Also, the controversy of Vietnam played a role in the disrespect given to commanders. There were soldiers who did not believe in the war, yet had been thrown into action anyways because of the draft. This feeling of mal-contempt (sp?) was obviously trickled down into the soldiers attitude of Vietnam, and was displayed by giving no respect at all to officers.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
A Broken Chain
Today in class we began discussing some of the issues in Tim O'Brien's Going After Cacciato. One of the issues I brought up was the apparent broken chain of command. Throughout the book no respect is given to officers by the men, something extremely different than what we have seen in the previous literature we read. Sure Achilles defied Agamemnon's authority by not fighting the Trojans, but I consider that to be an exception in a war to which defiance of a Kings rule usually led to death as a punishment. In Killer Angels not many of the uneducated soldiers even knew what they were fighting for, yet they still followed the orders of their leaders without hesitation. The chain of command was still very much intact in both of these books. However, in Going After Cacciato the chain of command is severely severed. Not once in the book is an officer given respect purely because of rank, and the word sir is not even uttered. Even worse, the men openly mock and make fun of Lt. Sidney Martin, their commanding officer. Martin is disliked by the men because he chooses to do things by the book instead of taking the easy way out. When he orders his men to search a bunker, they disobey and eventually he is forced to search the bunker himself. This kind of attitude would have been unacceptable in any other war. If it had existed in World War II or before, the disobeying soldiers would surely have faced terrible consequences. In Vietnam however, the punishment was simply being court-marshaled. This is a large reason for the soldiers abusive behavior, because they were not afraid of the consequences. In the Civil War, deserters were shot on sight, and even if they came back they were to be executed. The notion of traveling half way around the world just to bring one meaningless deserter back would be absolutely crazy for soldiers of that era. While deserters don't necessarily deserve to be shot on sight, I do believe that traveling after one is pretty useless. Soldier's morale played a huge part in America's losing effort in Vietnam; something that would never have happened if the consequences were harsher.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
i'm not sure you're entirely right; the soldiers don't respect Sidney Martin, but they do respect Corson in a different way. He's been around for a while and they know it, so he gets respect for that alone. He's also willing to bend the SOPs, unlike Martin, for the safety of his men.
One of the most difficult things about having a military force in America is that we raise a population of individuals and go-getters, and then we expect them to follow orders immediately, directly, and to the letter. it's not a good combination because there's a basic conflict of ideas there. i think the more independence is promoted, the more trouble we will have with keeping an orderly and successful military.
Sam I think you are right, soldiers' morale definitely played a role in the outcome of the Vietnam War. The chain of command is different, yes, then in other books we have read, but I think it mainly has to do with soldiers' attitudes toward the war. Sure, they mock Lt. Martin, but as Tess points out, they do respect Lt. Corson. There is just a lot more outcry against the war and a lot less toleration with the direction the war was going. O'Brien portrays these characters as obeying the chain of command (more or less) but also weighs in to their discontent with the war itself. This time during the war, and popular culture, was a time of new ideas and "rebel-like" attitudes and I think O'Brien not only tries to display that in his characters, but also show that general attitude to the readers. But I definitely think soldiers' attitudes are what mislead us to thinking there is an upset in the chain of command-- I think it still exists in this story.
Morale was clearly an issue and the lack of respect for the chain of command is evidence of that. If anyone's seen Band of Brothers there's a scene where a soldier (David Schwimmer for what it's worth) does not salute his commanding officer initially until he is told, "We salute the rank, not the man," to which he dutifully salutes the officer. Despite his initial resentment, he understands the necessity to respect the chain of command, the kind of attitude that was completely ignored in Vietnam. Soldiers did not respect the chain and displayed it, a major reason why the United States unsuccessful.
Your main point that the lack of respect is a product of low morale is right on. I like how you compare the Vietnam War to the others our nation has fought in. I think a large part of this feeling is a product of the soldiers knowing too much. Like you say, soldiers in the Civil War knew little about the war and the motives. However, like the general public, the soldiers were upset about being in Vietnam. Also, the soldiers that were drafted would feel even more resentful. In the end, soldiers need to believe in what they are doing.
I agree with you that morale is a huge reason the Americans did not fair well in Vietnam. I also agree that this lack of morale is directly linked to the lack of respect for the chain of command. Although soldiers were given a little more decision making freedom in Vietnam, it did not give them the right to disobey their commanding officers to such an extent as the issues in Going After Cacciato.
You definitely bring up some key aspects of the Vietnam War. Last year, I took the 1960's class with Mr. Fleming. One thing that he told us (he's a Vietnam vet) was that officers had to be careful about what they tell their soldiers to do. Because they were in the jungle with little supervision, it was very common for soldiers to kill their commanding officer, especially after being ordered to search the tunnels. Going After Cacciato is really accurate in that aspect.
hillThere was a much higher degree of respect for the chain of command in the Civil War than in almost any other war in American history. Lee and Grant were both seen as heroic figures of authority and command for their respective sides. Soldiers and generals alike showed these men respect and followed their commands completely. Some may argue that this unquestioned power given to Lee led to the downfall of the Confederates, but I see this respect and undying loyalty as an advantage in war. When soldiers rally around a cause or a person, they feel inspired and empowered. This spirit and passion was nonexistent in the Vietnam War and is exemplified in Going After Cacciato.
Good post Sammy. I am pretty sure that no one wanted to be in Vietnam. Also this was the first war into our modern era. This war was different in the scene that this was the first war where we could not directly identify our enemy. Also this war was during the 60's and early 70's a time of change in the US and all around the world. But if we are just focusing on the US, this time was also the explosion of drugs. A lot of soldiers were exposed to drugs in Vietnam. Also the average age of soldiers was 19-20. Compared to 27 in WWII. Also the average time of being on the front lines to back at base was 48-72 hours in Vietnam and 5-6 weeks in WWII. So their in a huge different between the maturity level and also the physiological level too.
While I agree with the soldiers that Martin seemed to go to far sometimes (making them check every tunnel instead of just blowing them up) I was extremely shocked to find out they murdered him. They threw a frag in the tunnel he was checking, and even though I didn't like Martin at that instant I got infuriated at the soldiers. Disobedience is one thing, murder is way way way too far.
Morale definitely has a major part to play in terms of how soldiers use the chain of command. In Vietnam the soldiers weren't given much of a good reason to risk their lives. In WW2, soldiers fought against the evil nazis, while in Vietnam they fought communists.
Sammy, I see the point you are making about soldier's morale. But i am curious to see what the morale of troops actually were in Vietnam compared to th morale of troops in other wars. I think what defeated America the most was the tradionalist actions in terms of war against a non tradionalist tactical opponent.
Post a Comment