Equality in War

Unrest in the Middle East: Deal Close to Being Done

     Through all of the conflict and unrest in the Middle East, a positive seems to be forming. According to an article by CNN, Iran and the US seem to be nearing a deal that would prevent Iran's nuclear program "from advancing, and roll it back". This deal would help some of the unease felt by the United States and strengthen their relationship with Iran. The deal, proposed by the group P5+1, would extend the breakout time required to achieve a nuclear weapon as well as shorten the time to notice if they tried. The P5+1 consists of the United States, along with the four other permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany.
     A major bright spot came after a report released by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) stated that Iran had slowed the advance of its nuclear production for the first time in years.The IAEA report shows that in the past three months Iran added four old-style IR-1 centrifuges for enriching uranium, after previously installing roughly 1,800 in the previous three-month reporting period.The changes have come during the first three months of President Hassan Rouhani's time in office. He vowed to resolve Iran's nuclear dispute in order to ease sanctions that have crippled Iran's economy. The steps that he has taken, while small, are a sign of goodwill to the P5+1 that they are willing to make concessions. 

Iran's heavy water nuclear facility near the central city of Arak is backdropped by mountains January 15, 2011.

     These developments came only days after President Obama disagreed with congress' idea to increase sanctions on Iran to force them to agree with the deal. According to one article, the increased sanctions proposed by Congress are spurred on by the pro-Israel lobby, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself, as they have never had a friendly relationship with Iran. The showing of goodwill helps begin to establish trust that is essential for this deal to be successful. While increased sanctions may have caused Iran to agree to the deal, I think that a deal made with both parties mutually agreeing will be more successful than a deal that one of the parties is forced in to.
     With the instability in the region at the moment in the form of Syria, a swift agreement would be ideal. I believe that an amount of trust needs to be established between the two parties. “I don’t trust the people who sit across the table from me in these negotiations,” says Wendy Sherman, the diplomat leading the American delegation at the talks in Geneva. To get any deal agreed on, the two parties need to put aside some of the suspicions that have formed over 34 years of icy relations, and have an honest and open discussion. I will leave you with a quote by Winston Churchill, “Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen.”

Mind of a Soldier

    This week in English we read the graphic novel War is Boring by David Axe. Throughout the entire book the author keeps talking about how boring war was: but continued to go to war zone after war zone. He justified it by saying that peace was more boring. While I may not know firsthand about war, I know many people that have experienced it, and that makes me believe his reasoning for going to conflict is not the consensus.
    Some people may think that soldiers have no choice but to go to war zones, but that is not true. One may not choose when or where they are deployed, but when they sign up for service they are making the commitment to go where they are needed. In the movie Black Hawk Down there is a very deep conversation at the end. SFC Norm "Hoot" Gibson says, "When I go home people'll ask me, 'Hey Hoot, why do you do it man? What, you some kinda war junkie?' You know what I'll say? I won't say a goddamn word. Why? They won't understand. They won't understand why we do it. They won't understand that it's about the men next to you, and that's it. That's all it is". That quote is especially meaningful to me because two of my best friends from back home went in to the Army and Marines last year. When I asked one of them why
he said, "I want to make a difference. I do not want to look back five years from now and wonder if I have done anything meaningful".
    At the end of War is Boring Axe goes to Chad after a long stay at home. Before this moment in the story, he went to increasingly more dangerous war zones just for the rush, just to get away from the bore of peace. In this situation, however, he is questioned by his family about why he is leaving again and he says, "Because Chad matters". I think that shows the evolution of him in the story from an adrenaline junkie to someone who starts to care more about other people. I believe this goes more along the mindset of most soldiers, as very rarely do they join because they are adrenaline junkies. From my experience talking to people in my family about their time in combat, I have come up with the conclusion that through all the turmoil, they have stayed strong by believing that they are making a difference.
    Nobody goes in to the war looking to be a hero. That is a quick way to get killed. In another scene from Black Hawk Down, Eversmann talks about a conversation he had with a friend before he left: "He asked me 'Why are you going to fight somebody else's war? What, do you think you're heroes?' I didn't know what to say at the time, but if he'd ask me again I'd say no. I'd say there's not way in hell. Nobody asks to be a hero… It just sometimes turns out that way". This shows that no soldier looks to be a hero, none go to war just for the fame or the spotlight, but the actions that become commonplace in combat are sometimes considered heroic.

    It takes a special kind of person to make it in war zone after war zone, both physically and mentally. War is Boring shows the evolution of Axe from someone who needs the rush, to someone who wants to make a difference. That is one of the traits that makes a good soldier, being selfless. The ability to go risk your life day after day, just for the hope that you make a difference is the choice made by the soldiers who defend our country.

Scars of War

Scars of War

War: some may say that it is an unavoidable event and that it is necessary to ensure peace, while others say it is just a way for childish leaders to get their way. What are the wounds that war is responsible for? Destroyed cities, ravaged lands, and perhaps, worst of all, loss of the human life. Those who do come home from conflict often don't make it back without wounds of their own. Some of the worst wounds, however, are often the ones you can't even see. Post traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, occurs after someone experiences a tragic event, such as war. War or military combat is the most common cause of PTSD in men. According to the National Institute of Health, “The US Department of Veteran Affairs estimates that around 31 percent of Vietnam veterans, 10 percent of Desert Storm veterans, 11 percent of veterans in the war of Afghanistan, and 20 percent of Iraqi war veterans have been affected by PTSD.”

PTSD is caused by a traumatic event, but there's more to it than just witnessing it. When in a dangerous or stressful scenario, the body has a "fight or flight" reaction. It is a healthy reaction to help keep the person from harm. However, in PTSD victims this reaction is changed or damaged, and sometimes that feeling of being in danger never leaves. Symptoms of PTSD usually start to show within three months of the event, often beginning with lack of sleep, and possibly escalating to symptoms as severe as hallucinations. When returning from combat, sufferers often become distance from their loved ones. Some feel as though they never left the battlefield at all. In a story released by the Department of Veteran Affairs, a sufferer of PTSD named Frank admitted to only being able to sit at restaurants with his back against a wall, fearing someone was still after him.. Often the result of anxiety and depression, drug and alcohol abuse are common in those that suffer with PTSD. According to 60 Minutes, "Every day, some 22 American heroes take their own lives because of the stresses they experienced on the battlefield.” If not treated promptly and effectively, we could lose more of our war heros.

So what are the treatments for PTSD? There are many options to treat PTSD, but the most common and effective are therapy and medication. According to the Department of Veteran Affairs, “Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is one type of counseling. It appears to be the most effective type of counseling for PTSD.” The VA also provides other types of therapy, such as eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR), group therapy, and family therapy. “CBT treatment for PTSD often lasts for 3 to 6 months. Other types of treatment for PTSD can last longer,” states VA. As for medication treatment, the National Institute of Health says, “The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved two medications for treating adults with PTSD; sertraline (Zoloft) and paroxetine (Paxil).” The NIH also lists a few more medications that may possibly be prescribed, such as Antipsychotics and Benzodiazepines, but there is little information on how this may work.

In Saving Private Ryan, one of the reoccurring trends was the fact that Captain John Millers’ hands shook.

The true cause was the beginning of PTSD. After being in combat for more than two years and seeing so many of his comrades parish in front of him, the Captain is under so much stress and pressure that his hands involuntarily shake. In the film Full Metal Jacket, Gomer Pyle cannot handle the stresses of boot camp and slowly loses his mind. He ends up killing his drill instructor, and then himself, in one of the most powerful scenes of the movie. This shows that PTSD can start to manifest itself in the earliest stages of military training. Also, the movie Gran Torino is a fantastic representation of PTSD. Clint Eastwood plays a man, Walt Kowalski, who earned a silver star in the Korean war. As Dr. Phillip Leveque writes for Salem-News.com, "Clint shows survivor guilt, paranoia, total irascibility, hate of all enemies and even a death wish which are all symptoms of PTSD."

The tragedies continue as these American heroes come back home to fight yet another battle, this time in their own minds. PTSD, while being a known aftereffect of war since the early 1900s, has come more to the public’s attention during and after the wars in the Middle East. Through close support and therapy, this disorder can be managed. As Lane Evans says, “Without the brave efforts of all the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines and their families, this Nation, along with our allies around the world, would not stand so boldly, shine so brightly and live so freely.” I believe that more time and research should be put forth to find ways to prevent PTSD from happening in the first place. Don’t we owe them at least that much for their sacrifice?

Controversy in the Locker Room

     This week in English we watched The Hurt Locker. When the movie first came out, it was met with a lot of mixed criticism. The general American public loved the movie, and it even won 6 Academy Awards. For the military audience, however, it was met with quite a bit of negativity. I personally believe that it is a top 5 war movie of all time because of the way it connects with the audience. The story follows an Explosive Ordnance Disposal team trying to disarm IEDs.

    A lot of the negative controversy surrounding the movie stems from the inaccuracies that, while unnoticed by most normal civilians, are blatantly obvious to anyone with knowledge of the military. In an interview with EOD teams in southern Iraq they say,  "The Hurt Locker is a good action movie if you know nothing about defusing roadside bombs or the military." Some critics take offense to the movie and how the soldiers are portrayed. Paul Rieckhoff, the executive director and founder of the 150,000-member Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, says in an interview, "The depiction of our community in this film is disrespectful. We are not cowboys. We are not reckless. We are professionals. And a lot of the film would make you think the opposite." Our professor even says that her husband cannot watch the movie without pointing out inaccuracies, some as particular as the way the soldiers fold their sleeves.

     The feedback from the military was not all negative. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said that the movie was very compelling and recommended it to his staff. In addition, the rest of the general public loved the movie, as shown by the 6 oscars and many other awards won. In an article in Newsweek Magazine, the author, who is a major critic of the majority of the movie, says "The film does a good job of articulating the challenges returning troops face when they are coming home and trying to assimilate back to normal life." He is referring to the scene in the movie where Staff Sgt. William James goes to buy cereal, and there is an entire isle of choices. This portrays how simple tasks become difficult to a returning veteran.

     I personally believe that the movie is a top 5 war movie of all time. It shows a great depth in to the mental struggles that face the soldiers, where as other films sometimes focus in on the physical. While some of its inaccuracies cause controversy in a group of the audience, I think that it has a way to connect to all audiences. It allows the viewer to sympathize with the soldiers, as well as making some of the emotional struggles they face relatable.

US Intervention: Nuisance or Helpful?

This week in my english class we watched the movie Black Hawk Down. Personally it is one of my favorite war movies because it gives you a good depiction as to what real combat is like. The majority of the movie was focusing on the battle of Mogadishu, the capital of Somolia. Most of the people in the class didn't even know of that battle's existence. One of the underlying questions many of us in the class had about the battle was why the US was involved in the first place. In a speech by President Johnson, he stated, "Around the globe from Berlin to Thailand are people whose well-being rests in part on the belief that they can count on us if they are attacked. To leave Vietnam to its fate would shake the confidence of all these people in the value of an American commitment and in the value of America's word. The result would be increased unrest and instability and even wider war." Now this quote was originally about America's involvement in Vietnam, but I believe it exemplifies how the US is counted on to come to the support of nations in need. I personally agree with the President. I feel that throughout our history, the US has made a habit of coming to the aid of nations in need. While not always welcomed with the best support, I think that it helps resolve the issues more quickly, as in the case of Grenada and the Faulkland Islands. Some of the negative criticism is that the US is meddling. Some critics believe that the US is trying to push their own customs and ideas of government on the countries. I believe that as Americans we believe in personal freedom, and as a civilized nation we cannot condone the violation of basic human rights. In the case of Black Hawk Down I think that it was highly controversial for the US to be there in the first place, but in the end I think that the US's intentions were correct and their reasons for going to Somolia were justified. Just as President Johnson said, "The central lesson of our time is that the appetite of aggression is never satisfied. To withdraw from one battlefield means only to prepare for the next." If the US and UN had never intervened, what would have stopped Aidid, the warlord and self-proclaimed leader of Somolia, from attacking other nations around them? That is why I think, although sometimes controversial, it is necessary for the US or UN to intervene in other countries conflicts.

Controversy in the Middle East: Here we go again

Since March of 2011, Syria has been the battleground for a brutal civil war. The two parties involved are the rebel group, wanting to end the reign of President Bashar al-Assad, and the Syrian army. This conflict took an especially deadly turn this year on August 21st. On that day, the army launched an assault on two villages outside Damascus, Syria. The most gruesome detail was confirmed Monday by U.N. inspectors, that it was a large scale chemical attack.

The United States says that around 1400 people, mostly women and children, were killed. A recently released U.N. report says "the environmental, chemical and medical samples we have collected provide clear and convincing evidence that surface-to-surface rockets containing the nerve agent sarin were used … in the Ghouta area of Damascus." The main issue now facing the United States, U.N., and the rest of the world is how to handle the situation, whether through force or diplomatic action.

A recent deal made between the U.S., Russia, and Syria stopped the talks of force, for the time being at least. According to Andrew Tabler, "The deal calls on Assad to declare the locations of his chemical weapons and allow U.N. inspectors to inspect, tally and transport them out of the country for destruction." Whether the Syrian government, and al-Assad in particular, follow through with the deal as intended is yet to be seen. So the issue persists, is the only way to completely solve this situation a military strike? Tabler agrees, saying "I just don't see how this diplomatic deal solves the Syrian crisis." There is speculation that Syria will try to deceive the UN inspectors. According to USA Today, “The Lebanese daily al-Mustaqbal said about 200 Syrian trucks were loaded with chemical-warfare-related equipment and sent to Iraq.”

One of the main reasons this deal got proposed by Russia was because of the seemingly impending military strike by the US on Syria. Russian President Vladimir Putin, a strong supporter of al-Assad, wanted to prevent the US from using what President Obama called limited military force on Syria. Even though the US is out of range of any chemical strikes by Syria, Israel and other allies of the US are not. Therefore a preventive military strike could possibly deter future strikes by Syria on Israel, as the two nations have never been all too friendly in the first place. If the US were to strike, however, Syria’s allies Russia and Iran would be quick to back them and possibly make a counter strike. This could throw the entire Middle East into yet another war. Obama’s decision to ask for congressional approval for limited military action on September 10th only intensified the controversy consuming America’s foreign politics.