Support Our Troops

My final project is on supporting our soldiers and ways to get involved. Check it out here: http://ngunter1.edu.glogster.com/support-our-troops

The Risky Job of a War Correspondent

    
      The job of a war correspondent: exciting and filled with drama, yet dangerous and risky. And what is a war correspondent exactly? It is a journalist who covers war stories firsthand from a war zone. So just how dangerous is the job? Well, think about it. They are in the middle of a war zone where Americans are hated. They are right there alongside the soldiers, reporting the action. So I think it is safe to say that the job is pretty risky. The job is even ranked in Player's 25 Most Dangerous Jobs in America.

 

     So why is it important to know this? Well just like soldiers in war, war correspondents are also repeatedly exposed to war and traumatic events. The difference between the soldiers and the journalists is that soldiers are trained to be in those dangerous situations and journalists are not. This makes these war correspondents more vulnerable to the troubling aftermath that can come with the job or even the troubles that come during the job.
 

 

     In the article, "War Reporters Defy Danger to Get Story", Ulrike Gruska talks about the dangerous conditions that these journalists work in. He comments, "They often approach scenes as closely as possible to be able to report first-hand. They travel to front lines, for example in Aleppo, Syria, where snipers hide behind windows and rooftops. When trying to get interviews, they will often enter areas that may have been mined." Most of these reporters are so dedicated to their job they will do about anything to get the shots they want. It is reported that in 2012, 141 journalists and bloggers were killed worldwide. Gruska says that unfortunately, with the dangers of this job, reporters will continue to die in these war zones.

 

     For the ones who do not die though, have a high chance of gaining a psychological disorder, such as PTSD or depression, because of all the dangers they face while on the job. Anthony Feinstein, author of Dangerous Lives: War and the Men and Women Who Report It, did a series of studies that assessed how journalists respond to the dangers of their job. In his first study, he compared war journalists with domestic journalists for the presence of disorders such as PTSD or major depression. What he found was that there were high lifetime rates of PTSD, major depression, and increased alcohol consumption in the war journalists. He also observed that the journalists who had these disorders were not being treated. Most just continue on with their job. 

 

     In Feinstein's studies, he also looked at why they return to their job even with all the hazards. He found that for some, it was personal ambition, wanting to keep the public informed, and even the desire to be in the dangerous and risky situations.

     I think the job of a war correspondent is very important, but at the same time, it should be monitored. During the job, these journalists are at a high risk of developing psychological problems. When the problems, like PTSD and depression, are left untreated, it can cause more harm to the person and the people around him or her. And also, if they want to keep doing their job, they need to be healthy. These ambitious journalists may think they are fit to return to these war zones, but are they really? So as a news organization, I think it is crucial to make sure journalists are checked and treated.

Is Eighteen Too Young To Join the Military?

     Age eighteen: the age where you are considered an adult and start making your own decisions. These decisions include what career path you want to take, whether it be going to college, joining the military, or going straight into the work force. While going to college or starting work aren’t the toughest decisions, joining the military, on the other hand, is more of a difficult decision. Is eighteen really old enough for someone to know if it is the right decision for them? Or should an eighteen-year-old even be able to join the military at that young of an age? This is a widely debated topic that has many different opinions on it.

 

    

Tim Hetherington states his opinion on the topic on an article in The Independent. Hetherington is a photojournalist who created Restrepo, a documentary film about the deployment of a platoon of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan’s dangerous Korengal Valley. He filmed the soldiers because he thought their experiences needed to be seen by others so people can better understand what they go through. While filming, he says he worries that some of the troops may be too young to handle the situations that soldiers are put in. He comments, “Does a young guy aged 18 really know what he's letting himself in for?” During the movie, you see the effects of the war on the soldiers and what they go through. Hetherington believes that maybe some soldiers are too young to grasp the nature of the war.

 
     On the other hand, there are others that would disagree and say that yes, eighteen-year-olds are capable of making their own decisions, and if they want to join the military, then they should be able to. After all, eighteen is the age where you can vote, get married, buy a house, and go to “the big” jail. If they are able to do these things then why not be able to join the military. If you are interested in joining the military, by the age of eighteen, you should know what comes along with joining. They should be able to know their limits and whether or not they would be able to handle it or not.

     So what do you think? Is eighteen a reasonable age to be able to make such a big decision like this? Or do you think an eighteen-year-old is just too young to even be going through what the military goes through?

Conflicting Views

    
     Do you ever get offended by people when they talk about a topic that you know they know nothing about? Well, many soldiers and veterans of war have that same feeling about some war films. The movie "The Hurt Locker" is an example of a war film that many veterans have strong opinions on.
    The Hurt Locker is an American war film about a three-man Explosive Ordinance Disposal team during the war of Iraq. It is an intense portrayal of soldiers that have to disarm bombs in the heat of combat. The movie is a fictional drama based on true events.
    Overall, the movie had high ratings and had good reviews. It won six out of the nine Oscars it was nominated for. A movie review in the New York Times claims that the movie "is the best nondocumentary American feature made yet about the war in Iraq."
    Although it was praised by many people, the movie did not please many veterans of the war. Some say that the movie does not accurately depict what truly happens in war. Some even consider the movie to be disrespectful. In an article in Newsweek, a veteran talks about how the military takes great pride in their training and their mission. He believes that a movie like this that is not completely accurate is offensive. He goes on to talk about how Americans think they might know the truth about the war experience, but they will not know until Hollywood better portrays war.

    In an article in the Los Angeles Times, many veterans and soldiers talk about the parts of the movie that are inaccurate. Sergeant Eric Gordon, an Air Force EOD technician said he laughed at the scene in the movie where a bomb was defused by wire cutters. He said, "It's similar to having a firefighter go into a building with a squirt bottle." Paul Rieckhoff, the executive director and founder of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, says that the movie portrays soldiers as being reckless. He says that soldiers are professionals, and at times, the movie makes you think the opposite.
    I can see where war movies such as "The Hurt Locker" can be seen as offensive. Movies such as these are all dramatized to create an better storyline. Most of these movies are mainly fictional but they make you believe you know what really goes on during war. Should it be right that they find it disrespectful? After all, it is just a movie.

Can You Blame Them?

When it comes to women and children, most people would agree you should never shoot at them, no matter what. Just imagine, though, if you were a soldier fighting in battle and you see a child with a gun about to shoot at a fellow soldier. What would you do then?

    I agree with the fact that women and children should not be shot at. Although, if I saw a child shooting at me or another soldier, I would have to say that I would pull the trigger. I know that might seem wrong but saving a soldier's life would be more important.
   The Battle of Mogadishu is an example of when many American soldiers were faced with such a decision. During this battle, there were many Somalian citizen casualties, including women and children. Many of the Somalian gunmen used women and children for their advantage and used them almost like a shield. This was the reason for the high number of civilian deaths. American soldiers did not have much of a choice. Therefore, it is hard to say whether this was wrong on the American soldiers' part. Soldiers do only have a split second to make such a difficult decision.
    In an interview with Keni Thomas, a Battle of Mogadishu veteran, he states his opinion on the topic. He says, "Taking a life down the sights of a rifle is something you have to carry with you for life. And it is not easy to know that some of those lives were women and boys." He continues to say how unless you have actually been in the situation, that you cannot really know what you would do. He also goes on to say that maybe we should be questioning the culture for putting the women and children out in the battle.

    This brings up the discussion of their culture and how they were raised. In some cultures, everyone including women and children, are raised to fight and defend themselves. Women and children were even used as a defense mechanism for the enemy because they are less likely to be shot at. For some, it's all they know, so can you blame them? Should they be punished for the way they were raised? These are both tough questions to answer.
   It is hard to say whether you believe shooting at a women or child in any circumstance is unacceptable or it is in certain situations. If you are being shot at, it is not just a choice to save their life but also you and/or even a fellow soldier's life. It all comes down to choosing to save the woman or child's life or choosing to save your own. But, it is not that easy.

Avoiding The Vietnam War Draft

During the Vietnam War draft, there were many men who were willing to do anything they could to avoid being drafted. They were trying to evade the draft. Some men fled, some faked a physical or mental illness, and some even found connections that gave them a way out. Resisting the draft kept them from fighting in a war that they did not want to participate in and also was a way for men to protest the war and take a stand against it. Of course there were many other ways that they protested the war, but this was one of the main ones that they found most effective.

In the case of Charlie Diamond, he fled to Canada to avoid being drafted. He lived in Connecticut. At the time, war did not have much support from either country. Many men in the United States were even burning their draft cards. The men who fled were actually accepted by the Canadians. Around 50,000 men chose this way of avoiding the draft. Today, about half remain. They stayed in Canada because they felt at home.

Other men chose the path of lying about a physical or mental illness. According to an article on Helium, some men often convinced doctors into getting them out of the draft with medical excuses. If the men could not find a doctor that would do it for them, they would fake an illness or purposely fail an exam. For example, some would try to lose weight so they would not meet the weight requirements and some would even shoot their own foot so they would become physically disabled. Men even faked mental illnesses and some even convicted felonies so they would not be drafted.

Some men were lucky enough to find connections to get out of being drafted. George Bush was an example of this. He used his dad as a way to avoid the draft. His father was a congressman at the time. He joined the Texas Air Guard so he would have service in the military and not have to be drafted. Bush was one of the most famous ones for doing this, but there were also many others.

Men who were opposed of the war were willing to do almost anything to avoid being drafted. Some might believe this is a cowardly thing to do, but there are some that would also disagree and say it was a brave thing for standing up for what they believe in. I can see where both of these can be debatable. Either way, most people had there own reasoning for making the choice that they did.

About the Author

Hi everyone! My name is Natalie Gunter. I am 18 years old. I graduated from Jacksonville High School this year, and I am now a freshman at Jacksonville State University. I love it here in Jacksonville so instead of going off to college I decided to stay here. I am also a huge Alabama fan.



I am majoring in Biology and plan to pursue a career in the medical field. I am currently a full-time student, working, and just recently joined a sorority. I am always busy with these things and rarely find any free time. When i do find free time though, I like to hang out with friends and family, watch movies, and be outdoors.

. 

This blog will be used for my English 101 class and the theme is war stories.