Zero Dark Thirty - Standing with Riverbend

Though I understand the typical American point of view from being an American and seeing first hand the way the 9/11 attacks, and other forms of terrorist acts have shaped the perspective of Americans in regards to the war and their attitudes of distrust towards people of the Middle East, I cannot say that I fully agree with them. Reason being, is that it is not right to make the whole of a group responsible for the actions of a few, especially when those few are extremist and are using a religion of love and peace as a propaganda to kill others under false religious context. In Zero Dark Thirty, especially the ending scenes where the SEALs are searching the house for Bin Laden and killing the men and women in those homes in such a nonchalant manner, I was disturbed on a level. I understand fully the mission and of course the position the SEALs are put in as far as life or death but the way in which these people, other than the children, and a few of the women, thank God, were executed reminded me of the hate that Kate started to acquire during the latter part of the novel, Sand Queen. These scenes from the movie had me reflect on the blog postings of Riverbend, in which she was desperately and frustratingly trying to convey the level of which the Americans had stopped viewing her and the people of Iraq as human. Instead Americans, both civilian and soldiers, have dehumanized people of the Middle Eastern region as third world citizens, as enemies, and labeled them all as terrorists all the while forgetting just how advanced, civilized, and normal this region of the world was before the occupation by Americans and the resulting war. Moreover, what is necessary to understand about this situation that has affected more so the region of the Middle East and the peoples of this region through destruction and displacement is the fact that, we, Americans have plagued much of this region in pain. As much as Americans want to lobby behind these Islamaphobic views and cast the people of this region with the stereotype of all being terrorists, we forget our own stake in this war.Though we may be told through media outlets that the policy of the American government is to help rebuild and bring "civilization" to this part of the world we have done more harm in so many more ways to these people socially, economically, and politically.

Zero Dark Thirty- 'Merica

After watching Zero Dark Thirty I had mixed emotions because I see this war from 3 different sides, sides that any, if not every situation should be viewed. His, Yours, and the objective 3rd party view. Now I'm going to dedicate this blog to that of America's...hence 'Merica in the title.
Now I think the general patriotic American obsessed and at times ignorant response to the war that has plagued us for the last decade is that we are not only fighting against people (though I think many people forget that who we are in conflict are people) most Americans think we are at war with brown people who are Muslim and  live in a certain region of the world. Since the tragic event of 9/11 that has been attached to the extremist group Al Qaeda, there has been a major blow back against people who look like these attackers who killed many Americans. I myself remember being in 3rd grade and seeing our teachers turn-on the news in between sobs and call our parents to pick us up in the wake of this national emergency. Because of this indirect experience I myself felt some distrust in people who looked this way for a brief time, until my parents set me straight, because I was ignorant as to what was really going on in the world, not only America. Nevertheless, after this event in America's history its understandable to identify with the high emotion many Americans felt about Bin Laden being caught and killed for his actions and doing whatever was necessary to ensure his capture, because we looked at it as ensuring our own safety. This is why it becomes easy to understand the propaganda used in Zero Dark Thirty. But more-so I believe certain Americans have this us vs. them, Islamaphobic attitude because that is literally what they perceive this war to be. To a certain extent, especially as a person of future military personnel I have had to realize that it is killed or be killed in this field, which a lot of Americans not privy to the true factions of this war also believe.

Comparison of Maya and Kate

After watching Zero Dark 30 I found the main character Maya to be both intriguing and a memory. I say a memory because her job of working with the CIA and leading a task force is exactly what I wanted and dreamed about when  was younger and envisioning a career with the government after military service. Nevertheless, after watching the film and comparing both Maya and Kate from the novel, Sand Queen I noticed two very important and stark differences between the women. Maya is a woman I can more easily relate to. She's a woman who s not only in a male dominated field, but she's assertive, performs ten times better than the men in her field, she's a spitfire, disciplined and an all around badass that doesn't take non-sense but she is still able to have those bonds with her coworkers of both sexes. Kate on the other hand is more naive in where she's trying to find her footing in this field. Though both women joined their perspective government agencies right out of high school Kate's background somewhat stifled I feel the way as a woman, the way you're "supposed" to enter these male dominated fields. But I can be wrong. As a more assertive woman I honestly felt a little frustrated at the way Kate handled some situations in which I felt she was being timid, but then again I'm not in her shoes. These women have different personalities. Yet, tragic enough what I found in the movie to be true that no matter how much of a badass you are at your job, having a vagina will still overshadow your work. In the movie where Maya gathers all the intelligence needed in a meeting they are having with a guy I presume to be a level below the CIA director, when it was revealed that Maya was the one who acquired all the intelligence he looked shocked. And of course, it was because he couldn't believe a woman who was no more than thirty was heading such an important mission.
This just goes to show that though we are making a little little progress in accepting all groups to play on the team both the movie and the book just reaffirmed that women in many male dominated fields have a long way to go.

blog 12

     War has changed in the age of terrorism to a more systematic process of attacks from a distance.  A majority of attacks done by the US are now carried out by drones or guided missiles off of Navy vessels.  In contrast a majority of attacks done by ISIS are secretive and by the time to recognize that it is an attack it is too late because the attacks usually end in suicide bombings or attacks.  The Americans are very recognizable with there clear uniforms informing those around who they are.  In contrast the enemy ISIS easily blends itself into the civilian crowd making it near impossible to be able to point out who your enemy really is.  There is no longer trench warfare are mass assimilations of troops gathered to fight another mass.  This is a twisted step past guerrilla warfare, where morals have been grinded down to almost none leaving no clear rules of engagement because the enemy being dealt with does not follow such a code.

Blog 11

An ethical dilemma I saw brought up in Zero Dark Thirty was torture techniques.  In the opening scene you can see the conflict ion that Maya has when she is watching Dan torture a terrorist.  The way they carry themselves in this scene shows how a moral gray zone is being crossed.  As Dan, with a lot interrogation experience, goes into his routine of questioning the suspect you see how he goes from friendly and calm to aggressive and violent.  Maya watches at first in almost shock, she keeps her distance.  Then she is needed during the scene to hand Dan the water jug so he could proceed on water boarding the terror suspect.  She is hesitant in her actions not fully convinced on the methods that are being used.  So the ethical dilemma presented was torture.  In this scene torture seems acceptable because they end up getting the information they were after.  Yet, this is a movie so it can be assumed that this is how all torture scenes go and it can't be assumed that they always get the information they are after.

I don't know

This article was really helpful à http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/education/002/film/reviews/0007.html

           

            Zero Dark Thirty presents multiple ethical dilemmas with the questionable interrogation techniques and instances of torture that occur throughout the film. The first one we see is “waterboarding”, which was apparently, “one of the most heatedly debated aspects of the Bush-era War on Terror.” It was definitely painful to watch, as was the other torture techniques used by the American interrogators. In my opinion, the worst technique Dan used to get the main detainee to talk was the locking him in that tiny box. I can’t even imagine. I’m pretty claustrophobic and even 5 minutes in there would be hell.

That article brought up a lot of great questions: 

·       Should techniques such as waterboarding be classified as torture, which is illegal under U.S. and international law?

·       Are such techniques both necessary and effective, or are there other and more reliable ways to obtain information?

·       And, legal or not, are we betraying our moral values by using such techniques, whatever we decide to call them?

·       Where should we draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable interrogation? Who should have final say? 

                                                                                                                                                

The film had to throw the clip of Obama claiming, “The US will not participate in nor condone torture as a method of obtaining information,” which I believe was followed by the scene where Dan is telling Maya to watch her back for the organization that was searching the Black Sites for violent interrogations. So to answer the first question, I definitely think these techniques should be classified as torture. That’s why that organization was formed to stop these types of interrogations. For the second question- we can see how these methods were eventually effective with obtaining information, but even the interrogators were second-guessing themselves. What if the prisoners were just giving false information to avoid being tortured? Such a mind game. As far as the next two questions, I’m honestly not really sure. Eventually the film resolves in the assassination of Bin-Laden, leaving us feeling satisfied? Maybe? Should we have captured him alive? Can the interrogators live with themselves knowing they’ve done horrible things for their cause? Could we have found Bin-Laden without the use of such mentally and physically painful techniques? It’s a lot to think about.

Turner and Benedict

Sand Queen and Here, Bullet - definitely different worlds. Both Benedict and Turner do a great job on unfolding truths about the contemporary war, yet both do so in very different ways. Benedict’s writing is very concrete, and we mainly follow only two perspectives throughout the book. With Turner’s writing, we’re continually held in his powerful metaphors and in moments that juxtapose gruesome occurrences with a graceful tone and beautiful imagery. He describes oil fields as veins in God’s skull. He personifies a bullet, and dares it to kill him. Turner also does a great job of shifting perspectives, sometimes between only two lines. I’m not saying Turner is a better writer than Benedict, but Here, Bullet is definitely more challenging to dig into. I sometimes have to read the poem two or three times to fully grasp what’s going on.

            With Sand Queen, we’re given two characters – one very relatable, and the other not so much. Both stories are really important to learn about. Naema’s perspective was interesting and certainly sad, but felt almost too forced, creating some repetitive and dull sections in the book. Kate’s perspective is what really kept me reading. We’re absorbed in Kate’s thoughts and can connect with a lot of her experiences before the war. I think that’s what makes Benedict’s portrayal just as great as Turner’s- the fact that we crave to know what happens next in this shocking and disturbing book.

           I wonder how Brian Turner would portray an Iraqi prisoner throwing shit at him in his poetry?

Zero Dark Thirty

Having seen this movie at least four times for a couple of different classes and for personal pleasure, I feel like I have a new understanding of it now after taking a War Story class. For me, I feel like the story is very well told, but that is also because I was not there and I do not know what the exact true story is.

There are many ethical problems that arise in this movie, but the most interesting to me is the ethical problem of torture. In the beginning of the movie, when they are torturing the man for information, I felt like if it was me torturing him, I would not have been able to go through with it. I almost feel like it is a little bit torturous for the audience to watch. The film's depiction of torture also seems very accurate, and it is very graphic. The ethical problem with torture to me is that I cannot understand how they know that a person has information when they are repeatedly saying that they do not. It is crazy to me that someone would go through all of that pain and suffering just to retain information for someone they are so loyal to, who probably would not be as loyal to them.

I think that this film is important in teaching people what really goes on in war, so that people are less likely to be "all in" in their support of war. I believe that many people support our wars without knowing exactly what goes on behind the scenes, and that is dangerous to the world because it makes people support things that they know nothing about.

The Invisible War

I was honestly quite deeply disturbed by this film, and it was a little bit hard to watch. Not because I have any personal connection with it, but because this is a situation that is occurring constantly around the world and right now there are so many women going through it. It scares me to think that something like this could happen to me. I was completely surprised by the fact that these women have no one to go to and they are so easily silenced by their superiors. The fact that they have been wronged and there is literally nothing they can do about it legally is disturbing and saddening to me. I don't know what can be done to change this situation, because I feel like it is so deeply embedded in the culture of the military, and it is unfortunate that if a few people continue to choose to take part in such disgusting actions, it is more likely that others will join in, and the vicious circle will continue.

This film, I'm sure, has helped some of the women who were profiled in it, which is a fantastic thing, and it is great that they were able to get their stories out. Still, I think there is a lot to be done, and it has to start from the highest tier of government, which is very unlikely to happen. When women (or men) are sexually assaulted in the military, there needs to be a strict code of conduct for the following actions. One of the other problems is the stigma associated with sexual assault. No one can be helped if they feel like they do not have a voice, or that their voice will not be heard. It is important that this culture of violence is infiltrated by understanding and care, but that is difficult in a field where everything revolves around violence.

About the Movie

The Invisible War is a great documentary that I believe everyone she watch. I wasn't fully aware of how big of a problem sexual assault is in our military. We hear the stories of how other armies treat their women, we never stop to think about how big of an issue it is here in the US.

In order to combat this issue, action needs to take place. In the movie, not a single perpetrator was held accountable for his actions. That is insane to me. The military needs to make an example out of people to try and deter future occurrences from happening. The statistic given in the movie stating that most rapists are serial rapists shows that something should be done to these soldiers. If they aren't punished for heinous acts then they will most likely strike again and again.

I suppose it starts at establishing equality within the military. While reading SandQueen, by Helen Benedict, I really got the sense of how much inequality there is in the military. In the novel, Kate experiences lots of inequality. She is not treated like the men, not even close. She isn't allowed to leave her post, which no one is, but when she does leave to use the restroom or for water she is bitched out to no end. When the guys leave for no reason, nothing is said. It is just completely unfair how the military treats women and blatantly disrespects them in many cases.

The Invisible War

 The documentary The Invisible War brings to light how complicated an issue sexual abuse is in the military even though it should be a strict and simple disciplinary action. The whole system in itself is completely out dated and needs to be changed. To begin blame should never be placed on the victim, because this leads to further problems. The victim now has no one to turn too for they feel everyone feels its their fault anyways or somehow will always shift that blame back to them. Next is actually having somewhere to go for real help after it happens, which regardless should be a well run institution within the military. Organizations that are supposed to stop rape from happening only tell how to not get raped which is absurd. The most shocking part of the film was when rape was described as an "occupational hazard", for which in no way in peace time especially at a domestic US military post, should it ever be an occupational hazard. The military itself is an occupational hazard, but like most dogma it applies mostly in actual war and battle when that hazard is an actual enemy not the solider next to you. The hazards turns into those soldiers above you in rank because they are disgustingly untouchable. The hierarchy of the military itself hides all its problems and treats them as if it didn't happen to keep the old system running smoothly. In this day and age problems are a lot harder to sweep under the rug because we are so connected the story will get out. The military got used to staying quite and keeping issues like rape from really reaching the public. Now in a time when government documents are like newspapers, its time for the military to fess up and start fixing a now obvious problem. To fix the problem it cant come from some kind of ads or posters but real concrete solutions to an out of control issue. For one certain military legal issues should be run through a federal court especially if the situation happened on American soil. Next is then setting up a system of checks and balances on other officers not just a chain of command. Not talking every decision must be checked but if the issue is obviously a legal rights issue it must be overlooked. In all the whole military system must now change from its silence into an age where information can always be uncovered and people are never silenced.

The Invisible War

     Since watching The Invisible War I have had a torrent of emotions flow through me, ranging from anger and frustration to broken -heartedness and admiration. Though each one of the survivors interviewed throughput the film brought me to tears with their stories, they also lifted my spirit through their tenacity to function as survivors and their courage to tell their stories so that others could be exposed to the truth about rape culture in the military.
     I think the most shockingly repulsive issue I became aware of via the film was the "fun fact" of the Uniform Code of Military Justice listing rape as an "occupational hazard." This is disgusting in every sense of the word. Women or no women in the military, how could rape ever be looked at in a light other than sickening? As a woman who is also of color it makes me more than weary of the field I'm going into and the organizational culture I'll be forced to acclimate into.
See, the military has "tried" to step its sexual awareness game up through initiating programs like SAPR and SHARP, but the fact of the matter is that these programs are a joke. Why? Because they are basically parody renditions of preliminary scenes to sexual assault or harassment. No one can take these videos seriously because they're corny and as The Invisible War pointed out, they promote victim blaming and are centered around rape avoidance, rather than prevention by actually stopping and persecuting offenders. Though I have done NROTC for the past four years of college and I've been out into the fleet twice, once for a month in San Diego and the second time for a two week stay in Everett, I didn't understand the way in which the rape culture of our military thrives off of a hyper-masculine tone until watching the film then experiencing a conflict with a male NROTC peer this past weekend.
     Here's a little background information. I am one of five minority women in our battalion. There are two Black women and three Hispanic women and due to us all naturally receiving unfair treatment vs our white female counterparts (I won't even mention the disparity in treatment of us and that of our white male peers) we all hang out together within the unit. Now Saturday morning while we were having breakfast before the drill meet began, Zabala, who is Colombian dropped an orange peel on the floor, however before she went to pick it up she was thrown off by the comment of: "Eat it off the ground like the pig you are." This comment was made by Bartkus. Now Bartkus is a red headed white male, with an ingenuous mouth and someone who lost their Marine Corps scholarship due to rape claims.....yet, he picked up a Navy one......hmmm. Anyway, once Zabala, who is more senior than Bartkus due to the billet she holds, heard this she immediately told him to standby for the way in which she would handle is inappropriate comment. Zabala then proceeded to tell another senior Midshipman, Tortorich, about the comment in which he responds: "Maybe he was just joking." Because Zabala took offense to the comment and thought it was racially sparked, she proceeded to myself and the other minority women about, in which we then told her to tell our Lieutenants immediately. Now because I totally disagreed with the way in which Tortorich handled the situation I pulled him aside and asked him if he knew what happened and asked him how he responded, and why he responded in a way that invalidated Zabala's claim. He of course got defensive and began, sadly enough trying to discredit Zabala by saying: "Come on Jackson, you know how Zabala is and you know how Bartkus is." It was in that moment that I realized the cyclical nature of victim blaming and the way in which hyper-masculinity worked in this military culture. Though its not on the same level as sexual assault its this type of behavior on lower level issues that creates for that type of blow-back on cases such as rape and how they are handled.
     Nevertheless, once Zabala reported the issue to our lieutenants they said they will be dealing with the matter on the upper level because this isn't the first issue they've had with Bartkus's inappropriate mouth after his rape incident. So, we'll see if the military is really changing or if they are continuing the same tradition of sweeping problems under the rug.

Why do certain people see abuse and inequality the way they do?

As we all know, one of the set number amount of the most touchy things to talk about includes rape.  It's a subject that cannot and certainly should not be avoided, but before going any further, I would like to let it be known that I am strongly against any form of abuse or inequality on behalf of any gender, be it sexual, physical, mental, whatever it be.  Just having that disclaimer there so if anything I say is misunderstood, I am in no way in support of abuse or inequality.  I kind of feel like I shouldn't even have to say that at this point.  Anyways, what I wanted to talk about and MAYBE ask (I'm just writing this blog post as it goes) is the fact that the overseer of sexual abuse or whatever it was called in the military as we saw in the film on Wednesday and Friday was actually a woman.  So what really puzzled me was that she seemed to sweep things under the rug just as much as the other people in high ranking positions did.  So what was so curious about that it kind of seemed like she didn't even care that females in the military would come to her with the problem of being sexually abused.  Maybe its the fact that I can't see very well through her eyes (and believe me, I don't want to), but the fact that she and many people would dismiss such a serious offense and go so far as to blaming it on the victim themselves is utterly unacceptable, immature, and offensive.  So...  why do they continue to do it?  Is it just that they don't care or give a shit at this point?  Or are they trying to protect the high ranking positions of the perpetrators because they may need them for future assignments.  The whole thing is just so messed up.  That these kinds of things just go unnoticed, and when they ARE noticed, they're dismissed and/ or retaliated upon.  So that's really all I have to say for now.  I'm sure 100% of you agree with me to some extent so there's not a lot of room left for discussion...  Of course unless you have questions, which I'd be more than happy to answer on my behalf.  Thanks for reading.

Turner VS Benedict

Turner and Benedict refer to the war in Iraq in their writings from "Here, Bullet" and "Sand Queen", but they approached it differently. Turner focuses on the emotions inflicted by certain events in the war, while Benedict provides us with a straightforward story that portrays the life of soldiers in Iraq and the influence they have on the locals.

Some similarities involve the acknowledgements of the wrong that U.S. soldiers brought to the invaded country. Thus, ignoring the sense of patriotism which sometimes blinds us from reality. The civilians who were seen as a threat by soldiers, were mostly innocent and victimized as portrayed by Turner´s and Benedict´s writings.

Turner VS Benedict

With Brian Turner the writing is a cautionary tale of the consequences of war through an impersonal story. Brian Turner, in Here Bullet, takes the reader into the truth and trauma of the Iraqi war in language that is precise, delicate and beautiful, even as it tells of suicide bombers and other tragic circumstances. These impersonal tales of the war are often third person in and describe the scenery more than someone’s reaction to the environment. However in Sand Queen by Helen Benedict, Benedict is nearly factually telling the story of her involvement in the Iraq war. This story gives a personal narration of what, how and when she experienced certain events during her time of service. This first person narration gives critical insight into women’s struggles when serving in the military. Throughout part one of the story Ms. Benedict’s clear intention is to turn stereotypes upside down, make readers squirm, and yet still keep them reading. Ms. Benedict pulls off this audacious gambit because she is an exceptional writer and storyteller. Benedicts gritty depiction of a soldier’s life in the Iraq desert is particularly well done in Sand Queen as it depicts the shock and awe attack of 2003, after soldier Kate Brady meets Naema Jassim at a huge U.S. prison in Iraq. Naema, whose English and medical background appeals to Kate Brady, comes daily in search of men detained by the Americans. Something about Naema, and they form an awkward relationship based in need. Wanting to do something good, Kate investigates the fate of Naema's family. Both women struggle with the war, the death of innocents, abuses from male soldiers and atrocities witnessed. The psychological deterioration from an attempted rape and the official and unofficial backlash that follows leads to her breakdown and hospitalization. Naema's stoicism in the face of hopelessness makes sense, and contrasts well with Kate's struggle to stay strong, which gives a dimensionality to the characters in Sand Queen. The essential distinction between Brian Turner and Helen Benedicts portrayals of the contemporary war is the perspective the reader is given. Helen Benedicts Sand Queen in particular takes advantage of the first person narration of her experiences, allowing an emotional connection to be made with the characters. However Brian Turners Here Bullet utilizes poems to allow the reader to critical analyze soldiers’ specific experience during the war.

 

Nostalgia

I really loved “Cole's Guitar.” I was going to write about “Curfew” at first, but the overarching idea that a few distant notes on an acoustic guitar can take us to a completely different place definitely motivated me to write about this one. It’s a very simple poem to understand. Turner is stationed in Al Ma’badi, Iraq. I pictured him sleeping in a messy lobby surrounded by fellow infantry soldiers in some building. The sound of Doc Cole strumming on his guitar off in the distance wakes him up and instantly takes him back home.            Again not a very complex poem, but how it’s written is really captivating. Every line is a new memory, and a new image. “I’m in Wyoming. I’m in New York. / I’m leaning to kiss a woman / in the cornfields down by the river.” Each stanza has multiple images of America, all different, each flashing through Turner’s head. These images of home inevitably increase the overall sense of nostalgia throughout the poem. “That’s what I’m hearing, / the wind on the redwood coat.” Although they were all hearing the same notes, we don’t know what effect Cole’s playing had on the other soldiers. We follow little avenues of home that Turner could have been storing away for a while up until this moment where they were unleashed by Cole’s guitar. 

Turner's Lens

There is no romanticizing modern warfare. The equipment lacks any aesthetically pleasing details. The uniforms look like Jackson Pollock exercises. Turner's poetry deserves praise because it transmutes what would be so completely banal and barely worthy of note in prose form.

The Iraq War is a cynical one—fundamentally different from the war in Vietnam because it is generally beneath people’s notice.

I don’t want to say that people have fewer illusions in regards to the Iraq War, but I think that people for the most part, really don’t care about it. For the most part, it seems to be felt that though what we are doing is probably unethical, but our hand has been forced. Even though we’ve only gone to war to protect our own financial interests—and we should probably feel like that’s wrong and bad—we are both hapless and complacent in regards to it. Chances are, we stand to benefit as a whole from the ongoing warfare—we should just be thankful that there isn’t a draft. 

Turner's own complacency, as a soldier, represents a perspective that we probably aren’t very interested it, but feeling guilty that he suffered in our stead, we read it.

Once this initial aversion is breeched, Turner’s perspective in his situation makes him relatable. He has a desire to interact with the people he is forcibly alienated from and therefore must instead imagine how their lives must be. 

Make Up Post: Eulogy

In Eulogy Brian Turner describes the suicide of twenty three year old Private Miller. Turner takes a tragic event and paints it in the most picturesque and relaxing light possible. Instead of talking about why Miller might have been on the banks of the Tigris planning on ending his life in the first place he talks about the tower guards eating their usual sandwiches and the seagulls lazily drifting on the river. Even the description of the gunshot is gentle and musical in nature "The sound reverberates down concertina coils the way piano wire thrums when given slack." 

The tone Turner uses in the poem is quietly wistful, despite it being clear that the poem is about a tragic occurrence. This alone gives the poem a very dark and disassociated feel. I think the way Turner describes the peace and quiet of the aftermath of Miller's suicide is indicative of a powerful connection and sympathy for Miller on Turner's part. When reading the poem it sounds like Turner has personal understanding of what it's like to be so torn up and in so much pain that taking your own life feels like a serious option. The poem does a good job of conveying that no matter what you do, the world is going to keep on going. For soldiers locked in conflict, this doesn't feel like the case, and some never recover from the trauma they suffer. In Miller's case, which sadly is not far from the norm for modern soldiers, his burdens simply became too much to carry. Suicide was the only way he could find peace within his own head.

"if only for this moment the earth is stilled,
and Private Miller has found what low hush there is
down in the eucalyptus shade, there by the river"

Extra Blog Post: Sadiq

The poem Sadiq begins with a quote that explains how patience is of utmost importance to an archer because once the arrow leaves the bow, it does not come back. I find this to be an interesting beginning, because the poem is about how it should break a soldier's heart to kill. I think that he begins with that quote because using a bow and arrow is very much like using a gun. The person behind the bow or behind the trigger must really think hard about whether they want to use it or not, and that is something that is rarely done in war. In war, killing is usually a spur of the moment, quick decision, and there is not much thought that really goes into it in that very moment.

The first thing I noticed in this poem is that in the second line, he uses the word "nightmare" as a verb, which it is not. I think this is interesting, because the subject of the poem - killing - is something that can turn a person's world upside down and change everything, and I think that the use of this word in a different form exemplifies this change and confusion.

I feel that he takes every excuse or justification that people use for killing, and turns it on those people, telling them that no matter what it is they are going to say, it is not an excuse to feel good about killing. It doesn't matter if it gave you an adrenaline rush, or if you did it for your god, or if you did it for revenge, it should never feel good to kill another person.

This poem is also all one sentence. I think that he made it this way because of the way that one comes to a decision about killing, or the way the act of killing happens. When the time comes, it all happens quickly, and everything going on kind of fades into one another. The thought process of killing someone, no matter how much you have thought about it before the act, completely changes when it is actually being done, and there is little time for reflection or to really think about what you are about to do, and he makes the poem flow in that way as well.

Iraq has happy memories too

During class, the question "Have these poems changed the way you think about Iraq and the war?" I don't know that these so much change the way I think about the war, because I barely had thoughts about it. These poems bring about a certain level of humanity and honesty to the war, that I think I was missing before. In "Hwy 1"it becomes to evident that there is so much more to the land that we will ever realize. Americans know the land as war land, but don't know or understand the history behind the land. There are stories, happy memories, and love on this land, that Americans totally overlook when thinking about Iraq.
 Along with the happiness that could exist in Iraq, there is also real hard suffering. "Body Bags" talks about people killed who are asking where their wives and children are, and just wanting to be home with their families. Although there is a certain level of energy and adrenaline that pushes this poem forward and makes it almost fun to read, it's hard to deny the sadness I want to feel for the people suffering in Iraq. 

More obsessing over "AB Negative"...

So a bit more nerding out about AB Negative from class.  First, I think I should note that I’m pretty into things that can be read from a variety of different perspectives, which is part of the reason I like this poem so much!  I suppose another reason would be that it is a piece that links the living and the dead, something I’ve also drawn to, but Brian Turner does it in a way that’s extremely beautiful.  As discussed in class, we see a lot of vivid imagery throughout this poem, the colorful skies that Thalia sees as she passes on into the next life, and even the gory representation of Thalia’s physical state as we read in the first 8 lines.  And while I know that we may have discussed all there is to know about this, poem I think I can cover a bit more ground though this blog post.

                I guess I’m more drawn to the imagery other than the whole second meaning to the poem.  Don’t get me wrong!  I see the representation of things like the plain and Thalia’s passing being represented as the two sides of mortality to be extremely awesome actually!  But I feel like that’s an easy thing to appreciate so I feel like lingering on the visual representation is a lot more of a difficult goal to appreciate.  Specifically, things like the Nurse dabbing the doctor’s forehead and the doctor running and crying on the nurse’s shoulder give imagery of sadness and a really gloomy upsetting atmosphere that plays like an actual film in our heads…  or at least mine.

P.S.  I also really liked the lines:

…with the droning engines humming on

in a dragonfly’s wings, island palms

painting the sky an impossible hue

with their thick brushes dripping green…

For their ability to describe the setting in such an unusual way…