Monday, January 28, 2013

Dulce Et Decorum Est



Bent double, like old beggars under sacks, Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge, Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs And towards our distant rest began to trudge. Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind; Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots Of tired, outstripped Five-Nines that dropped behind.
Gas! Gas! Quick, boys!---An ecstasy of fumbling, Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time; But someone still was yelling out and stumbling, And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime... Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light, As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight, He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
If in some smothering dreams you too could pace Behind the wagon that we flung him in, And watch the white eyes writhing in his face, His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin; If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs, Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,--- My friend, you would not tell with such high zest To children ardent for some desperate glory, The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori.


Wilfred Owen

8 October 1917 - March, 1918


This poem, written by Wilfred Owen in 1917, describes the horrors of conflict in the First World War.  The long marches, the mud, the gore, the fatigue, and, unique to WWI, the gas. The poem is dominated by darkness and death, but ends with the phrase "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori." In its original context, the phrase embodies the glory of combat and dying for the country, as it literally translates to, "It is sweet and right to die for your country".  However, in the dark context of this poem, the Latin phrase takes on a sarcastic tone, forcing the audience, those who glorify war without having experienced it, to question the true implications of fighting and dying for a country.

The mix between enjambment and caesura in the first stanza hints at the unpredictable flow of war, a constant conflict between crippling difficulty (caesura) and long stretches of marching (enjambment).  The break at the end of the first stanza embodies the long nothingness that is said 99% of soldiering even today. The final 1%, the pure terror, comes into play suddenly and with extra syllables in the first line in the second stanza.  The poem's meter also reflects the reality of war.  The syllables march neatly in iambic pentameter for the majority of the poem, although the occasional gas attack can add chaos, or an extra syllable, into the mix as it did in line 14.

This poem, in 28 lines, gives the audience a taste of war and shatters the illusion of a glorious death for the nation. The speaker accuses the preachers of Horace of fallacy of tradition, using words such as obscene, cancer, corrupted, bitter, and incurable sores to describe the terrible detriment brought by Horace's ideas.  As his audience is Western Europeans and Americans, Owen is able to speak to Western culture's appeal to purity.  He accomplishes this in the last few lines, effectively saying that to teach that it is noble to die for one's country is corrupting children with terrible lies.

Every couple of decades there is a new war gone bad that reminds Americans of the harsh reality of conflict.  The gas in France during the Great War, the island combat in the Pacific Theater in WWII, the dense jungles of Vietnam, and the terrorist bombings and roadside bombs of Afghanistan.  I am not trying to say that war is pointless: the United States arguably had a legitimate reason to engage in almost all or all of these conflicts.  However, as nominee for Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel claims, the use of force is justified "only after a very careful decision-making process."

Friday, January 11, 2013

Free Will vs. Chaos Theory

Regardless of religious affiliations, many Americans feel that they have some form of free will.  Even those who don't believe in a deity will often claim that they have some ability to make choices that are based in their conscience.  The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a very interesting and in-depth analysis of what free will is generally considered to be by philosophers and great thinkers.  The surprising part of the concept is that, although it has been pondered for millennia, humans still do not know exactly how to define free will or understand where it comes from.  This leads me to question whether or not it even exists, but rather is an illusion created by the combination of a complex set of environmental variables and extensive genetic code.

An old school of thought called "determinism," can be interpreted to effectively deny the notion of free will.  This theory states that the world and everything that happens on it can be predicted through a series of mathematic calculations.  This idea is touched on extensively in the play Arcadia, by Tom Stoppard, in which the characters of the past and present ultimately reveal the uncertainty of the future.  At first, this play seems to contradict determinism, and in a way it does by embracing Chaos Theory.  Chaos Theory claims that, while the concept of determinism is feasible, there are so many complex variables affecting the outcome of events that they cannot be predicted by the mathematic or scientific procedures we use today.  A metaphor commonly associated with chaos theory is the butterfly effect, which states that it is theoretically possible for the flap of a butterfly's wings in one location to begin a chain reaction that creates a tornado somewhere else.  The principles identified in Chaos Theory sum up the reason why humans cannot accurately predict the weather:  there are simply too many variables.  But how do all of these philosophical theories relate to the question of free will?

The notion that free will does not exist, and that human personality is based completely off of genetic layout, is very much a deterministic one.  Accepting that belief, it would be possible to completely predict a human's reactions to being introduced into a specific environment if one had knowledge and understanding of that person's entire genetic structure.  Even if that person did something that appeared to be a choice, such as going left instead of right, I could argue that something about the subject's genes made the left path appear more attractive (in fact, research suggests that even which side of an object you prefer may have correlation with your genetic layout).  A common argument made by advocates of free will deals with love, and Arcadia suggests that the spontaneity of human relationships causes determinism to fail.  However, it is possible that while relationships compound the number of variables (Chaos Theory), a computer with advanced processing power could theoretically still predict the actions of an individual.

If it is determined that free will is only an illusion created by complex systems, what would the social implications of this discovery be?  Could one be held accountable for his own actions?  If a murderer kills only because of his genes and environmental conditions, can he be blamed?  In pondering questions such as these, I realize how dependent our civilization is on the idea of free will.  What happens if the theory of free will eventually loses this conflict?

Sunday, January 6, 2013

Red, White, and Blue Dawn

The 2012 remake of "Red Dawn," wasn't a great movie by any means, but it did stir some interesting ideas that I wasn't old enough to ponder when I saw the original.  For those of you who aren't familiar, "Red Dawn" describes the occupation of the United States by the USSR (original) or North Korea (remake) and a band of high-school age kids who start a guerrilla movement to fight the invaders.  It's a classic example of a "defend your home" type of movie, but it made me think:  how does the portrayed occupation of the United States relate to the actual US military presence in Afghanistan?

As Americans, we are constantly reminded that our troops are doing good, and our cause is just.  However, the film contests those notions, as it forces the audience to wonder how we would feel if a foreign nation invaded the United States.  If we would be so opposed to an occupying army, why shouldn't the Afghans feels the same way?  This comprehensive study, conducted by ABC in 2010, shows that while opinions of the United States are not particularly high in Afghanistan, there is a considerable amount of support for US forces.  According to the report, the overall opinion of the United States has fallen in the minds of Afghanistan, but areas with significant amount of American presence actually have a better outlook on the occupation.  To Americans, this may seem counter-intuitive.  Why is there a conflict between American and Afghan opinions of occupation?

It seems that there are two overarching reasons.  The first and probably more important is the nature of the occupying force and the country being occupied.  The United States is united by a single dominant culture that prides itself on democracy and liberty, while Afghanistan is a country with many different ethnic groups that have distinct cultural histories.  When Americans think of occupation, they often imagine the presence of an oppressive regime.  For many Afghans, that American nightmare was a reality under the Taliban prior to 2001.  While American soldiers weren't welcomed into Afghanistan as liberators, they certainly had the opportunity to win the "hearts and minds" of the local people.  The second explanation is that many Afghans live under constant threat from extremist groups, and they have the United States military for a police force.  That is supported by the fact that, in regions where violence is declining, American presence is significantly more popular, according to the study.

I think I am secure in concluding that, to some extent, the claim that our troops are doing good is true.  Yes, many Afghans reject the occupation of Afghanistan by American soldiers, but it is not a uniform rejection.  The relative stability imposed by American troops is appreciated by many Afghans, meaning that the situation hardly resembles the Soviet/North Korean invasion depicted in Red Dawn.