In his 2012 article for The New Yorker, “Atonement,” Dexter Filkins recounts his time spent in Iraq and explains how he helped connect Lu Lobello, a veteran suffering from severe PTSD, with the Kachadoorians, an Armenian family. While in Iraq, the Kachadoorians suffered devastating casualties and injuries at the hands of Lobello’s unit, Fox Company. Even though the United States Government determined the civilian deaths and injuries were justified, Lobello and many other members of Fox Company developed PTSD from the harm they caused. In this situation, most of the involved parties, including the U.S. government, held different conceptions of the right and wrong action to take. This difference in opinions is caused by the cloudy nature of morality
…show more content…
The author explains at the time of the shooting, Lobello and others “decided…to take out any car that came into the intersection” (5). Filkins informs the reader this decision was based on the rules of engagement and past history with suicide attackers (5). Furthermore, Filkins infers Lobello believed he made the right choice when deciding to shoot any incoming cars. This inference can be drawn from a statement Filkins made and his choice to include Lobello’s number one priority. In regard to the former, the author informs the reader that “under the circumstances…he and his fellow marines had done the only thing they could” (7). In regard to the latter, the author made a conscious choice to mention Lobello’s number one priority was protecting his teammates (7). If he failed to shoot the cars, his friends might have been killed and he would have failed his number one priority. From Lobello’s apparent priorities, Filkins implies that ‘allowing’ his friends to die would have been a worse outcome than killing civilians. Even though the author concludes Lobello logically understands he made the right decision, he does not state Lobello wholeheartedly believes he made the right …show more content…
After returning home, Lobello began to realize the harm he caused and his guilt manifested itself in the form of PTSD. The reader learns about the severity of his PTSD when the author explains Lobello was “haunted by what had happened, traumatized, and maybe even ruined” (8). Furthermore, Filkins choice to include how the sight of a baby trigged the image of a “blood-soaked Iraqi infant,” illustrates the extent Lobello’s PTSD impacted his daily life (1). In order to ease his suffering, the author recounts how Lobello searched for the family he harmed. After locating one of the Kachadoorians on Facebook, the author explains that Lobello sent her a video message. The author describes that even though in this message “Lobello might have said “I’m sorry”…it quickly became clear that his views of his culpability were tangled” (7). Filkins description of the length Lobello went to locate the Kachadoorians implies that while he logically believed he made the right decision, there is still an emotional aspect of him that questions his actions. Furthermore, if he not only logically, but also emotionally believed and accepted he made the right decision he might not have developed PTSD in the first place. The author’s portrayal of Lobello’s internal struggle reiterates the ambiguity or morality during
The author explains at the time of the shooting, Lobello and others “decided…to take out any car that came into the intersection” (5). Filkins informs the reader this decision was based on the rules of engagement and past history with suicide attackers (5). Furthermore, Filkins infers Lobello believed he made the right choice when deciding to shoot any incoming cars. This inference can be drawn from a statement Filkins made and his choice to include Lobello’s number one priority. In regard to the former, the author informs the reader that “under the circumstances…he and his fellow marines had done the only thing they could” (7). In regard to the latter, the author made a conscious choice to mention Lobello’s number one priority was protecting his teammates (7). If he failed to shoot the cars, his friends might have been killed and he would have failed his number one priority. From Lobello’s apparent priorities, Filkins implies that ‘allowing’ his friends to die would have been a worse outcome than killing civilians. Even though the author concludes Lobello logically understands he made the right decision, he does not state Lobello wholeheartedly believes he made the right …show more content…
After returning home, Lobello began to realize the harm he caused and his guilt manifested itself in the form of PTSD. The reader learns about the severity of his PTSD when the author explains Lobello was “haunted by what had happened, traumatized, and maybe even ruined” (8). Furthermore, Filkins choice to include how the sight of a baby trigged the image of a “blood-soaked Iraqi infant,” illustrates the extent Lobello’s PTSD impacted his daily life (1). In order to ease his suffering, the author recounts how Lobello searched for the family he harmed. After locating one of the Kachadoorians on Facebook, the author explains that Lobello sent her a video message. The author describes that even though in this message “Lobello might have said “I’m sorry”…it quickly became clear that his views of his culpability were tangled” (7). Filkins description of the length Lobello went to locate the Kachadoorians implies that while he logically believed he made the right decision, there is still an emotional aspect of him that questions his actions. Furthermore, if he not only logically, but also emotionally believed and accepted he made the right decision he might not have developed PTSD in the first place. The author’s portrayal of Lobello’s internal struggle reiterates the ambiguity or morality during