In his book If I Die
in a Combat Zone, Tim O’Brien recounted events surrounding his experience
with the war in Vietnam. He noticeably came back to one question again and again:
what is courage? This paper will analyze O’Brien’s struggle with this question
by first explaining the dilemma he faced as a soldier fighting in a war he felt
was unjust. I will then piece together O’Brien’s ideological explanations of
courage from the text, followed by his examples of both courage and cowardice. Courage,
to O’Brien, was action. When these pieces are viewed together according to his
own convictions and definitions, O’Brien did not have courage but was, in fact,
a coward
Tim O’Brien
faced a major dilemma as he was drafted to fight in a war that he deemed
unjust. This quandary was perhaps most eloquently explained during his conversation
with the chaplain during his Advanced Infantry Training. He pointed out that in
his heart he felt that killing was wrong. War, according to O’Brien, must only
be fought if it is just. In his heart he must feel that he is fighting for
goodness. This war, he told the chaplain, was not just and he felt he should
not fight in it. The religious leader responded by calling out O’Brien as “very
disturbed.” “You’ve read too many books,” he said, “the wrong ones, I think
there’s no doubt, the wrong ones.” Then he seemed to have dropped his religious
front: “But goddamn it—pardon me—but goddamn it, you’re a soldier now, and
you’ll sure as hell act like one!” After a brief ideological tussle between
O’Brien and the chaplain, the young soldier posed his true question: if he
believes the war is wrong and he goes and kills then what is the state of his
soul? Also, if he refuses to fight, he will have betrayed his country. So what
can or should he do (56-61)?
O’Brien’s quandary was at once
universal and a product of the particular political and cultural climate of his
time. War has always been controversial. Any time human life is concerned there
will always be those who question the rationale behind the actions. In this
case, however, O’Brien seemed to be struggling with more than just his
convictions against the war. His actions questioned the legitimacy of the
political and cultural norms of the period. Since World War II, the United
States was obsessed with their fear of the expanding communist Soviet regime in
Eastern Europe and Asia. Communism was viewed as the antithesis of capitalism
and democracy, which Americans believed were divinely inspired. Americans’
fears translated into witch hunts at home and abroad in attempts to squash the
communist threat to their way of life. O’Brien grew up in this Cold War era,
and the political rhetoric stated that anything which questioned the United
States and its convictions was not only communist, but by connection evil. His
conviction against the war seemed right in his heart. “And if right, was my
apparent courage in enduring [the war as a soldier] merely a well-disguised
cowardice?” (138) Was he then, by connection, evil? He felt like he was in a
prison: “unwilling to escape, yet unwilling to acquiesce” to the war (39).
In an attempt
to sort out his feelings about his actions, O’Brien cited a plethora of
ideological explanations for what courage is. He began with Socrates. O’Brien
pointed out that Socrates was likely conflicted himself. Considering his writings,
one would conclude that he would not have acquiesced, but gone about the war
his own way. However, O’Brien pointed out, Socrates fought a war for Athens.
There was no way that war was completely just either. Was he then a “reluctant
hero” like O’Brien? These musings subsided and O’Brien got back on duty (46-47).
Later O’Brien described courage as “acting wisely when fear would have a man
act otherwise.” But wisdom on its own was not enough, for one must spiritually
endure (136-138). He cited another possible definition in connection with
action. Men act cowardly, and men act courageously. Bravery is measured
according to the average action when all are taken into account (148).
Ideologically,
the United States had a slightly different definition of bravery than O’Brien. This
idea was partially described by Major Callicles, One of O’Brien’s last
commanding officers in Vietnam. He said it was America’s responsibility, and
therefore every American’s responsibility, to show the world that someone has “guts
to stand up for what’s right.” Further, “it’s going out and being tough and
sharp-thinkin’ and making things
happen right” (200). Culturally, courage in America was characterized by
proactively fighting against what they believed was wrong. They took it upon
themselves to make sure the world saw things the way they did, because their
way was “right” as Major Callicles said. American culture made bravery out to
be forceful, and often rather cruel and oppressive. As O’Brien said, “if a man
can squirm in a meadow, he can shoot children. Neither are examples of
courage.” Men must know the rightness of their actions, for this is wisdom
(136, 140).
O’Brien
cited examples of courage throughout the book. Each example is defined as
courageous or brave differently than the rest, further complicating his pursuit
of a definitive answer. O’Brien himself first exemplified courage during his
Advanced Infantry Training. The more he concluded that the war was wrong, the
stronger his desire was to refuse. He went to the library and researched how
other soldiers had gotten away, safely, to a place where they would not be
forced to fight against their convictions. He made plans and wrote letters to
his family concerning his justified desertion (52-54). O’Brien knew at this
point that his heart would never tell him this war was right. He thought long
and hard about what he would do after his tour to fight against the, in his
opinion, unjustified war. He would go on his own “crusade” and fight against
some of the men who caused so many atrocities. He determined that when other
wars arose he would determine if they were just, and fight against them if they
were not (93). This could be considered an internal courage, holding fast to
ideas one knows are right.
O’Brien
used Captain Johansen, his commanding officer, as a prime example of bravery in
the more traditional sense. “I’d rather be brave than almost anything,” he said
to Tim, who responded by saying he wished he had tried harder himself. As
O’Brien contemplated Johansen’s words, he came to the conclusion that “It’s the
charge, the light brigade with only one man, that’s the first thing to think
about when thinking about courage. People who do it are remembered as brave, win
or lose. They are heroes forever” (134). True bravery, according to this
example, is a desire deep within oneself to charge, as hard and as strong as
they can, to fight for whatever their conviction is. This example makes no
ideological qualification for bravery. It is simply the action that comes from
a desire within. No one in Vietnam besides Johansen cared about bravery, and
thus they did not have it. All they had was an obsession with “manliness,
crudely idealized,” not bravery (134).
Examples of
cowardice starkly contrasted the examples of courage in the book. O’Brien
usually referred to himself as cowardly rather than brave. After he made all
his plans to run and refuse to fight in a war that he was morally opposed to,
he did not. He was in Seattle on leave from training and his plans were all
ready to go, but when the time came he could not bring himself to do it. He
vomited and went to sleep, then burned his letters and his plans when he woke
up in the morning. He did not have the courage to take a stand when it really
counted. His thoughts and feelings were in the right place, but his actions
never followed. “I was a coward,” he said as he recalled his return to the
base. He had thought about not carrying a gun, but again he “succumbed” to the
war and became a soldier none the less (68, 34).
This example
of cowardice really gives us the best understanding of O’Brien’s vision of
bravery. No matter how good one’s intensions are, and no matter what he/she
believes, there is no bravery in it unless there is action. Knowing the
rightness of his actions confirms his bravery in his heart, and he knows it is
real. But no matter the inward conviction, of which O’Brien had plenty, it
means nothing in regard to bravery unless it is coupled with action.
Thus, according to his own beliefs
and measures of bravery, O’Brien did not have courage. He knew in his heart
what was right and what he should do, but he could not bring himself to do it.
He allowed his fears to overpower his convictions. No matter how bad the
fighting got on the ground, no matter how many men he saw killed, and no matter
the gross injustices he witnessed, the fear of leaving and facing his family
and friends with an explanation crippled his courage. The great detail he went
into about his dilemma, his ideology, and the examples he witnessed of both
courage and cowardice were simply observations. Tim O’Brien made these
observations so thoroughly because he did not have the quality he was looking
for. He was not a hero, and he said it himself, but he did understand what
courage was. He, like many others before him, could not put aside his fears for
the nobler good and fulfill his own definition of bravery.
No comments:
Post a Comment