I found this book to be most compelling. The author, a psychiatrist who works with Vietnam Veterans in the Boston area, helping them to deal with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), uses Homer’s narrative in the Iliad to present the situation that many veterans still find themselves in, some 30 years after the close of the Vietnam War. Looking at the main character of Homer’s poem, Achilles, and the theme of the poem, the “wrath of Achilles,” he finds remarkable parallels in the stories told him by vets, and finds some factors in the current vets situation that are conspicuously absent in Homer’s narrative, and which make the veterans of the wars of the last half of the 20th century face greater demons than those that Achilles and his fellows faced on the fields of Troy some 3200 years ago.
Just as the ancient hero had to rely upon his equipment, and spent a lot of attention on it (there are several arming scenes in the poem, but two, that of Agamemnon and later of Achilles, are replete with loving details of every aspect of the warrior’s armor), the modern warrior finds himself dependent on his weaponry for survival, but also must depend on many others as well. For he depends on the weapons manufacturers, people he does not know, for the quality of their merchandise, and when the army exchanged the old, but reliable, M-14 rifle, with the not-fully-tested M-16 rifle, the soldiers in Vietnam found themselves betrayed by the weapons manufacturers, and the Army bureaucracy that sent them weapons that failed. Agamemnon, the leader of the expedition, and all of his allies, risk their lives daily in battle just like all the other soldiers. Though Agamemnon is not particularly well-liked or respected, his presence on the field shows his personal courage. In the case of the soldiers in Vietnam, the top brass rarely saw the battlefield and never personally entered the battle; for many of the troops in the field, the chain of command was likely to stop at first lieutenant or captain, but the commanders of higher ranks were far away. And that distance made many soldiers learn to hate and despise those who sent them into harm’s way from safe positions, and who ordered them to follow Army procedures that looked fine on paper, but did not work in the field.
The soldiers of Troy, and the Greek soldiers that fought against them, all knew the members of their own group, and even knew many on the opposing side. In such a situation, the squads that Odysseus brought with him, stayed with him throughout the war, and returned home with him at the end of the war. There was a commonality of experience, which helped in the necessary regular debriefing and working through issues of anger and loss. When a soldier in Odysseus’ band died, the other soldiers would prepare the body for cremation, would weep at the side of the pyre, and would see the ashes encased in an urn for return to Ithaca. Such communal mourning allowed the emotions to work themselves out, and knowing that one had comrades who would so mourn you must have offered some comfort to the dying. The situation of troops in every war the US fought until Vietnam allowed for a similar bond to develop among the men, and for grief to be processed. In the Civil War, the army was grouped by state and local communities, whose fellows talked alike, who trained together at home, stayed together in war, and returned (whoever survived) as a band. The troops in Vietnam, though, consisted of people who didn’t train together, who had to learn to get along with each other when in Vietnam, and, who didn’t have a long time to get to know one another, because soldiers in combat situation were routinely rotated out after a year’s service. Some soldiers, and the non-coms and commissioned officers especially, might serve longer terms, but many of their fellows would be gone before a bond had developed. The idea of rotating troops out after a year was based on studies that suggested that much of the psychological damage of war would set in after a year of combat, but the real effect was to break up the cohesiveness of the unit, which made individual soldiers feel more alone, and more subject to misfortune. For they had to regularly train the new guy, who’d have to learn to get along with the unit he came into, and some of the people they relied on would be rotated out, so there was no way to count on their experience.
In addition, when soldiers were wounded or killed, they’d be evacuated to hospitals far from the action, and even shipped home immediately, so that any mourning that might take place, wasn’t allowed to happen. Besides, the advice that many would get when a close friend was hit or killed, was that they shouldn’t cry, but they should get even. And this message, constantly beat into their heads from fellow soldiers, from officers, even from chaplains, did not allow the mourning to take place, and so the psychic damage might induce the soldier to enter a berserker state. And because the people in charge were looking for a high kill ratio, they were more than willing to turn soldiers into killing machines.
Shay notes the factors that seem to contribute to a soldier entering the berserker state: a sense of betrayal by his commanders and those who make the equipment he relies, a particularly serious loss of a beloved comrade-in-arms, and a sense of a world turned upside down. In looking at the Iliad, Shay finds these factors in the case of Achilles: a sense of betrayal by Agamemnon, who takes the war prize given him by the army away (and thus belittles and humiliates him), the loss of his friend Patroclus, a fellow he grew up with, and whom Achilles looks on as an older brother. When these two things happen, Achilles feels that the world is gone awry. He the “best of the Achaeans” is humiliated by a lesser man, Agamemnon, and none of his fellow commanders spoke out, but let it happen. He withdraws from the fighting and does not care if his fellow Greeks live or die. But when Patroclus, his friend, dies at the hands of Hector, Achilles’ grief cannot be tamed, and he goes berserk, ready to rush into battle with no armor or weapons and begin killing. And when he is finally armored, he forgets everything except killing Trojans and going after Hector, whose corpse he treats shamefully, going against all conventions of the time. In effect, he becomes a monster.
In having the vets talk of their experiences as berserkers, Shay found that the trigger event was often the loss of the one person or few persons that the soldier in question had come to love. The awful morass of Vietnam intensified the feeling of loneliness in the soldiers – they couldn’t count on their commanders or support people to do their job; they couldn’t count on their equipment; the most they could count on was their squad, and often, within the squad there was one soldier or a couple who were seen as caregivers, who looked after their fellows like a mother hen. When that special person died, other soldiers would often go berserk, and were even encouraged in that feeling by their superiors, who saw such a pumped up warrior a great asset.
Unlike the situation in the Iliad, Shay notes there were some important differences between the Greek soldiers’ situation and that of the American troops in Vietnam. First of all, the Greeks and Trojans, though enemies, had not always been so, and could imagine friendship possible with the enemy. The ideal warrior, Diomedes, stops and chats with Glaucus, a Lycian warrior fighting for the Trojans. He recognizes him as one whose father had been a guest of his own father, Tydeus. He could not kill someone who was the descendent of a guest friend of his father. Instead, they break off fighting, and exchange armor. Such fraternizing with the enemy would not be looked kindly upon – only in the Civil War do we see that sort of concern of a soldier on one side for another (maybe his father, brother, or cousin) fighting on the other side. Twentieth century warfare, however, has made it worse, for it has become commonplace to view the enemy soldier as something less than human, a ravening beast, or a horde of insects that have to be exterminated. Such a devaluing of the enemy results in a disposition to be cavalier towards the opposing side, and to kill women and children, who are not part of the fight. And there was such devaluation happening on the North Vietnam side too. It makes it much easier for a soldier to go berserk. Achilles is seen as an aberration, not the norm, but in Vietnam, there were thousands who underwent the transformation from fairly well-balanced and caring person to a murderous animal on the prowl.
Second, the view of the divine made it possible for Greeks and Trojans to take some hope of divine assistance, where the American belief in a single, and omnipotent, God makes that impossible. If the fighting goes badly, or a Greek soldier senses that Apollo or Aphrodite is helping the Trojans, they can take some comfort that Hera or Athena might help them. When American troops, especially Catholics, went to Vietnam, they believed that they were helping a Catholic country against the godless communists. Cardinal Spellman, the Archbishop of NY throughout the war, was one of the biggest proponents of the war, and one of its biggest boosters. They went in, very idealistic, but the brutality of that war, and the senseless deaths, and the murdering of civilians in places like My Lai, made these young Christians begin to doubt the existence of God. If they were fighting for God, why did he seem to be so absent in those killing fields? They had no sense of some gods on their side, and some on the enemy’s side. And the sense that there was no God left many bitter and angry.
In addition, people like Patroclus, or Achilles, or Diomedes, who are all young men, would have had years of training as warriors. Olympic events, which included the javelin throw, and a race in full armor, were not only to train athletes, but to make good warriors. And that long training made them better able to withstand the traumas of war; besides, they had a world view that was not shaken by war, and a support group that was always there. These were absent for most Vietnam vets. Many were young men who were drafted, who got only a minimal amount of training, who did not share a bond with many of their fellow soldiers (racism was a big problem in many units in Vietnam), and their whole world view was turned upside down. War is traumatic, but without some means of healing or mitigating that trauma, its effects are felt all the deeper, and longer. And so, even today, many Vietnam vets cannot get past their experience in Vietnam. It isolates them from their fellow citizens, whom they feel cannot appreciate what they underwent in the jungles of Southeast Asia. Many are still on edge whenever anniversaries of the war or particular battles roll around. And some never recover.
Shay’s point in writing the book was to reach out to those who might be familiar with Homer’s narrative, and by comparing the situation of Homer’s heroes and our own, we might come to be able to see the Vietnam veterans, who returned to a hostile country, and who remain invisible to many today. As a trained listener, he suggests that, more than anything else, the soldiers need to have a sense that they are being heard, that they are not invisible to their fellow citizens. The stories that the vets have to tell are tough, and may be too tough for many to hear; we’d rather deny it, or think they are exaggerating, or that they are being too hard on themselves. Narrative in the case of the Iliad shows the disintegration of character, but also allows Achilles to come back from the brink somewhat, when he has a face-to-face meeting with Priam and gives up Hector’s body for burial. Narrative gives some closure and some piece. Our vets need some way to get that story told, to get it out there so that it can be dealt with. Shay is quite frank in saying that none of the sufferers from PTSD will ever become normal, ever become who they were before they went to war. They’ll always be damaged goods. There is a chance, though, that they can come to terms with their situation and live productive lives.
Ultimately, Shay feels that war itself, because of its nature, will always be destructive of the human heart and soul, but that if the government and armed forces can think of the enemy with some degree of respect, and treat the soldiers fighting for the U.S. with respect and care, it is possible that we can lessen the number of PTSD disorders and lessen the severity of those cases there are.
I found the book an amazing effort. In using the Iliad, Shay has found a way to make the soldiers who fought in Vietnam visible to the reader. Using his own experience, he gives a personal and richer reading of the Iliad than one would get from any classical scholar, removed as he is from the vagaries of war, and who is likely, even today, to view war idealistically. In doing so, he makes our experience of the Iliad, and any future rereading of the poem, richer by extension, for he awakens in us a greater sense of the tragedy of Achilles, who loses his humanity on those far off plains of Ilium.