Make your own free website on Tripod.com
And purpose is what keeps him from running. Without purpose men will run. They will act out their dreams, and they will run and run, like animals in stampede. It is purpose that keeps men at their posts to fight. Only purpose. Going After Cacciato
"I understand that one difficulty for you has been a lack of purpose. Is that not the case? An absence of aim and purpose, so that the foot soldier is left without the moral imperatives to fight hard and winningly. Am I mistaken in this understanding?" (p. 177).


"The common grunt doesn't give a damn about purposes and justice. He doesn't even think about that shit. Not when he's out humping, getting his tail shot off. Purposes - bullshit! He's thinking about how to keep breathing. Or he wonders what it'll feel like when he hits that booby trap. Will he go nuts? Will he puke all over himself, or will he cry, or pass out, or scream? What'll it look like - all bone and meat and pus? That's the stuff he thinks about, not purposes." (p. 178).

gac-powcamp.jpg (24393 bytes)

gac-chinook.jpg (16923 bytes)

"Does not purpose reflect on self-respect? Does not the absence of good purpose jeopardize the soldier's own ego, thus making him less likely to fight well and bravely? If a war is without justice, the soldier knows that the sacrifice of life, his own valued life, is demeaned, and therefor his self-respect must likewise be demeaned." (p. 179).
"In war one nation is able to make up for production insufficiencies by calling on the industrial capacity of allied nations...By citing a great moral purpose, Britain was able to generate American industrial aid to defeat the Germans. In comparison, Germany and Japan were left virtually without allies. Unable to summon other nations to their cause, because, in fact, they had no just cause. So in the end it was an absence of clear moral purpose that produced defeat." (p. 177).

gac-team.jpg (28222 bytes)

gac-youngvc.jpg (24550 bytes)

"Not because of strong convictions, but because he didn't known. He didn't know who was right, or what was right, he didn't know if it was a war of self-determination or self-destruction, outright aggression or national liberation; he didn't know if nations would topple like dominoes or stand separate like trees; he didn't know who really started the war, or why, or when, or with what motives; he didn't know if it mattered; he saw sense in both sides of the debate, but he did not know where the truth lay; he simply didn't know. He just didn't know if the war was right or wrong or somewhere in the murky middle. So he went to war for reasons beyond knowledge. Because he believed in law, and law told him to go. Because it was a democracy...He went to war because it was expected. Because not to go was to risk censure, and to bring embarrassment on his father and his town. Because, not knowing, he saw no reason to distrust those with more experience. Because he loved his country, and more than that, because he trusted it. Yes, he did. Oh, he would rather have fought with his father in France, knowing certain things certainly, but he couldn't choose his war, nobody could." (p. 234-235).