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
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.
8 comments:
It is very evident that being the biggest, fastest and strongest person is no longer essential in being the perfect soldier. Surely for an infantry, speed, size and strength can still be an asset in today's world. However, as you say, those characteristics have given way and in turn, a new breed of warrior has emerged. The seemingly unlimited technology of the United States Military makes 'geeks', the not as fast, strong and big people, increasingly important. I don't care how fast you are, it doesn't matter when you're the target of a smart bomb. Warfare changes with technology and with it, so do the warriors.
Great post. I like how you have traced the qualities of the perfect soldier/warrior from the Trojan Wars to the conflicts in the Middle East. I happen to agree with you on most points, mostly that today, the perfect soldier should be mature by nature, because ultimatley, having this trait can distinguish between leaders and followers.
That is another question I have; what are the perfect qualities for a leader? Intelligence? Cunning? Being feared/respected? Being loved?
Yes maturity is a very important aspect in war. War experience is the quickest way to gain this so called maturity. However I believe maturity is not the ideal quality in a warrior. If the wisest person in the world suddenly found him or herself on a battle field I wonder how he or she would react. Yes this person would have the advantage of maturity, but what if they had no battle experience at all? Maturity would simply not be enough to make them a good warrior, let alone have the chance of survival. In the same way, if the strongest person in the world who had no maturity or brains were suddenly thrown into battle, i would have doubts that they would be able to survive as well. I guess what I'm trying to say is that you can't just point to one quality and say thats what forms a warrior. It is the balance of maturity, strength, cunning, and other such traits that you mention that truly make a reliable warrior.
I think this is a great post by Tess. I believe that she brings up a great point at the end of her post, in that these qualities that were once treasured have somewhat diminished to the point that they are not completely necessary to be a great warrior/soldier anymore. However, they have not diminished to the point where they are unnecessary. Clearly soldiers in the present and in the future will be required to pass some sort of physical and mental test.
I enjoyed reading your blog and agreed with everything you said, until you got to the end. I think the example you used about the soldiers torturing is perhaps a little undersupported. Under those circumstances, and perhaps under extreme pressure to defend peoples lives, torture might be the only way to handle the situation. I think maturity is a very essential thing to hold on the battle field, but I think to present the concept of having just one quality is unfair because all these qualities feed and are built off of eacother.
I have to agree with Sam. Maturity does play a huge part in a person during a war, but you have to account for everything a person must posses to even get through a war. Not only is a war a physical struggle, it is also just as much mental. Now times have changed and a person can kill someone from a continent way, but for an infantry soldier they will have to kill someone in sights distance. So they need to be fast, strong, intelligent, mature, and confident in that they will survive what they are put through. This is also why we go through basic training were you have to challenge your mind and body. A good blog to really think about. Good Job
I agree that warfare is becoming less and less confrontational as technology increases. Wars are no longer even fought face to face, but rather computer to computer. I think this so called advanced weaponry has led to less maturity and discipline in the army. Army generals and captains used to be perceived as a soldiers guide and key to survival, but less and less soldiers are actually involved in real combat. While I am happy that less of our soldiers have to risk their lives in combat, I think the army is completely different in today's technology advanced society than it was in the past. Is this beneficial for our army? I think only a person in the service can accurately answer this question.
Definitely right about how qualities that once made soldiers great before are now not as important. Technology has made it possible for a wider variety of people to fight and still be considered a good soldier.
Post a Comment