Free Book? I'll Take That:

Mr. P,
I am sorry that I forgot to ask you about this after class that day, but could you post the information on how to order that free book for freshman on the 100 books professors wish they had read in college? I would definitely be interested and maybe somebody else forgot about it as well. Thank you!

The Big Lebowski: The finale of class

Sunday, December 9th, 7pm at 500 South Congress Apt 243, we will say goodbye to the Rhetoric of Vietnam by going bowling, Lebowski style. Beverages and snacks will be provided. Your presence is requested and highly anticipated.

New Book

Imperial Life in the Emeral City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone

The New York Times announced the ten best books of the year. Here is the review of one of them, an example of excellent rhetorical analysis.

Boys in the Bubble

By MICHAEL GOLDFARB

Published: December 17, 2006

Regardless of how the war ends, Iraq is not Vietnam. This is true not just militarily and politically but also in the reporting about the two conflicts. For many journalists who covered Vietnam and subsequently wrote books about the war, the experience could be understood only as a hallucinogenic nightmare, and they described it in gonzo prose to match. The reality of Iraq is much more frightening than a bad acid trip, but the writing about this continuing fiasco has been cleareyed and sober, and all the more powerful for it. Rajiv Chandrasekaran’s “Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq’s Green Zone” is a fine example.

This book tells the bureaucratic story of Iraq’s Year 1, the year after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, when the United States was the legal occupying power and responsible for the country’s administration. The primary mechanism for that work was the Coalition Provisional Authority, headquartered in the Green Zone, a blast-barrier-encased compound created around Hussein’s Baghdad palace, on the west bank of the Tigris. Chandrasekaran, The Washington Post’s Baghdad bureau chief during this period, catalogs a lethal combination of official arrogance and ineptitude behind those walls that doomed Iraq to its bloody present every bit as much as insufficient military manpower did.

To begin with, the C.P.A.’s recruitment policy would have shamed Tammany Hall. Loyalty to George W. Bush and the Republican Party was apparently the prime criterion for getting work at the C.P.A. To determine their suitability for positions in Iraq, some prospective employees were asked their views on Roe v. Wade. Others were asked whom they voted for in 2000. Republican congressmen, conservative think tanks and party activists were all solicited by the White House’s liaison at the Pentagon, James O’Beirne, to suggest possible staffers.

Before the war began, Frederick M. Burkle Jr. was assigned to oversee Iraq’s health care system. He had a résumé to die for: a physician with a master’s degree in public health, and postgraduate degrees from Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth and Berkeley. He also had two bronze stars for military service in the Navy, as well as field experience with the Kurds in northern Iraq after the 1991 gulf war. A week after the liberation, he was told he was being replaced because, Chandrasekaran writes, “a senior official at USAID told him that the White House wanted a ‘loyalist’ in the job.”

That loyalist was James K. Haveman Jr., who had been recommended by the former Michigan governor John Engler. Haveman’s résumé included running a Christian adoption agency that counseled young women against abortions. He spent much of his time in Iraq preparing to privatize the state-owned drug supply firm — perhaps not the most important priority since almost every hospital in the country had been thoroughly looted in the days after Hussein was overthrown.

On page after page, Chandrasekaran details other projects of the C.P.A.’s bright young Republican ideologues — like modernizing the Baghdad stock exchange, or quickly privatizing every service that had previously been provided by the state. Some of these ideas would have been laudable if they were being planned for a country with functioning power and water supplies, and that wasn’t tottering on the brink of anarchy.

But how could these young Americans have known what life was like for ordinary Iraqis since they never left the Green Zone? Instead, they turned the place into something like a college campus. After a hard day of dreaming up increasingly improbable projects, the kids did what kids do — headed for the bar and looked for a hookup. As for the Iraqis, they were conspicuous by their absence.

Presiding over this unreal world was the American viceroy, L. Paul Bremer III, who comes across in this book as a man who has read one C.E.O. memoir too many, a man who knew his mind and would not have his decisions changed by the inconvenient reality of Iraqi life just outside the blast barriers. All of this would be funny in a Joseph Heller kind of way if tens of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of American soldiers weren’t to die because of the decisions made by the C.P.A., the Pentagon and the White House.

In Chandrasekaran’s account, all the arrogance, stubbornness and desire for career advancement crystallized at the end of March 2004, when Bremer decided to shut down a newspaper published by the radical Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr. With typical high-handedness, he made the decision without thinking through the possible consequences. He had no military backup plan if Sadr decided to fight and, predictably, Sadr’s Mahdi Army did fight back. Within a few days four American private security operatives were ambushed and killed in Falluja, their mutilated bodies hung from a bridge over the Euphrates. Suddenly, a year after overthrowing Hussein, the United States was fighting Shiite insurgents on one front and Sunni insurgents on another. This is the one and only time that the American military appears in Chandrasekaran’s otherwise civilian story, but his description of the skirmish between a platoon from the Army’s First Cavalry Division and Mahdi Army fighters is absolutely brilliant. It is eyewitness history of the first order.

If there is one thing missing from this account it is the author himself. Reading a 300-page book is a bit like driving across country with a stranger you’ve met through a message board. By the time you reach the Mississippi you hope to know your traveling companion reasonably well. That’s not the case here. Chandrasekaran’s personal views are absent until almost the very end of the book.

I think I understand why. He is adhering to the professional code of journalism: reporting facts with scrupulous neutrality and objectivity. However, I sometimes think that the relentless political attacks on the professionalism of reporters in Iraq have forced them to take a very narrow view of what that neutrality and objectivity mean. Those of us who have covered the invasion and its aftermath have an obligation not only as journalists but as citizens. We have had a privileged view of these epoch-defining events (and we didn’t get our jobs by taking litmus tests on abortion). We have a duty to bear passionate, accurate, personal witness — to be something more than mere compilers of facts.

It would have been worthwhile if Chandrasekaran had given us a greater sense of what he thought about overthrowing Hussein and, more to the point, what he felt upon returning to Washington after having seen the bloody result of its policies. But that is a philosophical difference I have with the author. This is a clearly written, blessedly undidactic book. It should be read by anyone who wants to understand how things went so badly wrong in Iraq.

More RA topics

For those that need to or want to write a few more RAs, here are some suggestions:

1. Maya Lin, either the documentary or her own essay.
2. Rambo: First Blood Part I or Rambo: First Blood Part II. Both are equally, uhh... worth writing about.
3. David Foster Wallace's essay "Up, Simba" in your course packet
4. Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth, and ten rhetorical strategies he uses that make his presentation go.
5. Any other text that you deem worthy of your own analysis.

Maya Lin

I have to admit that after reading the Maya Lin essay, I didn't really understand how much thought and meaning that she actually put into designing this memorial. I actually don't think that I had ever even seen the memorial before. But, the movie did a good job of showing me how something so simple can mean so much. She didn't even have to make the memorial this grand spectacle to have honor the veterans. And as she repeats in the movie many times, its not about being gaudy or extremely noticable, it just was about giving the veterans and those who lost loved ones in the war, a place to remember.

Maya Lin

This movie showed that the Vietnam War memorial was more than the simplistic design that it seemed. Even this monument has its way of getting its message across. Every small thing about this monument has its own meaning. The designer herself had to explain what she meant by some of the things that she did to it. I think that overall, the design is subject to everyone's own interpretation. Maya Lin said that the design was meant to have people spend time and reflect on where their loved ones died in the war. Some other individuals saw it as a black hole in the past.

It took courage to stand up for her design against some of the people that disagreed with her design. Sadly, most of the people that were against her design were simply into petty arguments such as the nationality of Maya Lin.

Achillies in Vietnam

I would actually agree with Sev about the book giving us the reason why the Greeks went to fight the Trojans, but not telling us why we went. I think part of the reason is Shay is just wanting to give us sufficient background to the Illiad, for those of us who haven't read it, and then he goes off to making the psychological comparison of what war does and how the soldiers in the Illiad, and the Vietnam veterans, share some belief's. I find it interesting that the way Homer depicts the soldiers in the Illiad, it's in a way that the soldiers actually show honor to the opposite side they are fighting. The book explains that part of this is because they spoke the same language, and they were fighting face to face, they didnt view themselves as superior to the other group they were fighting. The Americans and Vietnamese didn't share that language, that culture, and they didnt actually fight face to face...the Vietnamese used more of the hit and run tactic...and the American soldiers didn't really show any type of honor towards the Vietnamese. I think the language barrier was something that kept this from happening. One of the stories that stuck to me was when an American soldier saw a Vietnamese hiding in a bush. He asked him to come out, but the Vietnamese shot him instead. The soldiers M-16 wasnt working. The soldier then goes on to say that he was trying to give this guy a chance...again, the language, and not understanding each other caused this respect, honor towards the opposing side, never to have developed between both sides, making it impossible...

Vietnam vs. Greek Mythology

Dr. Shay is a genius.

Two totally different civilizations. Two totally different time periods. Two totally different battles. And yet, Shay is still able to successfully merge together the two seemingly different wars. By making references to Homer's classic story, the Iliad, Shay reveals the timeless themes within all wars. Obviously there was no Athena or Hera or even Zeus in Vietnam, but the search for meaning within the chaos of war proves to be present in both Vietnam and in Troy. The total destruction and the lack of morality brought about by war is emphasized through the comparisons to this Greek literature. The overly dramatic and fantasized scenes in the Iliad help pin point the abstract struggle within the Vietnam soldiers.

Other then exemplifiing the univerisal themes within war, examples from the Iliad also serve as a good reference for the reader. Although his books were written 3000 or so years before our time, Homer's works are among the most widely read pieces of literature (other then Shakespeare and the Bible). Chances are that most people, at one time or another, have been introduced to the famous story of the Trojan War. Sure, we may not remember all the detials... something about a guy named Achilles and his foot and he was friends with Zeus and all those gods on Mount Olympus, and there was some girl named Helen, she was pretty... Sure, we might not know all the detials but we have a basic idea. There is a much higher probability that more people would understand references to the Iliad rather then ones to, lets say, A Tale of Two Cities. Both deal with war, but Shay purposely makes the comparison to the Iliad instead because readers are more likely to make the connection between the references and the Vietnam War. Which in turn leads to a better understanding of the struggle that the Vietnam soldiers endured.

Achilles in Vietnam & Maya Lin

After reading Achilles in Vietnam and watching Maya Lin, I think we all have a newfound respect for the veterans. Reading and watching the veterans welcome themself home in a parade was heartbreaking. Reading about the soldiers talk about their "bros" was touching and heartbreaking at the same time. The one particular story that stuck out to me was the one about one soldier afraid of getting close to anyone again after his best friend had died. These soldiers come back completely different and nothing can change that.

I admire Maya Lin for her ability to stick up for her original plan, for it was her design that won the contest. She did not let the opinions of others let it change her mind. All it took was for everyone to understand her intentions behind the idea. She did not mean any harm and in no way wanted the memorial to be like a stab in the back, like one veteran saw it as. It is incredible to see someone our age put so much thought into the memorial and have the strength to stick by it. Like she said, any memorial would have evoked controversy and I don't think she could have handled it better any other way. I can see why Mr. P says he falls in love with her everytime he watches the documentary.

The veteran's perspective is an extremely important one. Sure LBJ and McNamara make these decisions but the veterans are the ones suffering and really fighting for their country. Actions speak louder than words - McNamara and LBJ make these decisions, but who are the ones really implementing the plans? Who are the ones fighting?

Maya Lin

I loved this documentary! I can't believe Maya Lin was our age when she won the contest. It makes me feel so un-accomplished. I admire her! Not only is she brilliant. She is so classy. The Vietnam memorial was obviously very controversial and it took a lot of strength to handle the criticism she did. It really upset me that people made a big deal out of her nationality. She's American. It says a lot about the pettiness of parts of society. I was touched with the amount of consideration of the soldiers she put into the memorial. She did not want it to be about the war, but rather about the men and women who are heroes for fighting and dying for their country. I think everyone should think about Vietnam veterans in that lighting. They served their country, even if they didn't agree with the situation. That takes courage and if nothing at else that is something to be admired. Maya Lin's maturety and composure inspired me and I hope others as well. She stood up for herself and for her design but did not put others down in the process. The fact that the memorial was designed by someone of that nature gives it more strength. Because the good in one person is now expressed in a famous memorial that gives thanks to thousands who share some of those good qualities. We all should recognize that and learn from it.

Reflection

After watching the documentary about Maya Lin and reading about the Vietnam Memorial, I feel like the most effective part of the memorial is reflection.
The names are carved into a shiny black wall in which you can see yourself. You feel responsibility, guilt and shame. You are beside the names in the wall- but worse you are alive and they aren't.
This shame and guilt makes me think of Hearts and Minds. In my RA I argued that Davis shows scenes of a brothel and a football game to impose shame and guilt upon the viewer. The same goes for the reflection in the wall. It is reflecting everything about life, not only life in the viewer but behind the viewer in the capital of the US.
This is so moving when you look into it, its amazing.

Maya Lin

Strong woman. And an even more creative woman. One thing that seems to stand out about her memorials are that they're very simple. Simple, yet extremely symbolic. One can tell that they're not just a bunch of stones put together with the names of those martyred. As with the Vietnam War Veteran's memorial, Maya Lina actually symbolizes the things she thinks should be remembered from the war through the design and architecture of her memorials. The hole, or "wound", in the ground, the arranging of names in chronological order so that it doesn't seem like a name is lost between a bunch of other similar-sounding names: it's obvious that she actually CARES about the feelings of the people who would be affected most by these memorials. She wants to give each soldier the respect they deserve.

Even in the Civil Rights Memorial, she uses the flowing water to symbolize healing. I think it's amazing how much thought Maya Lin puts into these designs and the way she incorporates the meanings through symbolism is remarkable. I never thought architecture could have anything rhetorical attached to it. Whenever I visited memorials or monuments, I never really bothered to understand the symbolism or hidden meanings behind it. But after watching the documentary and understanding what thoughts go behind building a monument that has so many emotions and controversies related to it, I really admire Maya Lin. Not only for her courage to face the criticism that she did at such a young age but also for her sheer genius in doing what she does.

The Face that Launched 1,000 Ships:

At first glance, comparing the Vietnam War to events talked about by a blind bard nearly 3,000 years ago seemed like a rather far-fetched and heavily contrived idea to me. I wondered how a work of fiction meant to entertain the superstitious Greeks could possibly pertain to our modern society. Well, Shay quickly answered this question within the first few chapters of the book, and I began to realize what a work of genius it really is.

Achilles is revealed to struggle with feelings of desolation and becomes consumed by rage. This parallels with the interviews Shay conducts with Vietnam veterans in psychiatric wards suffering from post-traumatic stress disorders. The comparison between the two subjects is clear and generates new thoughts and insight into both the classical work and our own understanding of the veterans. More than anything, I now feel a profound need to help those that went off to war, fighting for America, and returned home as something less than they were before, bereft of hopes for the future and a connection with society.

The one thing this book does not question is our motives for being in the war in the first place. Menelaus goes off to Troy to retrieve his wife and Achilles follows as a man loyal to his allegiances. Why did we go?

Maya Lin

Maya Lin was a very impacting movie for me. Not only did this young architect design one of the greatest, most memorable memorials of our time, but the amazingly the architect was a woman. Even more amazing than that is that this young girl was a student, no older than myself when she created something that is going to be around for generations to come. One thing I keep asking myself though, whether it is relevant or not, is why we as Americans celebrate a loss and an act in time in which we were very wrong. I do understand and sympathize with all who have lost loved ones. Perhaps this is why the memorial is black. To remember those who lost their lives, rather than a monument celebrating the actual war itself. Either way I felt that the bland design was very powerful as a stand alone piece and there was much thought put into it. I would also like to know how much background Maya Lin had on the Vietnam War and whether it was more heartfelt, or if it was just another project she wanted to accomplish. As of this point I almost comparing myself to her when reffering to our final class projects, though not to her magnitude of course. I am working on that documentary right now for the final project and this feels like it has become less of an assignment for me and more of a personal goal and sense of accomplishment. I want to make this as true and as powerful as I can, which is what I am sure Maya Lin had in mind. Who knows, maybe I will go on to win an Oscar for a Rhetoric project. (I know I know... Keep dreaming Cory!)

Seeing my reflection in the Vietnam wall, coooool.

RA #11: An Inconvenient Truth

Due date: November 25th

Mission: Watch An Inconvenient Truth in its entirety.

Discern: 10 rhetorical strategies Al Gore uses to make his presentation kick-ass.

Write: On your personal blog, number the ten points 1-10 and after each observation, tell me why it makes his rhetoric and his presentation better.

Reflect: On how you, too, can use these strategies to help turn your presentation into something the class will learn from and enjoy. The goal is excellence and nothing but.

Project Sign Up List

Tuesday 27:
1. Jenny
2. Brant
3. Tiffany
4. Cory

Thursday 29
5. Kiersten
6. Deepti
7. Eva
8. Jeff


December 4
9. Casey
10. Jorge
11. Severin
12. Taylor

December 6
13. Daniel
14. Caroline

Maya Lin

Maya Lin and the Vietnam Memorial

This article was fascinating. A look into the mind of a creator enables the audience to relate the piece to a thorough process that developed over time as opposed to just a product that appeared one day after hours of construction. I find it most interesting that Maya Lin did not originally design the Vietnam Memorial for a competition. Knowing this information, I'm more inclined to appreciate her work for its artistic value alone. Initially, I figured there were more competitive motives during the design process. Often when there is something at stake, people will sacrifice their own preferences for public appeal. Seeing as how Maya Lin was inspired by past memorials and her quest to remember individual lives instead of thematic conclusions, the art seems more genuine and in her case more heartfelt.

Introduction to Achilles in Vietnam

"I see you coming down the street, but don't see me, because you're in your own world not looking for ambush. How come you're like that? I envy you."

This book explores another aspect of the Vietnam War: something we've not really discussed till now. What happens to the soldiers AFTER the war is over or after they return to their homes? Their lives are changed forever, they're different people altogether. The introduction of this book sets the stage for the rest of the book that is to come. It doesn't mention Homer or Achilles or anything else, yet. It just gives an account of a war veteran and how his daily life has been affected by the war. The first-person account really makes the situation relatable, and just more..real. We've have various discussions about the importance of fiction v. non-fiction. But truly, knowing that this whole account is real and non-fiction tends to make a MUCH stronger impact on me because these are experiences that real people have gone through. Shay begins the book with the basics...no fancy analogies, no hard-to-understand analysis. He just gives an honest, word-to-word account of a war veteran's dilemma in dealing with daily life. I think this really helps the reader understand the overall situation of post-war trauma before the book goes into depth and into the technicalities of this condition.

Plan's for this week

I just wanted to see what was actually planned for this week... :)

What a mess!

That's honestly all I could think of at the end of Path to War. I loved, loved, LOVED this movie! We've watched various movies on the Vietnam War but I think I finally understood what a big mess we'd gotten ourselves into after watching this movie. Did anyone else notice how many times Johnson asked his advisers "What do we do now?" He obviously had absolutely NO CLUE how to deal with the situation because it only seemed to be getting from bad to worse. We made no effort to understand the Vietnamese or their tactics. We made over-confident, zealous decisions and only realized the repercussions AFTER it was too late and thousands of people had died.

Was McNamara good or bad? I don't think there's an answer to this. He was a genius, no doubt but he made some blatantly wrong decisions concerning the Vietnam War and he seemed to be well aware of it by the end. I actually felt so frustrated during the movie because it was obvious we had ample opportunities to pull out before things got out of hand but we chose to prolong the war. LBJ made several wrong decisions which led to years of misery. Why did he not listen to Ball and Clifford? Why was he so influenced by McNamara? Why was McNamara so adamant on going on with the war?

If only we'd stopped ourselves in time...

Fog of War

I actually would of enjoyed watching Fog of War first, then Path to War. The reason I enjoyed Fog of War was because of the insights it gave me of McNamara's work in the Kennedy and Johnson administration and how the decisions made by our government led to a deeper engagement in Vietnam. McNamara breaks down everything and gives us a better understanding as to how certain political figures saw the war and their opinions on winning it and what he thought as an advisor. I also enjoyed the detailed background that was given. It gave me a better understanding...just seeing where he came from. Another thing I enjoyed was that he spoke of "conventional wisdom," us learning from our mistakes. He spoke about our situation now a days...I might not have all the inside information of what's going on...but it seems like we haven't learned much from our past mistakes...hopefully this doesn't come down to haunt us in the future...

Fog of War and Path to War

Fog of War and Path to War are two of the more important movies that I've viewed for this class this whole semester. I say this because few movies shows the inside, political, aspects of the Vietnam War. McNamara gives us an extremely detailed history of how we got to Vietnam. And because of this it helped me better understand the reasons behind America entering the war and maybe why our leaders chose to do some of the things they did. Path of War also made me feel very sympathetic to Johnson's situation whereas before I really had some very negative views on him. So often we see our political leaders critized for every decision that they make that it becomes easy for one to be overly harsh and forget that these people making the decisisions are just that, people. They go through their own internal conflicts to try and decide what they think is best. Although they might sometimes not make the best decisions it makes one think what kind of choices you yourself would've made had you been in that position.

Path to War

An emotional response to Path to War. I cried, or expressed deep feelings of sadness, in this movie just as much as any other movie from the semester. Watching Johnson’s presidency crumble was almost tantamount to the emotions evoked when you watch the actual violence on the ground in Vietnam. It is very interesting and very depressing to study Johnson’s presidency. He was a leader with ambitious domestic policy goals and initial successes that were stifled by the U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Often times his means to accomplish program objectives were more manipulative and harsh than I prefer, but I still admire his tireless efforts to improve civil rights and education and fight against poverty. As we witnessed one portrayal of the decisions that had such devastating impacts, it was frustrating to know the outcome and not be able to shout at them through the freaking glass (TV). Path to War depicts Johnson on such a personal level that you can not help but empathize. At the same time, it is irritating and almost hard to understand why he was so heavily influenced by McNamara when there were obviously really intelligent, peace-mined men surrounding him. Nonetheless, the circumstances were depressing and so is the thought of all that could have come from Johnson’s programs and never did. It is beneficial to investigate the Vietnam War from all angles. Often times when we predominantly focus on the physical destruction of the war, it is easy to forget the people behind it and the tribulations they had to go through. It makes one wonder how they might have acted during such arduous times.

Path to War and the portrayal of LBJ

I would never want to be president especially after watching "Path to War". It seems that even a man of morals and decency cannot win. No matter what you do (as president) people will disagree and there will be conflicts. It's human nature. "Path to War" made me feel for LBJ. He is portrayed as sensetive man (as shown by his remorse for the death of the pilot). He was simply a man between a rock and a hard place. He made decisions and whether they were right or wrong, he chose them (or at least this film depicted him as chosing them) because it is what he felt was best. I really enjoyed watching "Path to War" because it once again brings about a different perspective. Each day we are bombarded with the wrongs of our presidents, past and present. It is rare that a president is portrayed in a flattering light when he was involved in an event that was/is considered a low point in U.S. history. It is rare that we are shown the inner conflicts of emotions from our President and how they meant well. I thought this was another interesting point of view that doesn't really oppose a view but rather adds depth to all of them. One cannot make a good judgement without looking at all view points. "Path to War" conveys that although there were wrong choices, not all the leaders were evil and there was good intentions present.

Fog of War

We've seen numerous depictions about the fighting and violence within the Vietnam War from both an American and a Vietnamese point of view. But for the first time, through Fog of War, we are introduced to the other side of the problem... The documentary reveals the political battle waging on back home in America. Through McNamara, we are informed about the complex and delicate situation taking place within the White House at the time.

McNamara fills us in with a broad range of information dating all the way back to World War I. We learn about the ideals of Woodrow Wilson, the threat of nuclear war, Kennedy's assassination, and Johnson's term as president. All of which lead to the very complicated situation within Vietnam at the time. Before the documentary we have not seen a piece of Rhetoric that involves all these key aspects. I almost forgot how important the Cold War and the impending destruction of "the bomb" was to the situation. Although Johnson is notorious for his role in the Vietnam War, it is easy to overlook the much worse damage that would have ensued if Goldwater (who was equally as notorious for his love for the atom bomb) would've taken the presidency. There were many deaths... both the Vietnamese and American... but the numbers would have been much higher if we had chosen to simply bomb. McNamara points out in the beginning of the film that the government's perception that Vietnam was fighting only for the Chinese and Russian governments (rather then for their independence) proved to be a major reason for America's involvement. The extreme fear of communism nations played a HUGE part of the war and it was interesting to see a documentary that included that.

Johnson & McNamara

I agree with Caroline in that Path to War portrayed Johnson as sympathetic and frustrated. When he was in the kitchen with his wife though it was too over the top...I don't want to see the president so unable to control his surroundings, this made me dislike him. When he was told he made all the ultimate decisions and to basically stop bitching about what everyone else did to him I was glad, he had the opportunity to make the right decision.

The scene in church was important to me and very symbolic. Johnson brought hatred, fear and anxiety into such a calm and serene setting- just like he sent bombs, soldiers and guns into Vietnam.

Path to War and Fog of War

We've taken yet another perspective of the war, and this time it's the politician's view - more specifically, LBJ and McNamara. Both movies show really how complex the war was and we can never really understand all aspects of the war to its fullest extent.

What stuck out the most to me was in Path to War how there were multiple occassions when LBJ could've pulled out of the war but he didn't. It took him awhile to realize that his actions were not getting anywhere in terms of winning the war. Instead, more lives were killed, time was wasted, and a lot of money was spent. Whats even more disappointing is, here we are 30 years later and we're still making the same mistake by going to war with Iraq.

The movie portrayed LBJ in a way that was asking for sympathy. We see him frustrated and wishing life was the way it was before he was president. We get to see just how much chaos really goes on in the white house.

The Political Side of the War

I must say that I have really been a fan of both Fog of War and Path to War. They both touch on a side of Vietnam that hasn't really been covered in our other texts: policy. Both films equally portray the importance of Robert McNamara. As Secretary of State, he had a lot to do with which way our foreign policy would go. Fog of War shows the idea of containment as foreign policy, which led to our role in Vietnam. Path to War doesn't go into foreign policy as much, but does display our leaders contemplating on what direction to go. I think both of these films are very critical in understanding why we went to Vietnam. The domino theory created an abundant amount of fear in our politicians, and that fear was used to create foreign policy. It's unfortunate that this was the case. I really don't feel that these films were created to make McNamara look like the bad guy. He definitely seems like a bad guy in Path to War, but I felt the same way, if not stronger, about LBJ. Ultimately, I don't think anyone can blame LBJ or McNamara. As a society, people were against communism. McCarthyism sprung up in the late 40's lasted well into the 50's. It was definitely still existent before Vietnam, which could have easily been the deciding factor in going to Vietnam.

In response to Severin...

McNamara states: "The fog of war is that war is so complex, beyond the capability of the human mind to comprehend and understand all the variables. Our judgement and understanding are not adequate, AND WE KILL PEOPLE."

I believe he is not simply stating that the war was complex and that there was confusion as to why we were there, but more importantly he was trying to convey that there are complex and necessary decisions that rest upon the shoulders of few individuals. Is there some sort of moral law that leaders should abide to? Ofcourse. But when it comes to protecting the interest of one's nation, a leader has to make decision that will affect many lives and stand by that decision. Sometimes it can be the right decision, other times it can prove to be a drastic mistake. I believe McNamara said a mistake can kill a nation.

Imagine if you had to bear that burden. How could you sleep at night? What would you do? How would you handle the criticism? There is no way of escaping the aftermath of your decision/indecision: lives will be lost no matter. Will you save a life by taking one?

Choices in War:

McNamara makes the statement that the fog of war is all the complexities of war which can never be fully understood by men. He is correct in a sense. Nobody at the time was able to fully understand the Vietnam War or why it occur ed. Even those that thought they understood the people realize they do not, as evidenced by Trip to Hanoi.
When we look back on the war today, even now we do not comprehend fully what lead to the conflict and why it was necessary. In a historical context, however, even now we cannot look back and say with clarity that if we had not gone into Vietnam, everything would have turned out fine. Domino theory was never disproved and never can be at this point, but it is a far better thing that it did not occur than had we risked not creating a war with the Vietnamese and it had. The greatest crime, is that our officials seem to have learned nothing from the recent past and thrust us into a war with Iraq for reasons even less understandable and seemingly meaningless than Vietnam.

Fog of War and Path to War

I think both movies really try to portray their main characters (McNamara and Johnson) in ways that are contrary to what people normally see them as. In Fog of War, McNamara claims that he was just doing his job and being loyal to the president. In this light, the Vietnam War is hardly seen as "McNamara's War". In Path to War, rather than depicting Johnson as a president that led his country into an unnecessary war, the directors make him seem like a man that had his dreams of a peaceful society destroyed by a bad circumstance. In other words, LBJ is a victim of something that would inevitably happen anyways.

Something interesting about this movie was the way they showed the Gulf of Tonkin affair. This scene was briefly touched on in this movie, but it was very important in igniting a conflict between US and North Vietnam. There was a lot of confusion here; as a viewer, I couldn't really tell if they had confirmed if the North Vietnamese had actually attacked or not. Anyways, LBJ began to order bombings. There was not much to say about any lying that took place about what happened to the public. It seems like LBJ himself was misinformed about the incident. The movie also makes him look good by the way he reacted to the pilot that was shot down during one of the first bombing missions. He seemed to be so hurt by the loss of just one person (out of the eventual 55,000).

Tuesday Recap; On Tap for Thursday

Great job this morning making sense of a hearty and sometimes heady essay. I applaud you for your willingness to talk about ideas that make you uncomfortable because, as Susan Sontag wrote, it is only when we face our own discomfort can we begin to understand "the other side." And the other side, as the Vietnam War has shown us, is just as important as our own.

On Thursday we will try our best to do the following:

1. Read and talk briefly about another Susan Sontag article.

2. Talk about your final projects: what you are doing and what are the main questions motivating your project. In other words, it is only the beginning to say "I'll be interviewing so and so." Next you need to tell us why you are interviewing so and so and what questions you hope to answer by doing whatever you're doing; that is the difference between an unsophisticated and flat report and an insightful and worthwhile project. Think about Sontag: she didn't merely report that the Vietnamese use of language was "flat" but also asked herself why she was perceiving it that way which in turn enabled her to break through her own cultural perspective and allowed her to come up with an answer as to why they speak the way they do.

3. Talk about Fog of War and Path to War. Your RAs for this week should be about how the two movies compare and contrast to one another. One angle, for example, might be to ask how we feel about Robert McNamara after seeing Path to War and why? Then: how do we feel after seeing Fog of War? Why? What is it about the rhetoric of the films that moves us toward these ways of seeing?

Okay... maybe not...

So... this is a bit last minute, but it turns out I don't have time to watch the movie with everybody tonight. Big advertising test tomorrow, so I'll be devoting the rest of my night to that instead.

RSVP

sadly, i won't be able to make tonights viewing. i'll be studying for tomorrow's midterm all night. hope you all have a nice time!

2 More Confirmed Guests:

Cory and I will be in attendance as well.

Path to War Showing

Count me in.

Rejoice

Friends,

From now until the end of class, your blogging requirement is as follows:

I would like you to post once on your personal blog by Monday at 10pm and once on the community blog by Wednesday at 10pm. So instead of 4 blogs per week, you now only have to write two. That's the good news. The better news is that now all your blogs will be thoughtful, engaging, and will show evidence of deeper critical thinking and will be a showcase of your ability to convey those deeper thoughts in your writing--a perfect example of when less is more.

Question for the Class Regarding Monday's Movie Night:

Is there anybody I could ride with to the movie? I don't live on campus, but could meet you anywhere that evening that you need me to. Just contact me at severinwitte@yahoo.com or through blackboard if that would be a possibility. Thanks!

Monday Movie Madness !

You can count me in for Monday... hopefully I won't get lost again...

November 1st Recap

Because a large percentage of the class was suffering from some terrible Halloween hangover, either physical or spiritual, or both, I decided to take pity on your debauchery-inclined selves and extend the RA deadline to Tuesday. Likewise, be prepared to say lots of smart things about "Trip to Hanoi" on Tuesday in class. It is an important text and merits a thorough discussion.

Meanwhile, back at the farm, the brave souls who did make it to class (including Kiersten, who was still recovering from her cameo as Little Red Riding Hood) watched the first 40 minutes of the film Path to War. I am going to watch the remaining 2 hours of the film at 8pm on Monday night at my humble home, and everyone is invited. It is not mandatory to show up, but it is mandatory that you watch the film. If you plan on making it, please let me know so I can buy ample popcorn.

Next Thursday's RA will ask you to compare and contrast (loosely and in any insightful way you see fit) Path of War and Fog of War, the other film which you are responsible for watching this coming week.

A peaceful and restful weekend to you all.

Trip to Hanoi

Sontag's writing is an easy read. Her thoughts flow very fluidly so that its easy to follow her thoughts about her trip. You can in a way just "sink into the rhetoric" and still understand what she's doing as well as the context.

It is interesting to see a first hand recollection of a trip (by an American) to North Vietnam during the war. You really see the misunderstanding between people of different cultures but also between people of differing ideological perspectives. Sontag writes that she is treated with extreme hospitality because she is a guest in the country. This is not something you would expect for a foreigner from a country that is invading their own. She ate fresh meat and fish every day while most regular people would eat rice and bean curd every day. It is simply oriental attitudes that cause them to treat guests so well. I think the part that most stands out was the fact that Sontag, feeling uncomfortable about being treated so well compared to regular people, didn't know what to do. Was she supposed to ask them to back down? If she did, would they be offended? Would they laugh when she asked for rice and bean curd over fresh meat? This shows that she not only understands how they act but also what they would think. A country with people of such different values about guests would obviously also have different attitudes towards political issues such as communism.

In response to whether or not Trip to Hanoi is "more real", I would agree that Sontag's writing does have more of an effect on people. This all comes down to pretty much the same issue as before in The Things They Carried. The fact that you know that it happened makes it so that it has more of an effect on people. If you knew that it was a fictional story it wouldn't have the same effect on people; this was something that O'Brien was well aware of when he was creating the structure of his book.