During every conflict, it seems inevitable that conventional moral standards become perverted by the chaos of war. It transforms men into something we can no longer recognize as they become consumed by human nature’s most carnal desires. Erich Maria Remarque writes, “We run on, overwhelmed by this wave that bears us along, that fills us with ferocity, turns us into thugs, into murderers, into Gods knows what devils; this wave that multiples our strength with fear and madness and greed of life, seeking and fighting for nothing but our own deliverance.” He is not alone in his sentiment of war, and how it deteriorates a soldier beyond their physical being. However, war extends beyond simply the soldier fighting for a cause, and into society as
…show more content…
Words cannot really describe the absolute destruction and devastation left in its wake, I cannot comprehend why anyone would so easily take up arms for their country, belief, or an idea with the intentions of taking another life. However, Hedges manages to do just that. Having experienced first hand the brutality of conflict around the world as a war correspondent, and puts into words the adverse effects of war on the world. He answers the question I seem to struggle with. With every conflict there is a myth associated with the so called ‘cause’ for which an individual fights for. Hedges defines war as, “Even with its destruction and carnage it can give us what we long for in life. It can give us purpose, meaning, a reason for living.” However, the purpose for which individuals fight is shallow, and they do not discover so until it is too late. This primal nature of human beings makes war inevitable, at some point within everyone’s lifetime they feel the pull of nationalism, ideology, or belief tugging them toward conflict. Participating in war is seen to some, particularly those who have put their faith in the myth, as something heroic, or something from which they can gain from their experience. I agree with Hedges’ sentiment that there are no gains in conflict. The costs overshadow any possible achievements gained during conflict. Such was the case with World War I which saw the death of approximately 17 million men, and 20 million wounded, and while this shows the human loss, it doesn’t account for those who were psychologically destroyed by the brutality of trench warfare. A war which was meant to end all wars only resulted in causing a second conflict three decades later, yes, the allies were victorious, but to what ends? Can this kind of devastation be justified with the simple explanation, “The ends justify the means,”? I don’t believe
Words cannot really describe the absolute destruction and devastation left in its wake, I cannot comprehend why anyone would so easily take up arms for their country, belief, or an idea with the intentions of taking another life. However, Hedges manages to do just that. Having experienced first hand the brutality of conflict around the world as a war correspondent, and puts into words the adverse effects of war on the world. He answers the question I seem to struggle with. With every conflict there is a myth associated with the so called ‘cause’ for which an individual fights for. Hedges defines war as, “Even with its destruction and carnage it can give us what we long for in life. It can give us purpose, meaning, a reason for living.” However, the purpose for which individuals fight is shallow, and they do not discover so until it is too late. This primal nature of human beings makes war inevitable, at some point within everyone’s lifetime they feel the pull of nationalism, ideology, or belief tugging them toward conflict. Participating in war is seen to some, particularly those who have put their faith in the myth, as something heroic, or something from which they can gain from their experience. I agree with Hedges’ sentiment that there are no gains in conflict. The costs overshadow any possible achievements gained during conflict. Such was the case with World War I which saw the death of approximately 17 million men, and 20 million wounded, and while this shows the human loss, it doesn’t account for those who were psychologically destroyed by the brutality of trench warfare. A war which was meant to end all wars only resulted in causing a second conflict three decades later, yes, the allies were victorious, but to what ends? Can this kind of devastation be justified with the simple explanation, “The ends justify the means,”? I don’t believe