What It Is Like to Go to War (2017)
Karl Marlantes
Thesis: Although maintaining many of the themes expressed in Vietnam war narratives, Karl Marlantes’ What It Is Like to Go to War provides a new, twenty-first century viewpoint on war that challenges the homeland culture and the military chain of command in sending a generation of a country’s young men off to war.
Unlike previous eras in the United States’ history, the nation is no longer led by men with military experience. (By the numbers: Veterans in Congress) To some, this may seem potentially dangerous as Congress makes the final decision on whether or not to go to war. The sense of empathy required in a situation like war is one of the many topics Marlantes presents in his book. Whether …show more content…
All wars are presumably fought with a goal at eventual peace: whether it be after conquering or not. However, Karl Marlantes presents a new view as to war’s justification when he declares, “[T]urning warfare into crusades only invites clouded judgement and fierce self-righteous opposition that may otherwise have crumbled” (A-48). The Vietnam War can be most clearly seen as a crusade against communism since its beginnings are still speculated. (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB132/tapes.htm) In this way, Marlantes demands that the motives for a war are clear in order for the soldier to make an informed decision as to whether or not they are going to fight. In an excerpt on the lessons learned from Vietnam, Gabriel Schoenfield writes, “[T]he fundamental decisions taken by McNamara and the administrations he served, if not the means by which they were carried out, appeared entirely reasonable at the time” (J-2). This statement references the chain of command in the military in which soldiers must follow their superiors in all orders; it refers to the justification of a war on a large scale. However, Marlantes challenges this notion by introducing the idea that soldiers themselves must individually determine their willingness to fight. While discussing an interview from war philosopher Robert G. L. Waite, Marlantes narrows the …show more content…
In one excerpt on a soldier’s post-war guilt, a marine recalls, “[W]e’d bombed their cities, villages and country flat. We killed, wounded and maimed members of their family and raped their culture. I often wondered how I would feel toward them if they had invaded the US and done to our country what we’d done to theirs” (G-3). Nowhere in the young man’s recount is an explanation for these actions. The young fighters were never allowed to empathize with the opposition until they return home. Karl Marlantes describes one instance of combat as “[A]nother 400-meter sprint with death. A long desperate weekend. A time out of time” (A-114). The reference to track is an allusion to the marines’ youthfulness. Instead of winning state championships, the kids were shooting up and destroying the land and lives of other kids Their minds, at the beginning of their deployment, were convinced by demonizing used in propaganda that the North Vietnamese were evil and worth killing. (https://sites.google.com/site/americanhistorywars/vietnam-war/propaganda). However, the posters never taught the young men how to deal with the guilt of killing. Therefore as they returned home, many soldiers had similar experiences to Marlantes: “[T]hat body was shut down against
Karl Marlantes
Thesis: Although maintaining many of the themes expressed in Vietnam war narratives, Karl Marlantes’ What It Is Like to Go to War provides a new, twenty-first century viewpoint on war that challenges the homeland culture and the military chain of command in sending a generation of a country’s young men off to war.
Unlike previous eras in the United States’ history, the nation is no longer led by men with military experience. (By the numbers: Veterans in Congress) To some, this may seem potentially dangerous as Congress makes the final decision on whether or not to go to war. The sense of empathy required in a situation like war is one of the many topics Marlantes presents in his book. Whether …show more content…
All wars are presumably fought with a goal at eventual peace: whether it be after conquering or not. However, Karl Marlantes presents a new view as to war’s justification when he declares, “[T]urning warfare into crusades only invites clouded judgement and fierce self-righteous opposition that may otherwise have crumbled” (A-48). The Vietnam War can be most clearly seen as a crusade against communism since its beginnings are still speculated. (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB132/tapes.htm) In this way, Marlantes demands that the motives for a war are clear in order for the soldier to make an informed decision as to whether or not they are going to fight. In an excerpt on the lessons learned from Vietnam, Gabriel Schoenfield writes, “[T]he fundamental decisions taken by McNamara and the administrations he served, if not the means by which they were carried out, appeared entirely reasonable at the time” (J-2). This statement references the chain of command in the military in which soldiers must follow their superiors in all orders; it refers to the justification of a war on a large scale. However, Marlantes challenges this notion by introducing the idea that soldiers themselves must individually determine their willingness to fight. While discussing an interview from war philosopher Robert G. L. Waite, Marlantes narrows the …show more content…
In one excerpt on a soldier’s post-war guilt, a marine recalls, “[W]e’d bombed their cities, villages and country flat. We killed, wounded and maimed members of their family and raped their culture. I often wondered how I would feel toward them if they had invaded the US and done to our country what we’d done to theirs” (G-3). Nowhere in the young man’s recount is an explanation for these actions. The young fighters were never allowed to empathize with the opposition until they return home. Karl Marlantes describes one instance of combat as “[A]nother 400-meter sprint with death. A long desperate weekend. A time out of time” (A-114). The reference to track is an allusion to the marines’ youthfulness. Instead of winning state championships, the kids were shooting up and destroying the land and lives of other kids Their minds, at the beginning of their deployment, were convinced by demonizing used in propaganda that the North Vietnamese were evil and worth killing. (https://sites.google.com/site/americanhistorywars/vietnam-war/propaganda). However, the posters never taught the young men how to deal with the guilt of killing. Therefore as they returned home, many soldiers had similar experiences to Marlantes: “[T]hat body was shut down against