Editorial by Lewis Manalo
NEW YORK: As a sapper in the 82nd Airborne Division I took part in combat missions in Eastern Afghanistan during deployments in 2002 and 2003. A sapper’s main role on missions was to trek along in support of the infantry, sweeping for land mines and blowing up weapons caches and unexploded ordinance. Other times, we participated in village searches and took suspected Taliban and al-Qaeda members into custody. For the bulk of this time, I was based out of remote forward operating bases that didn’t have running water, much less Internet or phones.
Those years are behind me, and I now work as a buyer for Idlewild Books in Manhattan. It’s an easier life, but especially when I sift through the new modern literature from Europe, I can’t help empathizing with poet Karl Shapiro’s lines: “Now when I drive behind a Diesel-stinking bus / On the way to the university to teach / Stevens and Pound and Mallarmé / I am homesick for war.”
More than a few books about the war in Afghanistan have come out since I’ve been a buyer, including Lone Survivor by Marcus Luttrell, a Navy SEAL, and Where Men Win Glory, a book about Pat Tillman by John Krakauer, but none of those books have captured the sentiment for me as well as those lines by Karl Shapiro have. And none of them have been more offensive than the new book by Sebastian Junger.
Between June 2007 and June 2008 Sebastian Junger and photojournalist Tim Hetherington took five trips to the Korengal Valley in Afghanistan where they embedded with an infantry unit from the 173rd Airborne. Their longest trip lasted a mere month. That Junger titled his book about the experience War, as if the slim and hastily-written tome could embody the totality of such a subject, gives the first hint of Junger’s baffling naiveté.
Sebastian Junger’s War purports to depict war “as soldiers really live it,” what it feels like, and why humans wage it. From my point of the view, and inevitably the point of view of thousands of other combat veterans, Junger’s portrayal of soldiers is superficial and unsophisticated. It endorses all the detrimental stereotypes that make life in the civilian world harder for soldiers and veterans. The book’s depictions of battle have a jingoistic thrill, and any recruiter would do well to hand out those sections of Junger’s book at the local high school. Furthermore, many of the psychological studies and the statistical data that Junger uses to segue between episodes of battle are completely misplaced and have no application to what he’s reporting outside of the support of his stereotypes.
Junger’s attitude towards soldiers is that of a condescending fan. An attitude shared by most civilians who don’t have a soldier in their lives, the mindset allows a person to voice support for his or her country’s troops and simultaneously sound their lack of support for America’s recent wars. Early in the book Junger asserts that the “moral basis of the war doesn’t seem to interest soldiers” and that they really don’t care about “its long-term success or failure.” He likens a soldier’s concern with who wins the war to a farmhand’s concern with the global economy, in that “they generally leave the big picture to others,” an assumption of willful ignorance that’s patronizing to both professions.
It’s easier for a person who does not support the war to support an ignorant soldier. But it’s a volunteer Army, and a twenty-year-old in the Army is just as politically conscious as any other twenty-year-old. Junger goes to great lengths to point out that these men signed up knowing that they would fight either in Iraq or in Afghanistan, yet he fails to see enlistment as a political act that conceivably has more of an impact than voting. He doesn’t seem to have read anything about Pat Tillman’s political views or read anything by Pat’s brother Kevin. And the very first chapter of Lone Survivor dedicates pages to outlining how politics affects a combat soldier’s day to day survival. The big picture doesn’t leave these men alone. Junger also ignores the existence of those very vocal groups of veterans who now protest the wars they once fought in. These men and women don’t leave the big picture to others.
Stereotypes, Fantasyland
Looking for the sob story, Junger gravitates to a junior enlisted man named O’Byrne, an alcoholic kid who was shot by his own father before he joined the Army. Stacking the deck pays off, and when O’Byrne returns to civilian life, he reacts like a poster boy for PTSD. That Junger “came to think of O’Byrne as a stand-in for the entire platoon” admits his prejudicial assumption that all combat veterans are traumatized. It’s as if O’Byrne’s issues aren’t O’Byrne’s. They’re supposed to belong to every combat soldier. (The Department of Veterans Affairs estimates that only 6 to 11% of veterans of the war in Afghanistan suffer from PTSD.)
Junger’s misconceptions seem to stem from the fact that he just doesn’t understand men. He spends most of his time with the junior enlisted men, kids in their twenties who have less experience in life and combat and who don’t have families, and Junger actually takes what these men say about their feelings at face value, a mistake that most women would never make. Unaccustomed to self-effacing modesty, Junger believes it when a man named Toves says he signed up for the Army because he was bored. Junger himself later contradicts that this could be possible when he endorses the notion that just enlisting is itself an act of bravery.
Junger’s worst mistake is when he takes O’Byrne at face value when the kid says that he’ll miss the adrenaline rush of combat. The signs of trauma that come afterwards prove that O’Byrne isn’t saying what he means. Most soldiers would never talk to a reporter who wasn’t female as much as O’Byrne talks to Junger. But Junger never sees the young man’s attention as a roundabout way of asking for help, a fact that is painfully clear to the reader. Even after he’s been discharged from the Army, O’Byrne asks for Junger’s attention, going so far as to tag along on interviews with other soldiers. Junger never gives a hint of understanding what O’Byrne wants from him.
Wrapped up in his solipsism, Junger also takes the soldiers seriously when they tell him to carry a weapon, and he thinks that they may actually expect him to shoot on the enemy when they show him and Hetherington how to operate the different weapons in the platoon. The men in Korengal were professionals. I never met a combat soldier who’d even want an Army secretary on the line with him, and those rear echelon soldiers train with their weapons regularly. It’s much more conceivable that the soldiers were making fun of Junger and Hetherington, mocking the fact that this pair thought themselves hard-asses for being in the ‘Stan, and these two journalists didn’t realize they were the butt of the joke. If you actually believe real grunts wanted Junger carrying a weapon around, you’re indulging in Junger’s same fantasy.
And what a fantasy it is. All the thrill of being in combat with none of the responsibility of knowing what to do. He endows the different engagements with the excitement and clarity of a Hollywood action film. The most stirring depictions of combat are those that Junger didn’t actually witness. His own point of view doesn’t cloud the clear facts of these events, and he’s able to detail the shots fired and the men killed with omniscience. As Junger paints them, these fights are where all those big words like “heroism” and “courage” and “sacrifice” come into play, where men achieve amazing things and where they die dramatic deaths. Over and over, Junger and the men he depicts rave about how exciting battle is. In Junger’s world, war is a glorious thing where everyone should want to be.
In the book the men are either fighting or they’re not, and with no real narrative thread holding his book together, Junger bridges the gaps in glamorous action with statistics and psychological studies about wars and men. These empirical facts are meant to elucidate universal truths about war, but Junger bends this data to fit the stereotypes that he believes in. His worse offenses to reason come in the third section of the book, entitled “Love.” Here Junger attempts to explain what motivates these men, what makes them “brave.” His conclusion, which is the same line of propaganda coming from Hollywood, is that soldiers do it for each other, that a man puts his life on the line out of love for the man next to him. Junger cites lot of studies and statistics from World War II, outlining the psychological landscape of the “combat fog” of an industrial battlefield, and he attempts to apply those findings to this contemporary war.
Even if you ignore the obvious differences between WWII and the war in Afghanistan, Junger ignores the findings of WWII “Army sociologists” unless they fit with his preconceived stereotype. The study Junger cites concludes that the primary motivator in combat was “ending the task,” but Junger dismisses this conclusion. For him “ending the task” didn’t mean victory for American soldiers in WWII, it didn’t mean defeating a totalitarian state that had invaded its neighbors. It meant “they could all go home” because for Junger even soldiers from WWII were uninterested in the “moral basis of the war,” nor did they care about “its long-term success or failure.” Junger only gives credence to what the study finds is the secondary motivator of combat, “solidarity with the group.” Solidarity with the group is that “Love” Junger’s talking about.
I don’t doubt many men fight harder because they care about each other, but none of them in Junger’s book knew one another when they enlisted. Soldiers in WWII often didn’t have time to get to know replacement troops before their next mission, much less learn their names. Furthermore, this dedication to the group, the “leave no man behind” attitude, is unique enough to American soldiers that our enemies often exploit it, effectively so in the Battle of Mogadishu. Just because it’s part of a modern American soldier’s indoctrination doesn’t make it a universal truth.
Bad Reporting, Worse Logic
There are few observations in Junger’s book that feel right to me, and they are so entwined in his muck of bad reporting and worse logic that I can’t endorse them. Furthermore, the fundamental aspects of a soldier’s life that Junger forgets are glaringly bad omissions. He fails to depict the chain of command. True, at an outpost in rural Afghanistan the rank of a squad’s members mean less and less, but other than a platoon beating down their new lieutenant (which is not as unique to Battle Company as Junger insists) and a junior enlisted man grumbling about an order, Junger can’t even depict the division between officers and enlisted men. The relationship is a codified class system that saturates every aspect of a soldier’s life and that most civilians cannot understand or relate to.
For example, the office politics of commissioned officers can and do get men killed. I once took part in a mission when over a hundred soldiers air assaulted into the Afghan mountains just so our battalion colonels could show the CIA that they could move that many men on a moment’s notice. Our lives were put at risk so a few officers could prove a point. But Junger can’t be bothered to understand this basic part of being a soldier. He’d rather tell you how many beers O’Byrne drank on leave or what masturbation jokes the men told during breakfast in Korengal.
Junger is fascinated with the gay jokes and the flatulence that fills the boredom between engagements, but he barely makes mention of the families, the wives, and girlfriends these men left at home. Not only are these people back home the only thing that these men think about, but these are the most important people in their lives. None of the women seem to have been interviewed about their husbands or boyfriends, no child about his father, no parent about his son. Junger just wants to see these boys kill and get shot at. Combat is a spectacle in Junger’s world, and he’s got front row seats.
That Junger comes so close to noticing these fundamentals -– the chain of command, the soldier’s families –- but still manages to miss them, speaks volumes about how narrow-minded his prejudices make him. Even if we forgive him missing these basic details, Junger never even attempts to broadly define what war is or to mention the definitions of his predecessors such as Clauswitz or John Keegan. If this book is supposed to show us how soldiers live war and why they wage it, it might help if he defined the thing.
Lone Survivor attempts to tell war like it is (with a politically conservative bent). Where Men Win Glory tries to tell one man’s story. Junger’s just there for a cheap thrill. He tells one soldier he didn’t join up because he was married (which didn’t stop Pat Tillman). Yet Junger insists on his solidarity with the soldiers, in sharing their risk as “a power and logic to the group over[rides] everyone’s personal concerns.” That “Love” again. But Junger’s presence often puts the group at risk, like when he takes an assistant gunner’s spot on a helicopter, or when during an IED strike he becomes just another peckerwood to look after.
If Junger had gone to France for five months, spent all his time with a handful of twenty-year-olds, learned a few phrases, and then come home to write the book France: As the French Really Live It, no one would call it journalism. Such a short visit to a country spent with such a narrow segment of the population could give you little more than a vague misunderstanding of a culture. But because Junger’s a tourist in a place where less of us are willing to go, we’re supposed to take him seriously in defiance of all common sense.
You don’t have to be a former citizen to see that Sebastian Junger, War Tourist, has war wrong in a way that’s offensive to soldiers and that will encourage their discrimination in civilian life. In the face of tragedy on the battlefield and back on the home front, he willfully glorifies combat. He can’t even apply statistics without bias.
In an interview Karl Shapiro likened the veteran’s experience to a tattoo or a scar, a memory that’s practically physical. Just as he attempts to show off his own gaudy imitation of that tattoo, Sebastian Junger would have those who don’t bear the mark accept it as a badge of shame on people other than himself.
War by Sebastian Junger will be published on Tuesday, May 11, by Twelve.
Lewis Manalo was honorably discharged from the Army in 2004 as a sergeant. He now works as the book buyer for Idlewild Books in Manhattan. You can email him directly here.
DISCUSS: Did Sebastian Junger go too far in calling his book War?
45 Comments
“. . . has war wrong in a way that’s offensive to soldiers and that will encourage their discrimination in civilian life.” What war novel doesn’t? These books aren’t ewritten for “internal use”; civilians are buying them, reading them, finding what was perhaps painful for the soldier titillating entertainment. Once you sift through the tedium of this review, you find Unger’s greatest “crime” is being a writer, and producing a war narrative more cogent and compelling than a former solder who fantasizes about writing about his experiences (and, thanks to our collective desire to venerate those with titillating power, i.e., selling power, a fantasy often indulged by publishers), and certainly more than the reviewer might ever be able to pull off, no matter the extent of his denigration. Complaining makes you look uninformed and childishly jealous. Stick with selling books and reminiscing your combat days. Leave the writing to the writers.
according to comments by “bob”, who doesn’t even mention having read the book, no one who is not a filmmaker should ever review a film, no one who is not an artist should ever critique art, no one who is not a politican should ever criticize one, etc.
disagree with a review on its merits or arguments. to challenge the right of a reviewer to even review something (“leave the writing to the writers”) is absurd. reviewing is not “complaining” and to assume that a reviewer is “childly jealous” of the writer displays a maturity and sophistication on the level of people who say “love it or leave it” or “you’re with us or you’re against us” in response to critiques of foreign policy.
I think this is a fascinating review which cogently presents the question of the purpose of books on war. Sure, there are many different viewpoints about war, and all may be validly presented (even the ones that offend the soldiers who fight the wars). But, it seems to me that the crux of the review is that Junger is asserting authority which he does not possess by virtue of being a mere war tourist – a legitimate critique.
“craig,” I fear you’ve misunderstood me, though you inadvertently build on my point rather nicely. Sure, we read movie reviews by people who don’t make movies. Most of the reviews could be said to be delivered to us by such people. The reason why (aside from filmmakers being, largely, busy with their own work) is that moviegoers aren’t interested in filmic theory or analyses of technique; they want to hear what an average, uninformed movie goer (a person who resembles them) thinks, responds to, etc. I suppose it’s for a similar reason we’re getting this review. Writers writing about books is fine for the NYTBR and its followers, but readers of Publishing Perspectives (such as they are) might want to hear from average Joe Platoon.
But again, that wasn’t what concerned me.
I was suggesting that it’s absurd to fault Unger’s narrative on the basis that Unger was a civilian–a writer, to be precise–and not a combatant. To say that the storytelling is less compelling, possessing less verisimilitude, and, moreover, somehow less worthy of reading simply because Unger “wasn’t there,” “didn’t experience firsthand,” etc. is a fallacious, third-grade sort of logic. A logic made popular–and perhaps acceptable–thanks to Jerry Springer, Oprah, Maury, and the rest, but problematic nevertheless. Perhaps in the general inarticulate, not terribly trenchant population it’s true, that one would need to have “been there” in order to be able to satisfactorily imagine the situation in question and be, at least on the face of it, trusted to convey that situation in prose, but ironically, the opposite is true in writing. Though clearly patients on the psych ward are “closer” to mental illness than their psychiatrists, I think we’d all agree that the latter could describe and give perspective to the nuances of the disease more capably, more lucidly, and more relevantly than the latter. Moreover, “Lewis Manalo” isn’t a writer, he’s a bookseller–we could extrapolate a reader with more than average perspective into matters of literature, though that’s probably a generous reach–but the mere virtue of his having been a soldier doesn’t make him–much to his poorly-concealed chagrin–qualified to write about war, or, as evidenced here, about books about war. His shortcomings are no doubt frustrating, but shouldn’t be taken out on professional and successful writer Unger’s book. They should be discussed with his therapist.
@bob: the problem with your argument, aside from its unpleasant self-righteous tone, is that if Manalo’s only problem with Junger were that he is a writer rather than a soldier, he would find Jon Krakauer’s book WHERE MEN WIN GLORY just as objectionable. You can see above this is not the case.
i don’t see how i could have inadvertently built on your point, bob, because you don’t have one except that anyone who writes something you don’t like must be frustrated and jealous and unqualified. you haven’t made a single point based on the arguments or merits of the review (except to misread it as saying the problem with the book is that it wasn’t written by a soldier, which is not what he seems to be saying). all you can do is make personal attacks against someone you don’t even know — the reviewer needs a therapist, is jealous, full of shortcomings, etc — rather than engage with the review based on its arguments.
i haven’t read the book yet. (doesn’t it come out next week?) once i do, it’s very possible i would disagree with parts (or even all) of the review. but i don’t see how someone who reads and recommends books for a living, in addition to having personal experience with the topic being written about, is disqualified from being a reviewer. books on economics are often reviewed by economists, books about technological change are often reviewed by people who work in the tech industry, etc. and there are plenty of very well-respected literary journals and magazines that feature reviews by booksellers and other people who are not what you might allow to be considered A Writer (unless, perhaps, you liked what they wrote).
so re-read the review and the book it discusses and if you disagree or have something to add about the book and not just personal venting, by all means share it with us.
craig, you illustrated my point by citing that i didn’t read the book as one of the flaws in my argument. it doesn’t matter whether or not i’ve read the book. and i never said anything about this having to do with what i “like” or “don’t like.” i object to the review. and to the reviewer. i don’t care what a reviewer does for a living, but i expect him to understand the basic principles of narrative and have an appreciation for craft (i wouldn’t expect him to understand craft, but at the very least he allow that it does exist and that he doesn’t understand it). saying i have no point because i haven’t read the book sounds very similar to “you don’t know war unless you fought it.” it sounds like something a third-grader might come up with.
booksellers don’t read and recommend books for a living. they sell books for a living (so to speak) and fancy themselves book reviewers when people dim enough to believe that they are book reviewers give them an opportunity to. perhaps because of this accommodation, sometimes they’re able to further delude themselves into believing they really do have a contribution to make (aside from ringing up sales at the cash register), but it never goes very far beyond delusion. they’re salespeople. and that’s pretty much it.
and we’re not talking about “books on economics.” we’re talking about a personal narrative. personal narratives should be reviewed by writers of narrative, or readers capable of making informed assessments. not economists. not disgruntled vets.
so re-read what i’ve said above and try to learn something. and maybe in doing so you might be able to improve your critical thinking skills such that you’ll be able to go back to the review and re-read it (or, to put it in a cliche you’ll have an easier time with, “read between the lines”) and see Manalo for what he is.
@ bob: When you write that “booksellers don’t read and recommend books for a living” you couldn’t be more wrong. Booksellers do NOTHING BUT read and recommend books for a living. They have a genuine financial interest in doing so in order to satisfy and keep their customers coming back for more.
Rather than debating whether or not Lewis has the credibility or credentials to review a book, feel free to read the book first and then come back and refute his criticisms point-by-point if you disagree.
Ed, I think Lewis would love to have someone like you standing next to him at a party. You’re precisely the kind of person to whom I referred, those who lead salespeople to believe they’re more valuable, really misunderstood cultural critics and philosophers (never mind the cash registers behind which they stand!). Again, I’m not arguing for or against anything in the book. I don’t need to read it. Frankly, war narratives bore me. Soldiers bore me. I’d rather read the intriguing transcripts of Lewis’s sessions with his therapist.
I think Bob is on to something. Just now noticing Lewis’s sensitivity to Unger’s unabashed and honest depiction of the staunchy closeted and reviled but certainly pronounced homoeroticism in the army–obviously struck a nerve. Bob’s comments also make me read Lewis’s “honorable discharge” with earned skepticism. I’m fairly sure honorable leaves are granted to the mentally ill, mostly to keep them quiet about their traumas incurred in the line of duty once outside. Hmmmm…curious. At the very least, Lewis is a completely untrustworthy reviewer. I’ll grant him an “honorable discharge” from future critical “service.”
I was suggesting that it’s absurd to fault Unger’s narrative on the basis that Unger was a civilian–a writer, to be precise–and not a combatant. To say that the storytelling is less compelling, possessing less verisimilitude, and, moreover, somehow less worthy of reading simply because Unger “wasn’t there,” “didn’t experience firsthand,” etc. is a fallacious, third-grade sort of logic. A logic made popular–and perhaps acceptable–thanks to Jerry Springer, Oprah, Maury, and the rest, but problematic nevertheless. Perhaps in the general inarticulate, not terribly trenchant population it’s true, that one would need to have “been there” in order to be able to satisfactorily imagine the situation in question and be, at least on the face of it, trusted to convey that situation in prose, but ironically, the opposite is true in writing. Though clearly patients on the psych ward are “closer” to mental illness than their psychiatrists, I think we’d all agree that the latter could describe and give perspective to the nuances of the disease more capably, more lucidly, and more relevantly than the latter. Moreover, “Lewis Manalo” isn’t a writer, he’s a bookseller–we could extrapolate a reader with more than average perspective into matters of literature, though that’s probably a generous reach–but the mere virtue of his having been a soldier doesn’t make him–much to his poorly-concealed chagrin–qualified to write about war, or, as evidenced here, about books about war. His shortcomings are no doubt frustrating, but shouldn’t be taken out on professional and successful writer Unger’s book. They should be discussed with his therapist.
+1
I would like to thank everyone for the attention they’ve given my review. I’m sorry that several people who did not give the piece a close reading jumped to several incorrect conclusions.
To those people who chose to be insulting for their own edification, I add that I’m also of Asian descent, in case you wish to add racist comments that will further undermine the last vestige of your credibility.
I heard Junger talking on NPR this morning and was interested in perhaps reading his book since my son was a sapper attached to the 10th Mtn. 3BCT and at Korengal much of his time over there.
I am so thankful for this review.
While my son does have some disability from his deployment, he came from a stable environment and returned to the same. He never, never went near any of the tourists over there. He neither needed nor wanted the attention. I am sure that he would share your contempt of the work—in fact I sometimes heard his voice in you comments.
Thank you for saving me from an unpleasant waste of my time, money and emotional energy.
Thanks for censoring me. So much for an open exchange of “perspectives.”
Excellent review solid, logical, and through. I will definitely avoid that book in the future.
Do you have any books that you would recommend?
@bob
>”personal narratives should be reviewed by writers of narrative, or readers capable of making informed assessments.”
I believe he has already demonstrated his ability to make informed assessments.
You are resorting to personal attacks, going off tangent and making absolutely no sense at all.
>”I was suggesting that it’s absurd to fault Unger’s narrative on the basis that Unger was a civilian–a writer, to be precise–and not a combatant.”
You can’t talk about what you don’t know about. The best way to learn is through experience.
If a writers lacks experience and perspective on any given subject it would be absurd to expect any sort of cognisant thought on said subject.
>”I’d rather read the intriguing transcripts of Lewis’s sessions with his therapist.”
Sounds like you have problems bud.
“You can’t talk about what you don’t know about. The best way to learn is through experience.”
Perhaps, but is experience the only way to know something? And is experiencing something a guarantee of understanding? Has anybody ever experienced something but still unable to understand it? Conversely, has anyone ever understood something without having experienced it? Think about it. I had the same conversation with my nine-year-old the other afternoon. It was confusing at first, but eventually he came around. That means there’s hope for Lewis! And for Theo!
“If a writers lacks experience and perspective on any given subject it would be absurd to expect any sort of cognisant thought on said subject.”
I guess Tolstoy should never have written Anna Karenina, since his gender precluded him from “experience,” right?
Bob’s opinion should be ignored because he doesnt have a literature degree and therefore has NO basis to voice an opinion on writing of ANY sort- he himself is not a writer, much less a trained critic, nor war vet nor even merely an amateur artist. His narcissism is evident in how he derails the entire discussion here without having read the book or even KNOWING THE AUTHORS NAME: it is JUNGER, not UNGER. Get him treatment.
As one who has been to war zones, written on them, comes from a military family, does have a writing/artist background, I say (and let me affect some of Bob’s sanctimonious indignation), this is a great review.
But the reivew pricks the propaganda cliches of Junger that he and the other MSM constantly spew to keep war going, and that is so very profitable to them. Junger’s book is another ad in a monotonous line of “war on terror” glory infomercials (in our latest war rendition) that is embraced by the culture so that others can do the dirty work and the killing. Yet those whose taxes underwrite it all can feel oh so smug and good about it. The sentimental manipulations are just that- manipulation.
Lewis’s insights are very on mark:
“He doesn’t seem to have read anything about Pat Tillman’s political views or read anything by Pat’s brother Kevin. And the very first chapter of Lone Survivor dedicates pages to outlining how politics affects a combat soldier’s day to day survival. The big picture doesn’t leave these men alone. Junger also ignores the existence of those very vocal groups of veterans who now protest the wars they once fought in. These men and women don’t leave the big picture to others.”
“As Junger paints them, these fights are where all those big words like “heroism” and “courage” and “sacrifice” come into play, where men achieve amazing things and where they die dramatic deaths. Over and over, Junger and the men he depicts rave about how exciting battle is. In Junger’s world, war is a glorious thing where everyone should want to be.”
Another problem is- I also know Junger. His description is decent, but his real value is to the marketers of war. I challenged Junger years ago on the meaning of cowardice and real courage- guess this platitude filled book is the answer.
Junger’s books will always VERY safely and cravenly support the status quo, which will also bring in the film deals, MSM exposure and million $$ benefits of towing the line. No hard, controversial political issues will ever grace his pages or put a break on his commercial career.
“Junger’s just there for a cheap thrill. He tells one soldier he didn’t join up because he was married (which didn’t stop Pat Tillman).”
-Junger didnt marry until well into his 40′s and could have enlisted long ago if he was “a real patriot”. Him now hiding behind a wife’s apron strings is exactly what I expected him to do. Never mind, as Lewis says, that many soldiers ARE married w/ kids etc.
“Combat is a spectacle in Junger’s world, and he’s got front row seats.
That Junger comes so close to noticing these fundamentals -– the chain of command, the soldier’s families –- but still manages to miss them, speaks volumes about how narrow-minded his prejudices make him.”
The book’s a typical MSM, lightweight, war propaganda reinforcing vehicle, and Lewis- the real hero- was there, pulls no bull, and isnt making a mint out of having nothing to say like Junger.
Lewis says it best:
“His conclusion, which is the same line of propaganda coming from Hollywood, is that soldiers do it for each other, that a man puts his life on the line out of love for the man next to him.”
Get ready for the Hollywood sequel folks, its surely coming.
Rasta, typos aside, I’ve said before my issues are not with the text, so reading the book isn’t the issue. That said, I’m not quite sure what *your* issue is with my issues, as your response is incoherent. Beyond the “Junger wasn’t there, or he was there, but not paid by the government to be there, so he can’t write about war, and I’m a soldier, so that makes me a good judge of storytelling” fallacious argument that seems to be popular around here, what can you say–given your extensive background in literature and critical theory–about Lewis’s deeply flawed expectations of a narrative?
You cant argue my point so you attack my typing? Your arrogance and snide tone aside, re-reading your initial post only reinforces my point. You have nothing relevant, informed or useful to say. I requote your own garbage below to reiterate.
“Once you sift through the tedium of this review, you find Unger’s greatest “crime” is being a writer, and producing a war narrative more cogent and compelling than a former solder who fantasizes about writing about his experiences (and, thanks to our collective desire to venerate those with titillating power, i.e., selling power, a fantasy often indulged by publishers), and certainly more than the reviewer might ever be able to pull off, no matter the extent of his denigration. Complaining makes you look uninformed and childishly jealous. Stick with selling books and reminiscing your combat days. Leave the writing to the writers.
War Tourists always find a ready audience in War Voyeurs like yourself. Until they themselves are drafted to serve in the firing zone. Then no-balls cowards like yourself run whining for the hills or the easiest deferment.
I meant leaving my Unger-Junger typo aside, since mentioning it is one of the most irrelevant things anyone has brought to the table so far in an attempt to discredit me without even responding to a single specific point I made (and merely quoting me, except in the case where the commenter agreed with me, does not constitute responding to me).
As for this voyeurs thing, I’ll again say that I’m not terribly interested in war or soldiers or war tourism (such as it is, since I think that anybody engaged in battle is no more or less of a tourist than anyone else, since a government paycheck and sanction are pretty much the only distinguishing characteristics from one to the other). Fortunately I would never allow myself to be “drafted to serve in the firing zone,” so I won’t have to “defer.” I suspect I’m too old, and I’d also sooner commit a crime and go to jail or flee to Canada than comply. But this isn’t about me or my pacifism, which I’m pretty sure has nothing to do with any of the mistakes Lewis has made in evaluating this book using a third grader’s logic and analytic capabilities. It seems like you’re doing the exact things he did wrong, just by using me as the text instead of the narrative, ignoring the real issues to blindly and blithely defend something that’s flawed. Perhaps that’s the truest definition of a coward anybody’s yet put forth.
Excellent review.
“And what a fantasy it is.”
Thank you, Lewis, for an informed review of “War”. Having spent five tours in Iraq I can understand the difference between a war tourist and a war journalist. As a historian I tend to stay away from literature written about the current conflicts, both in Afghanistan and Iraq, because they are all written with a horrible bias, one which shows on both sides of the argument depending on the author one chooses to read. The biggest defect you point out in Junger’s work is his attachment to the junior enlisted, his ignorance and lack of coverage of the sennior people in the conflict. I’m assuming not just the chain of command, but the middle echelon of the NCO support channel as well.
Having said that – Bob, you’re a douche. I can’t even pretend to hide my contempt of you and everything you stand for behind some kind of eloquent prose or twenty five cent words. You’re a coward, pure and simple. I’m glad you’re too old to be drafted, or that you’d rather go to jail or Canada than serve, because neither I, nor any of my colleagues past and present, would have time for you. I know people like you, Bob, and you while I, being a soldier, may bore you, you nauseate me and are worth nothing more than my disdain.
Wilfred Owen, both a writer and a soldier, so I’m sure you’re bored already, had a very anti-war view in his poetry and did not, as the Victorian poets before him, paint some bold and noble picture of war, sums you up best. In his “Apologia Pro Poemate Meo” he writes “These men are worth your tears/You are not worth their merriment”. In short, Bob, you’re a douche.
What a terrific review, Lewis. Although I myself have not been to Afghanistan either, I completely agree with your thoughts on Mr. Junger’s writing.
There are quite a few good books out on the war, both in the US and UK. Although Mr. Junger knows how to write, I often think this is more of an ego trip for himself than a true book about the men doing the fighting.
All best,
André
I read Junger’s book and then saw him at our local independent bookstore to see what he had to say. Actually, I was more interested in seeing if what he had to say reinforced my reaction to his book. I appreciated the book overall because he is a competent writer and drew me into the narrative quite well. But, I felt a nagging distrust of Junger. I didn’t question his motivation for writing the book (aren’t we all driven by more than one?), nor did I question his “good intentions.” What nagged me was that I couldn’t rid my mind of thinking him emotionally immature, or at least that his emotional intelligence can use a bit of educating. Seeing him at the bookstore confirmed this for me. I’m no pundit, I’m no mental health practitioner, but if I stand by my criticism of his lack of emotional maturity, I can better understand his claims about the motivations of men during wartime. So I think that he did the best he could with what he has and what he is. I sense that 46 he is a lot like I was when I was a much younger man. But, by the time I was 46 (I’m 62 now), I had grown beyond the emotional place where Junger seems to be living. One man’s opinion.
This bob fellow is quite a character and meanspirited dandy. Sure wish I could unread his rotten words. Time for long shower.
Thanks for this review Lewis. I read this book a couple of weeks ago and have since felt that something was missing. Your review clarified what it was.
E
Seek to understand before seeking to be understood.
To Bob….
there are issues with so much of what you have written I hardly know where to begin.
But I will attempt to show why you’re just plain ridiculous on your own terms.
I’ll go through your claims and show how you’re plain wrong and incapable of making reasoned argument. You’re attempts are to insult anyone ( I will be next) who disagrees with you, yet without any real explanation or defense for what you write. So here goes:
You’re first comment is that the reviewre criticizes junger for “being a writer, and producing a war narrative more cogent and compelling than a former solder who fantasizes about writing”
First…nowhere is it stated explicitly NOR imlpicitly that the reviewer was punishing the author for being a writer. The reviewers tone is not condescending towards the authors background nor his style of writing nor whom he is writing for ( a generalized audience).
Unfortunately, you confuse the reveiwers issues with the stereotypes and oversimplification of the issues related to war as a grand assault on writers and Junger. That is not the case.
The reviewer has a legitimate concern here: war books and movies have been overly simplistic for time and time again…indeed they have been written with the intent of making war exciting in someway( how else to sell?) but in doing so need to exclude what maybe boring, potentially uninteresting and mundane or avoid discussing topics that may not be interesting/appealing to a wide audience, as a means to engage the reader. Indeed, these same “mundane” topics may be topics that the reviewer considers important to elucidate what soldiers go through-so that us, the laypeople-can have a better appreciation for what war is, and what soldiers go through. Yet, with each new book that seems to hash out the same jingoistic and hollywoodesque tropes it would be increasingly difficult to get this idea across-hence the reviewers anger.
The reviewer is attempting to show that this simplicity in Jungers work is the basis for his scathing criticism. He is not saying that you need to have been a soldier to have to right to talk about war (you created this simplification of the reviewers viewpoint so you could have the opportunity to insult him, in fact it seems to me it is a foundation for your assault). Indeed, the reviewer seems to be saying that the writer has a real responsibility because of his high profile to inform the readers with the real deal. To let the reader really know what goes on in war instead of keeping it as entertaining as possible.
Again, you claim he is “complaining” and comes across “jealous” really? A reviewer who is scathing of another individuals work because he finds the persons efforts to be shortcoming or poor in quality IS NOT complaining. Perhaps you should reread the definition of complain.
If your defense is that I am naïve and should see this article for what it is that the scathing article is merely a cloak for the reviewer’s frustrations for his own shortcomings, then unfortunately you are the one who is naïve. It is patently obvious to almost everyone who reads what you write that you are making gross generalizations here. You are assuming that this soldier is upset because of his economic status and wishes he could aspire to Junger’s supposed literary “greatness” merely because the reviewer happens to have a job in the literary world. That is the true “childishness”. You rationalize this and yet you fail to see that the reviewer is just upset that Junger has not done a more thorough and appropriate job to depict soldiers outside of their stereotypes or the fact that he may gloss over important aspects of a soldiers life-families etc.
what this shows is that you have your own agenda when it comes to objectively assessing what the reviewer has to say.
I read and reviewed Junger’s book, War, and disagree with nearly every comment in this review. The worst thing about Junger’s book was that the names of all the soldiers–who is who–is a bit confusing in parts. On a personal level, reading this book made me have a great deal more empathy and respect for what soldiers in Afghanistan are doing.
Junger also got the material by actually living with the soldiers over a period of 15 months. For that reason, it would be impossible to recreate it.
I think War will become a classic.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions… I think the criticism…. is in military terms ” sand in the clit” Junger gave the reader/viewer a snapshot about a year in a valley…. this is not to be some lazzie faire soul searching … feel good story. All the pseudo-Intellectual whining is merely reflective of a true lack of understanding of OEF. It’s basically a knife fight. its ugly, nasty…. and at the time its about survival. The validity of the opinions of a person who one fought there when it was a very different war needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Also the sentimentality of the soldiers lives and family. Junger subtly brings it home.. you really don’t have time for it. You have a mission and you want to survive.
I am an OEF VI Veteran, I was a NCO/paratrooper in the 173rd I was in an infantry battalion. My experience is very similar to what is portrayed in the book just taken down a notch or two.
In reading this review I was starting to feel very uncomfortable with it but couldn’t put my finger down on what was wrong. Then it hit me. Mr. Manalo seems to fault Mr. Junger for his point of view. This, of itself, is not a bad thing, but when written as a literary review it most certainly is. There are many points where Mr. Manalo seems to let his strong disagreement with Mr. Junger color his review.
1. Mr. Manalo says the psychological studies in the book have no merit and agree with Mr. Junger’s point of view. Well, duh… The author had an opinion on what he saw and sought the studies that agreed with him. Not very unusual.
2. Mr. Manalo purports that enlistment supports a political view. No, I really don’t think so. There are thousands of different reasons to enlist and many have no political leaning whatsoever. Many enlist in order to escape their reality and have a better, or simply different, life
3. Mr. Manalo objects to Mr. Junger allowing the soldiers to say they are leaving the big picture to others – well, I can relate to the soldiers. After a few years surviving a situation you really have no inclination to talk about it or how it came to be.
4. The comment about Mr. Junger looking for a sob story – really just nasty. Nasty and low.
5. The reviewer objects the author living a fantasy. What a fantasy it is – the reporters risked their lives in a very real way without, as Mr. Manalo says say, knowing what to do. This doesn’t look like a joy ride – it looks like a very difficult job. As difficult, as challenging and as dangerous as the one the soldiers and, at one time, Mr. Manalo himself did.
6. The reviewer complains the author is only writing of battles – well, this seems his prerogative, to decide what kind of a book he wanted to write. Also, he was probably hard at work writing and editing during the soldiers’ rest periods.
7. Of course the soldiers are uninterested in the moral basis of the war because the moral basis itself is so muddied. In WWII you knew what you were fighting for. Very clear cut, defeat the Nazis and it’s done. Here there’s no such thing as a tangible enemy and no end in sight. So you don’t think about it.
Oh, and again, the author can only write about what he perceives and if the men fighting for each other is what he saw and deduced, let him.
The reviewer seems to have an issue with the author’s viewpoint which is definitively not anything you can critique in a book review. You are not allowed to say: “This isn’t right because I didn’t see it this way when I lived it!” You are only allowed to say this is his perspective and I don’t agree with it.
To harp on mr. Junger’s avoidance of the fundamentals – the chain of command and the family is simply incredible. That was simply not the kind of book he wanted to make and I agree – the themes have been beaten into ground so many times that, if the author doesn’t deem it necessary, he doesn’t have to include them.
In conclusion: yes, Sebastian Junger is a War Tourist and so what? He gave us a book from a tourist’s viewpoint and, until a gifted author with an Army background comes forth and writes of his Afgan experience, he’s the best we have.
Deal with it.
This review ticks me off. The impression I’m given is of sour grapes on the part of the reviewer more than anything else.
Junger’s observation that the “moral basis of the war doesn’t seem to interest soldiers” is hardly new, and Manalo may be the exception to the rule but those fighting a war rarely invoke the morality of their cause. They’re there to do a job which they were trained for, and to a certain degree they indeed do simply trust their superiors that the reasons for their making the sacrifices expected of them are right and good. On the ground, in the crap of events, they’re there for each other, for the guy next to them, and they’re working to survive. Morality and whether this is a “good or bad” war is hardly at the forefront or much of a glimmer on the brain of the guy in the shit. Manalo’s observation that these men didn’t know each other before they got to where they’re at – so what? They’re there together in the now, and have to depend on each other to live, if that’s not more important than “morality” than Manalo is living in a very different world.
Now this is a total croc:
” … and a twenty-year-old in the Army is just as politically conscious as any other twenty-year-old. Junger goes to great lengths to point out that these men signed up knowing that they would fight either in Iraq or in Afghanistan, yet he fails to see enlistment as a political act that conceivably has more of an impact than voting.”
The average 23-year old is politically clueless, period. Tell me that many of these men signed up for a regular paycheck, now that has some traction, especially in the midst of a kick-butt recession. It sure and hell wouldn’t be the first time men and women have put their lives on the line because of a need for a revenue stream to live with, and it’s far more glamorous than slinging coal or hamburgers. But signing up as a “political act”? Puhleeeeeeeeze … you mean to tell me all these kids, or even a significant majority are waving a flag with a specific political agenda when they sign up? What world does Manalo come from?
Doubtless Junger doesn’t get it all right, and he’s writing a book for a mass audience so likely he’s going to play keys that on the whole may be a little bit more melodramatic or self-serving than would make some comfortable. That said, on the whole it seems that the men he reports on are happy with the results of the book and movie (maybe Manalo would be happier had the book/movie been about him and his exploits?), and you have to give a guy some credit for getting out there in the shit to see what in fact is happening, but Manalo seems to take it more as an opportunity for exploitation than respect for trying to get the story right.
I am a 25 year old Army Officer who has deployed to Iraq for 15 months. First off, I want to say that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Both the article and the book are written from very different perspectives and should be seen that way. I read the book and found it to be a very captivating story and enjoyed it thoroughly. However, I can’t help but sharing some of the same concerns as Lewis. Although Lewis’ observations maybe accurate (from my foxhole) we cannot discredit Junger’s experiences. Who are we to tell him what he saw and how it made him feel?
All I can say after reading through all of the comments is that Bob is an ass.
The review was spot on in so many ways. Anyone who knows Junger or who knows about him knows that he is a dilletante
But a dilletante who knows what sells and what succeeds. And nothing matters in America like success.
Now if he’d written something original, instead of the feel sorry/sympathy for the perpetrators/troops as they are killing innocent men, women and children- THAT would be a book to read and a film to see.
How about taking this approach to some poverty-stricken Afghani families instead of the “terribly unfortunate” sons of the richest, mightiest military combine currently smashing on the planet? Cliche rubbish, all of it.
Better yet, lets have Junger investigate genuine, risky courage- MORAL courage- first hand, inside out, by taking a stand AGAINST the war powers? Up front, full on. Naming names, repudiating the relevant corporations -esp media- that makes so much $$$ off all these wars. Backed up by stats, studies, expose’ quotes that this time cut through the subtle war promotions that he and others churn out by leaving the REAL dangerous, commbustible powers and issues unsaid. We’ll see how oft-reviewed his war stories are on NBC when he outs GE’s role in war profiteering (GE owns NBC). You get the pix. Soon we’d see Seb boy back to scribbling as a starving ‘artist’ in obscurity.
Menalo is an egressious lifer who only cares about the mission. I am a veteran of Vietnam. A grunt is like a pawn in the game of chess. Guys like Menalo and McCristal have killed so many young boys just to complete a mission. You both will rot in Hell for what you did. Spec 5 J Farley 1967-1970
I’m listening to Junger right now on The Commonwealth Club. He’s just read from his book, declaring that young men need war because it’s the only place where you can get the feeling of putting your life on the line for others and really protect someone. What a bunch of bullshit. You can get the feeling of caring for others in many ways- that feeling doesn’t have to come for war, and it doesn’t justify the government-sanctioned taking of life. Thank you for this excellent review, Lewis.
This is a good review of the book
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/books/review/Filkins-t.html?_r=1
I am just reading this book and went looking for a review that might support my uncomfortable feeling about the writing. When I was a kid, my favorite movie was Platoon. I had no idea until later in my life that it was an anti-war film. I just thought it was cool and violent – I watched it as a child thinking how badass it would be to tie a scarf around my head and say things like “lock and load” when I played war in the neighborhood. Junger comes off a little like that – too proud of himself for using lingo like “grunts” and “hooch”, which may be perfectly ubiquitous in the service but sound disengenuous coming from a civilian. I was particularly turned off by his reaction to a dressing down from an officer about his press pass being concealed – he just shrugged and walked away, because “he had just come from the KOP”. Well, you’re lucky you didn’t get your ass kicked out of the country.
Thank you! I really looked forward to seeing the film and was incredibly disappointed – so shallow and superficial. What a lost opportunity! Good documentaries are unbiased and present the multi-dimensions of their subjects. The filmmakers know nothing about boys or men – and learned nothing from their experience. I’d love to get my hands on the raw footage and recut it myself.
To add… I won’t bother even looking at the book!
@ Marie.
I just read the book and am writing a critique on it myself. I do however disagree that the author of this review is wrong. I think the book is very much so worth reading and making your own assumptions about. If you do read it and then dont like it then that is a different story. Don’t let someone dictate to you what a good book is and isnt.
@Lewis Manalo. Sorry the book is named war. No, there is no biblical passage at the end that says there will be no information to follow the last chapter.
This critique is part of the Pentagon Public Affairs narrative, which is also a fantasy. Rear echelon soldiers are professionals who train on their weapons regularly. Nice fluff, but they never leave the base and they skew statistics like only 6-11% of vets (not a sample of combat vets, but all soldiers/sailors/marines who deployed) suffer PTSD.
The author made a few good points (how to identify warning signs of someone needing help), but overall he spouted the official narrative to rebutt his own lying eyes. In the end, the documentary vindicated the book.
12 Trackbacks
[...] The problem may start with the title, which is almost absurd in its presumption. Read theeditorial and let us know what you think in the [...]
[...] he’s going to give you the beginning and end on the subject. ”War Tourist,” at Publishing Perspectives: Sebastian Junger’s War purports to depict war “as soldiers really live it,” what it feels [...]
[...] an article on Publishing Perspectives, Manalo wrote: From my point of view, and inevitably the point of view of thousands of other combat [...]
[...] here’s a counter review on War that speaks very negatively of the book–I called it “delightfully scathing” in [...]
[...] War as referenced by David Carr today in the New York Times. you can find it by clicking here. GD Star Ratingloading…SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: "Looking for Lewis Manalo’s Critique of [...]
[...] Division, describes Junger as a “war tourist” in a scathing review of the book for Publishing Perspectives: [W]hat a fantasy it is. All the thrill of being in combat with none of the responsibility of [...]
[...] approach to storytelling. Lewis Manalo, who served combat tours in Afghanistan in 2002 and 2003, wrote a withering critique of Mr. Junger’s “War“ on the Publishing Perspectives Web site, calling his depiction of soldiers “superficial and [...]
[...] approach to storytelling. Lewis Manalo, who served combat tours in Afghanistan in 2002 and 2003, wrote a withering critique of Mr. Junger’s “War“ on the Publishing Perspectives Web site, calling his depiction of soldiers “superficial and [...]
[...] approach to storytelling. Lewis Manalo, who served combat tours in Afghanistan in 2002 and 2003, wrote a withering critique of Mr. Junger’s “War“ on the Publishing Perspectives Web site, calling his depiction of soldiers “superficial and [...]
[...] actually there for fifteen months as some news pieces have implied. According to Junger’s book War, both filmmakers took five trips to the Korengal, either together or separately. But neither [...]
[...] place” aggravates Lewis Manalo, who served combat tours in Afghanistan in 2002 and 2003. Manalo writes: “Junger’s portrayal of soldiers is superficial and unsophisticated…. Junger’s [...]
[...] are out there, including an Afghan war vet now working in the book biz, who calls the work “superficial and unsophisticated” as it “endorses all the detrimental stereotypes.” You can also stop by your [...]