare affected the Civil War itself.

As technology advanced and distance weapons became more accurate, infantry slowly became obsolete. Pickett’s Charge, at Gettysburg, was the last great infantry charge—and it was a failure. The Union forces were too strong, and they had the advantage. The North simply sat and fired cannons and rifles as the South advanced right into the shots.

Though Lee is clearly a brilliant military strategist, he is also outdated. He thinks in terms of old-style warfare, but those tactics are ineffective against newer technology. The Napoleonic tactics also give him a sense of pride; this pride is the root of his ‘downfall’ at Pickett’s Charge. Longstreet, on the other hand, believes in defensive tactics and preserving his men as best as possible. The differences between the two are striking, but in the end Lee’s superiority in position means that his plan will be the one they use—to the detriment of the Confederate forces.

Inherent, yes; inevitable, no.

Monday in class we debated about whether warring/warfare is inherent in human nature, and our debate spread into the other question Mr. Crotty asked of us: is war inevitable?

I think they are two different questions, and I have two very different answers. I believe (contrary to my unfortunate position in the debate) that war IS an inherent part of human nature. Humans are by nature greedy, afraid of differences, and paranoid. These three factors are in my opinion the root causes of war. (If I missed any, please suggest others… I probably did.)

Examples are easy to find. European colonialism in Africa was caused by greed. World War II was started by the Germans (yes I know I’m oversimplifying things) because Hitler needed a scapegoat and it was easy to get the Germans to fear the Jews’ differences. Paranoia starts wars of preemptive strikes, such as some of the more recent “wars” America has been involved in.

May I add that the “pacifists exist” point is a relatively poor one. War begins with fights, and even pacifists probably get angry about something.

So what about this inevitability factor? Will it continue until the end of time, or at least the end of ants and humans? Not necessarily. Yes, history does state otherwise, but the world is constantly changing. I don’t think we can continue to live the way we have for the past few thousand years—especially in terms of what has changed from tribal relations to foreign policy. Nuclear power has changed everything, and we have the capability to blow ourselves and everyone else up if the wrong leader gets the wrong idea in his head at the wrong instant. Sooner or later, someone will have to realize that something must be changed, and war will be the first thing to go.

What do you think? Is my opinion possible? Can war be overcome if it is a part of human nature? Or is it simply highly improbable?

The Photography of War

Last Friday, we watched James Nachtwey, the photographer, talk about his experiences in war zones, taking pictures and showing them to the world. He said that his inspiration for becoming a photographer was watching the effect the photographs of the Vietnam War had on the United States community.

Most of the photographs shown—and indeed most photographs from war zones—are bloody, gory, and violent. Not only are they somewhat gross, they’re also emotionally trying. The average American doesn’t have to deal with famine or gunshot wounds on a daily basis, and seeing these things in such life-like clarity is scary.

On the one hand, these photographs can have positive effects on the public. They can mobilize a nation, creating protests against an irrational war. Sometimes it becomes difficult to get through to people if they are too removed from the situation. For example, it took years for news of the genocide in Darfur to reach American people en masse. Photographs open a person’s eyes to the reality of war, and this is rarely a bad thing.

But there is another side. For one, these images are painful to see. They can even be emotionally scarring, if seen at the wrong time or in the wrong context. And, eventually, people become desensitized to the violence involved. If this happens enough for a long period of time, people become even more apathetic about things like genocide and famine.

So is censorship in terms of war a good thing or a bad thing? Should images like the ones that James Nachtwey shows be broadcast to a nation? Since we are Greenhill students, I expect that most people will say that yes, they should. I’m interested to hear why, though.

The Essential Warrior

We ended class on Friday with a question that is basic for any war situation: What are the right and wrong ways for a warrior to act? I found myself thinking of this question in slightly different, more difficult terms. Basically, what is the ideal quality in a warrior? If a soldier could only have one quality, what would that be?

In the Iliad, war is clearly a task for those with strength. Achilles is considered the strongest warrior on the battlefield of the Trojan War (except, of course, for his heel), and therefore he is the best. Odysseus, while respected, is not entirely revered for his cunning. In the Odyssey, in fact, Homer casts some doubt on his worth as a hero purely because he is so full of tricks.

Many other qualities could be considered as The Quality to have. Honor, reliability, and obedience are considered good characteristics on most battlefields, but they are not always the most important. Strength was the single most important quality throughout the majority of history, but as different technology became available that started to change. Bows, swords and maces gave way to guns and cannons, and brute strength was traded for eyesight and precision. Strength was still important, but somewhat less so. As technology progressed further, strength was even less important. Hitler did not even stand six feet tall, but he commanded troops throughout Europe, and was successful for a time. (I don’t support Hitler *at all*, I merely find him a useful example.)

It is difficult to determine the ideal quality in the Vietnam War. However, I think that mental toughness is certainly up there on the list. Perhaps this is only due to psychological research done only through the past century, but it certainly seems that post-traumatic shock is a bigger problem than it once was.

In today’s wars, we rely on technology more heavily than ever before. For the older men and women in the armed forces, it has become imperative to adapt to new ways of doing things. Younger people have less difficulty adapting, but they must still have the intelligence and capability of using technology to their advantage. At the same time, none of the older qualities have really passed out of their time of need: honor, reliability, obedience, strength, and mental toughness are all important to be successful in battle.

However, if one quality were to be lifted above the rest, I believe it would be maturity. After the multiple reports of various horrible actions in modern wars (for example, the case of torture in the Abu Ghraib prison), it is hard to believe that the soldiers behind these actions possessed any maturity at all. Maturity leads to many other strengths as a soldier. It takes maturity to admit that someone else has something to teach you, and even more maturity to learn from those people.

Women and Ancient Warfare

I promise not to do this often, but I think someone should every now and then. As the only female in the class, I feel responsible for presenting a different viewpoint than some of the male students might have.

First, I am not a psychotic feminist. I believe in gender equality, not the superiority of the female gender. After all, feminism started out as a movement to gain equal rights for females. That’s what it should continue to be.

But that’s not the point of this. My real question is how this class is relevant to women specifically. Clearly this role has changed since the Trojan War, but how? How has society changed so significantly that women have gone from being prizes to fighting soldiers, and what were the “in-between” stages?

The Iliad, though a novel filled with male characters, has its origins in females themselves. The simplest cause of the Trojan War was the quarrel between Athena, Hera, and Aphrodite about who was the “fairest” goddess—a contest which is justifiably seen as vain and associated with women. When Paris gives the apple to Aphrodite, she naturally rewards him with a prize: a woman, Helen of Sparta. The entire story is based around several stereotypical situations: the three women arguing about “silly” vanity, Zeus passing the judgment to Paris instead of getting involved in a “woman’s quarrel,” and the reward of a beautiful woman. Homer was by no means politically correct according to today’s standards, but it is important to remember the time frame in which he wrote.

Throughout the Iliad itself, women continue to be represented in similar ways. As early as Book 1, Agamemnon and Achilles fight over Briseis, a woman claimed as “bounty.” Agamemnon wants Briseis in exchange for Chryseis, another girl, since they must return Chryseis to her father. Briseis and Chryseis themselves really have no choice in the matter, though doubtless they would both prefer to simply go home. By Book 2, Agamemnon regrets their quarrel, lamenting that if only he and Achilles could work together, Troy would fall immediately. Women are represented as distractions and possessions in war, not workers and certainly not able fighters.

Another interesting scene regarding the role of women is in Book 4, when Aphrodite attempts to lure Helen back to Paris after seeing her husband Agamemnon. Helen tries to resist, saying it would be wrong. One threat from Aphrodite, however, is enough to silence her. This, combined with Hera’s and Athena’s roles as warriors, clearly shows that goddesses play a different role in Greek myths than human women. (However, this is not enough to overcome the gods; in Book 1, when Hera provokes Zeus enough to cause a reaction, she becomes “terrified” afterwards.)

Clearly the Greeks did not believe that women were equals in war. Instead, decisions were made for them and they were seen as possessions, distractions, and hindrances meant to be left at home; they were not fighters or even contributors to a war effort. Today, women fight in the military, and might even be drafted someday.