The Public's War

As I researched life in America during the Vietnam War, I can’t help but feel that the perception of war drastically changed. Even though we are currently involved in a war, I very rarely watch news stories about what is happening in Iraq. When the war first started, the media was all over it and covered every last detail of the events taking place. But now people genuinely seem disinterested. I’m not saying people don’t care about American troops or the outcome of the war, but The War in Iraq is no longer a part of people’s day to day life. We as a country have moved on and have bigger problems to worry about and larger deficits to overcome.

The economy has become a very relevant issue as it affects the large majority of people where it hurts most, their wallet. The war is often linked to the cause of the plummeting economy. People seem to be more focused on the affects of the war, rather than the actual battle or event itself. There is a good portion of Americans who believe in the war efforts, but even they are not fully engaged in every event or action that takes place in the war. During The Vietnam War, people would be glued to their television sets and watch the news ritually. Even though people disagreed with the actions of America, they still kept up to date and informed about the war.

Is it better to be constantly involved in the daily events of war or to be dethatched from the realities of war? I am trying to decide what method of public opinion and influence is better suited for war. People today criticize war motives, but are not disheartened because of the lack of morality shown to Middle Eastern civilians. People are mad because the war is costing America too much money and in turn taking money and jobs out of their pockets. The American protests during the Vietnam War called for justice and humane treatment of the Vietnamese people. Innocent people are dying every day in the Middle East, but people are not really focused on this aspect of the war. The number of casualties is of course smaller in this war, but is killing innocent people acceptable if in small numbers?

Media Bias Over the Years

I found the power point presentation on media bias during the Civil War to be very intriguing in terms of how the media has evolved over the years and at the same time retained many of the same qualities. I think it is impossible for news or media coverage to be unbiased. Every aspect of media coverage can be presented in numerous forms and holds the bias and intentions of a certain target audience. During the Civil War, the two audiences of news coverage were the confederates and the union. Two complete opposite opponents presented news and media coverage from rival points of view. Each side used the news and media coverage of the war to rally hope and inspire armies that they were fighting for a winning cause. Blatant lies about victories and defeats in battle were printed in papers. Fact and fiction was inseparable between these opposing papers, yet today the news is not completely different.

Different channels, newspapers and other news medians have a labeled bias. FOX News appeals to a certain demographic, while NBC may appeal to a different audience. A good majority of people base their TV viewing according to these perceptions of what the news will be like. People can basically choose what news they want to hear. Regardless of popular perception or belief, opposing news stories can be found. When people watch certain channels or news reporters there is an anticipation of the ideology behind the news coverage that will be presented. Similarly, the South and North anticipated success stories in the paper for their respective sides. There was an understanding between these rival news sources to essentially give their people what they wanted. People from the North and South expected inspiring news for their armies and it was an excepted bias.

News is very open ended and needs to be interpreted. Straight facts are boring and dry and hold no substance by themselves. Often time the job of media members is to create stories where there are none or spin stories to make them enticing and interesting. Media bias will continue to exist because it has become an essential aspect of news itself. News coverage without bias is simply boring and almost impossible to truly achieve.

Lee's Power

General Lee proposes that Longstreet cares too much about the soldiers and needs to get rid of this sentimental attachment. Lee does not believe that any sensible man could disagree with his military tactics, so he accredits Longstreet’s defensive propositions to excessive sympathy for the men. The truth of the matter is that while Longstreet does care about his men, he more so believes that his own military techniques are better suited and more appropriate for the confederates. These generals have completely different mindsets and ideas of how to fight a war, but are unable to openly communicate these indifferences. I used to think Longstreet’s silence represented respect and admiration for General Lee, but now it seems to be a detrimental force in the downturn of the confederate army.

The South’s top two generals disagree on the fundamental principles of military warfare. Preparation and communication are key elements to fighting a war. Lee continues to give military orders and commands, but fails to recognize the reservations Longstreet takes to these military tactics. Longstreet resents the fact that Lee ignores his opinions as overly sentimental and compassionate. Regardless of his position as general, Longstreet has little power over Lee and never challenges this authority.

A strong and powerful military is not composed of one absolute leader. The southern people admired and revered Lee as great military leader, but this god-like status prevented any criticism to his actions. Great leaders often times question themselves and their actions as exemplified by Chamberlin. Being a former college professor, he questions why he was chosen to be a head military officer. This constant search for answers creates an open minded view of the world that allows for progression. Lee is never challenged and therefore his word is taken as a message from god and carried out exactly. I believe the outcome of the war could have been very different had someone challenged Lee’s military tactics and his power.

Who's In Charge

The contrasting military minds of Robert E. Lee and Longstreet are very dangerous and problematic for the confederate army. Lee is presented as somewhat vulnerable due to his weakening heart condition, yet his military strategy is aggressive and offensive. As opposed to Longstreet, who takes a defensive and more practical approach to the movement of the military. We discussed in class that Longstreet respects the ranking of general and the leader of the confederate army. Lee happens to be in this role of leadership, yet Longstreet makes a more efficient and thoughtful leader. Longstreet may be somewhat conservative, but he also wants to conserve the lives of his fellow soldiers if possible. It is easy for Lee to assert aggression and increase cavalry sizes when he is not on the front lines putting his life on the line. We discussed in class how Longstreet lost multiple sons in the war and has deeper feelings of sympathy for putting his men in unnecessary danger. I feel Longstreet makes a more logical and intelligent leader who understands the strengths as well as the weaknesses of the confederate army. An offensive military attack is important, but I feel Lee is too determined to be aggressive and is unwilling to allow the war to slowly evolve and develop.

Longstreet is a loyal general, who truly respects the confederate party. Regardless of Longstreet’s personal opinions about war tactics, he is obedient and respectful of Lee’s final decision. Longstreet represents the archetype general. He is creative and passionate about the confederate cause and truly cares about his people and his troops. Lee even has to remind him not to risk his life on the front line, because he is too important of a general and leader. While Longstreet is courageous and passionate, he is not arrogant and never questions his leader, Robert E. Lee. Often times generals that are second in command envy the power and respect of the leader, yet Longstreet respects the military ranks and system. Even though Longstreet has differing opinions, he never second guesses Lee’s power or decision making capabilities as a leader.

I am interested to see how their relationship will develop as the war progresses and see how the military is affected by the leadership and military minds of these two men. Generals played a huge role in leading armies into battle and inspiring thousands of men that this was a war they could win. Lee was an inspirational figure, but I do not know how realistic he was in his military tactics.

A Heroic Tale or Not

Is the Iliad a tale of a hero? I keep contemplating whether or not Achilles is a great hero who saves his country or if he is just a selfish warrior who wants to gain glory through warfare. War is a harsh and gruesome event and I don’t know if a hero can exist in such conditions? Achilles kills Hector and many others and the story attempts to portray his actions as heroic. I find it difficult to admire a man who waits till his best friend dies to get involved in the war. Achilles is a man whose ego prevents him from fighting in the war and sits aside as his fellow Trojans die. Achilles is a great warrior, but he is not an honorable or loyal human being. I understand that the end of the Iliad represents Achilles grand power and skills as a warrior, but his brutal killing of Hector is appalling and not in accordance with the actions of a hero.

Regardless of Achilles mindset and actions, the Iliad constantly pushes the idea of honor and respect in warfare. There is a reason who the Trojans and Achaeans believe death in battle is a great honor. The battlefield represents an arena for warriors to show their loyalty for their country and die defending their fellow brothers and sisters. True, many warriors fight to gain glory, but I believe that glory is not the essential motive for people. War is not a one on one contest in which the greatest single warrior is named the victor. War during these times was often a numbers game and a large army was very valuable. I find it hard to believe that every individual fights to gain glory. Many soldiers probably go into war with the mindset that they are going to die if they are on the front line. But, there is a certain degree of respect that makes this war seems valuable. The leaders of the Trojans and Achaeans exchange gifts after a day of battle. An agreement is made to return the dead to the respective countries in order to have proper burials for the fallen soldiers. However barbaric war may be these actions are what make this battle honorable and worthwhile. Soldiers are inspired to fight to the death in an effort to protect their country and participate in a battle of respect and honor. If a soldier is killed he knows that he will be given the proper burial for a respectable and grand after life. Achilles actions are in direct contrast to everything the war represents. He drags Hector’s body from his horse and completely destroys the body. Achilles does not show the integrity and honor of a great warrior.

Achilles is a great warrior, but his actions cannot be justified. The end of the Iliad simply describes Achilles’ talents as a warrior, but fails to glorify his actions as a hero. Fighting skills alone do not make one a hero. Achilles has god like abilities, but does not possess the qualities of a hero.

Zeus’s Dilemma

Zeus’s decision to not help save his sons life tells us a lot about the power and actions of the gods in the Iliad. Even though Zeus is presented as the all mighty god that everyone prays to, he is powerless in this situation to help his son Sarpedon. Hera informs Zeus that “if you send Sarpedon home, living still, beware! Then surely some other god will want to sweep his own son clear of the heavy fighting too….you will inspire lethal anger in them all.” Zeus’s primary duty is maintain as much peace and tranquility between the gods and the mortals as possible. Zeus cannot have preferential treatment for his son, at the risk of chaos, destruction and interference on the part of the other gods in the war. Zeus and Hera for that matter are presented as logical and reasonable gods who understand the impact of exercising their power in their actions.

This scene represents the somewhat humanistic aspect of the gods and the pain and suffering they feel just as mortals do. Zeus’s pain is described as, “He showered tears of blood that drenched the Earth, showers in praise of him, his own dear son, and the man Patroclus was just about to kill.” This sort of dramatic and emotional response of tears and sadness is more characteristic of human mourning, yet it is a description of Zeus’s feelings. Giving the gods human emotions allow mortals to better relate and understand the ideology and thinking of the gods. Religion is such a complex philosophy that sometimes is beyond human interpretation, but by depicting Zeus in mourning of his son and powerless to help him, the Iliad gives Zeus’s character meaning and purpose. Just as humans love and feel pain, Zeus has the same feelings and emotions. This scene also shows the idea of an honorable death while in battle. Zeus praises his son for his bravery and courage in battle as he waits for his death. The values of this society are very much based on the principles of gaining the gods approval and one method of doing this is to die honorably in battle fighting for one’s country and people.

Religion, God & War

Gods represent figures of power and strength beyond that of humans, and their presence in battles between Athenians and Trojans signifies the importance of war during this time period. Gods only intervene with human affairs when it comes to meaningful or consequential issues that require their grand power and knowledge. I do not argue that war is a minuscule issue that has no significance, but to see gods quarrel and involved so deeply within the subplots and actions of war is very interesting. The relationship between the gods and humans acknowledges the importance and righteous values of war.

When warriors call upon the gods for the strength and power to kill an enemy, their actions of murder are given meaning and purpose. As Menelaus attempts to kill Paris with his bronze lance he chants a prayer, “Zeus, King, give me revenge, he wronged me first! Illustrious Paris-crush him under my hand!” Menelaus attempts to justify his actions by acknowledging the power and greatness of the God Zeus and asking him to justify his actions as an act of revenge. When Menelaus fails to kill Paris and instead shatters his sword, he cries out to the god, “Father Zeus –no god’s more deadly than you.” This scene and dialogue represents the lack of power and control these warriors felt they had. The gods determined the fate of all men and it was their choice to grant life and take it away. Even though Menelaus was a great warrior, he did not possess the power to kill Paris alone without the help and favor of the gods.

The idea that god or gods influence war has been an essential aspect of warfare throughout history. When countries or nations wage war, gods always seem to appear as an essential ally of both sides. Regardless of religion or faith, some aspect of god is used to justify the reasons of war and all subsequent deaths. When you are involved in a war, it is only logical that you believe you are on the righteous side or the side of the gods. Religion has a universal appeal that people follow and believe with complete dedication.

The Iliad offers a direct approach where the audience is able to see the relationship between the gods and people. The belief of the gods and their power is extremely important in the outcome of the war. Book 5 begins, “Then Pallas Athena granted Tydeus’ son Diomedes strength and daring – so the fighter would shine forth and tower over the Argives and win himself great glory. The god’s are portrayed to have such great influence that without their power there would be no victor. The gods control the both the Trojans and Achaeans and their respective soldiers and warriors. The gods are always present and impacting the lives of men and the outcome of the war. The gods hold the life of man in their hands and have the ability to do with him as they please. The war may be between the Trojans and Acheans, but the gods seemed to be involved within war more so than any other mortal.