Communism vs. Terrorism

As Ed and Shanil presented in class, they showed a slide of the domino theory regarding communism and the Vietnam War. I will attempt in this post to parallel this theory to terrorism the world is experiencing today. 

Obviously the Vietnam War was started to contain communism from spreading throughout Asia. Communism was the "greatest enemy" of the United States during the Cold War and during the Vietnam War but that view changed to a less apathetic viewpoint on communism as the war dragged on. As the war lasted longer than any one previously, people started to become less interested in containing communism. It didn't seem to be a direct enemy to the US in Asia, and most people back in the US figured there was no real reason we needed to be killing the Vietnamese people and letting our soldiers die for the same reason.

This less apathetic viewpoint on war seems to be apparent today regarding the Iraq War. Not only do people claim that "we do not know who our real enemy is" but also claim that we have spent too much time in Iraq as it is. When President Bush ordered troops into Iraq in 2003, he had an approval rating 0f 96%. But as the war has raged on for 6 years, people are less concerned about "containing" terrorism and more interested in bringing the troops home.

Although it could be argued that we are winning in Iraq and that we should stay there, the general consensus with people at home is to bring the troops home (also the viewpoint of our President). To me, the Iraq War seems even more "mirky" as Ed described the Vietnam War to be. We are less aware of our enemy and it is getting harder for us to fight them in urban environments. I don't know if any of this makes sense to you guys, but I'm basically trying to compare the issue of communism to terrorism and how people originally supported fighting it, but when things got ugly, we turned our backs on the soldiers and supporters of the wars. Basically, was communism and or terrorism a palpable issue to fight against?

War's Effect on the Mind

Kurt Vonnegut's SlaughterHouse-Five has opened my eyes a little more into the effects that war has on both the mind and the body. Although I knew a little about PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) cases involving soldiers returning from Iraq or Afghanistan, I didn't know too much about these types of mental instabilities during WWII. As described by the National Center for PTSD, the disorder is described as happening "after a traumatic or life threatening event it is common to have upsetting memories of what happened, to have trouble sleeping, to feel jumpy, or to lose interest in the things you used to enjoy. For some people these reactions do not go away on their own, or may even get worse".

After reading this book, it seems to me like Vonnegut is portraying Billy the Pilgrim as having some form of PTSD. Also because of the book's confusing mannerisms and style of writing, it could even be construed that Vonnegut has PTSD and is trying to soothe his symptoms by writing about them. These symptoms are understandable regarding the situation. Not only are Billy and Vonnegut involved in the war in a combat sense, they have also experienced the Dresden bombings. These reactions to the bombings are interesting as both Billy and Vonnegut are part of the Allied Forces and should not have been directly affected by the bombings as they were not the targets.

I think Billy has developed PTSD before the war has even finished. He is already having flashbacks and has eccentric mannerisms that include being visited by Tralfamadorians. Although I can't regard him as insane (yet), his actions thus far seem to fall in line with the symptoms of PTSD. I don't really know where I'm going with this but Billy's mannerisms are definitely not just because he might be a little kooky or "out-there". There is something else going on in Billy's (or Vonnegut's) mind that is making him act this way. What are your thoughts?

The Reason the Confederacy Lost at Gettysburg

In the Killer Angels, it is evident that there is a conflict of ideas between Lee and Longstreet. We debated in class as to whether this conflict could be beneficial or dangerous. In my opinion, this conflict is one if not the only reason the Confederacy lost at Gettysburg. As previously stated by almost everyone, Lee is an offensive minded leader whereas Longstreet usually opts for defensive strategies. In the battle of Gettysburg, the Confederacy had already lost a key point in the battlefield: the high ground. Not only did they lose this but they were also outnumbered approximately 94,000 to 72,000. Basically, the Confederates were disadvantaged in almost every way possible. They also had to cross a mile long open field to even be able to attack the Union troops.
In my opinion, the real reason the Confederacy lost at Gettysburg and subsequently the entire war was because of Lee's inability to compromise with his lower officers such as Longstreet. Lee was schooled in Napoleonic war strategies that called for an offensive mindset. His religion also caused him to believe to an extent that his men were expendable and that victory at all costs is the best kind of victory. In terms of this specific battle, Lee believed that he had the upperhand with his experience over the Union commanding officer Meade. He believed that the only way to win this battle would be to attack the Union at its strongest point: Fortified positions on the high ground. As previously stated, the Confederates were already outnumbered by about 22,000 Union troops. Somehow Lee decided that attacking the Union head on with absolutely no cover on a field a mile long, would somehow phase them and cause them to retreat, even with a severe disadvantage in numbers.
I believe that after Day 1 of the battle, after the disastrous amount of casualties the Confederates taken, that Lee should have listened to Longstreet's idea to wheel around behind the Union and close them off from D.C., leaving them completely isolated. If Lee had agreed to this, the Confederates would have isolated the Union and would have cut their supplies off as there was a railroad close to the Union position supplying the Union with an endless amount of ammunition, food, and other supplies. This would have given the Confederacy the advantage as they would also have been able to fortify their positions near the railroads. They would have also been able to basically starve the Union out of their positions on the high ground as they would eventually run out of supplies. Unfortunately Lee never compromised with Longstreet and the Confederacy was basically fated to lose both at Gettysburg and subsequently the entire war.

Killer Angels

In our latest reading, Killer Angels, we were introduced to a few major characters in the Civil War and in the Battle of Gettysburg. The Confederate men are Robert E. Lee and James Longstreet. The Union men are Joshua Chamberlain and John Buford. All of these men have different viewpoints on how war should be fought and are all interesting and unique in their way of thinking.

Robert E. Lee was a Calvinist, meaning that he took Christianity even more seriously than the Catholics. He also was very moral because of this upbringing and believed that men should be focused at all times not chasing after women, drinking, or smoking. His main strategy was to always be on the offensive. He also believed that to win a battle, men would obviously have to lose their lives, but Lee did not necessarily care how many were killed as long as victory was achieved.

James Longstreet was almost completely different in strategy than Lee. He believed that the best defense would win a battle. Entrenching the men and holding a set position would be the keys to victory. He also believed strongly in a person's right to live and that their lives were not expendable. This can be related to the fact that he had lost three children already and could not stand seeing more people die needlessly.

Joshua Chamberlain should not have been in the war at all. He was a professor of rhetoric at Bowdoin College in Maine. Chamberlain had no experience whatsoever in military strategy but he was charismatic and was able to rally people. The best example of his charisma is when he is faced with 120 deserters from the Union Army. The all happened to be from Maine, Chamberlain's home so Chamberlain had a little bias towards their well being. He also displays his social upbringing as he treats the men fairly and gives them the choice to fight with the Union or be held prisoner.

John Buford was a cavalry commander for the Union Army. Buford believed that cavalry was only good for transportation and were obsolete in battle. As soon as the men reached their position, they were to dismount and fight on foot. In the first few chapters of Killer Angels, Buford has moved his men into the town of Gettysburg and has chased of Confederate Infantry commanded by A.P. Hill. This act allowed the Union army to gain control of the high ground which would play a pivotal role in the battle.