No war is identical to another but having read Tim OBriens On the Rainy River and The Man I Killed; Gerrard Conlons In the Name of the Father and Cormiers novel After the First Death; three ideas or concepts seem given in any war.

motionless, agonising about what he had done. Kiowa his comrade told him to “Stop staring” and “Maybe you better lie down a minute” but Tim just stood there dazed, unmoving, searching for a reason for his actions. He could not find one.In “In the Name of the Father” petty thief Gerry Conlon is likewise negatively affected by war. He is given a life sentence for the London bombing and murder of five people. Despite being innocent, he is considered an easy “scapegoat” by the British authorities and the IRA. The IRA mentioned earlier he’s just a “hassle” to their plans and therefore have no problem with him being convicted. He was used as a scapegoat by the British authorities in a supposedly utilitarian way, in order to show the public the police had everything under control. However, being used as a scapegoat made Gerry feel as if he wanted to be the malicious someone who committed this sort of crime, stating “I’d get more respect if I’d had done it”. He becomes almost content with what had happened, “I have faith in myself. Gerry Conlon. Lifer. 30 years sentence and I know how to survive it. No problem.”In the novel “After the First Death” 16-year-old ‘freedom fighter’ Miro Shantas is ‘shaped’ into a “monster” by fanatic figureheads who pick him up from a refugee camp. Here his innocence is taken and molded into the “worst kind of innocence”, “monstrous innocence”. His transition from boy to freedom fighter (terrorist) is to about to be complete. To complete his initiation he needs to shoot the bus driver, a beautiful woman who is filling in for her uncle. She was just driving a busload of energetic children to preschool, when Miro and his acquaintances hijacked the bus. He saw the blonde naked, and began feeling an unknown passion deep within, stating, “he would love to trace that delicate profile” and that “he could not take his eyes from her breasts” Despite this he murders her at point blank. Miro became transfixed on a false reality; he was just an innocent refugee who was manipulated into a killer. With the repetitive terrorists attacks occurring round the globe, it poses the question of whether the world has dealt with this problem or if it’s in fact a constant of life? Should we be finding the source?War creates a loss of choice/freedomWar in a general sense is fought for freedom and despite this, through its cruelties and often-involuntary patriotism, paradoxically creates the opposite, a lack of freedom. In “On the Rainy River” Tim O’Brien is drafted to go to war.  Tim is “politically naïve” but he is still aware unless he qualified for “CO status”, had “religious backgrounds”, or had “history as a pacifist” he was unable to excuse himself from duty. He did not and consequently his freedom of choice was taken. Tim was forced by the ‘democratic’ country of America to fight in a war he “hated”. “There was no happy way out” for him. Tim was willing to fight and die for a war he believed in but “the draft board did not let you choose your war” so he had no opportunity to reason. He was unaware of “who started it, and when and why?”, unaware of any “unity of purpose”, he felt the facts “were shrouded in uncertainty”, but it was still supposedly a great cause that every American should justifiably be willing to fight and die for. Due to war, Tim’s ability to reason and make an intelligent decision based on logic had been deprived. His freedom of choice was well and truly taken from him. In “The Man I Killed” Tim shoots and murders a member of the Vietnamese republican guard. Someone who like him, did not have a choice, he had instead been manipulated into believing a possible false sense of reality “he had been taught to defend the land was man’s highest duty…it was never open to question”.  He, like Tim, had his freedom of choice taken, “the young man had never wanted to be a soldier” “He was not a fighter”, he was just purely an academic, “he wanted to be a teacher of mathematics”. In this short story Tim’s freedom was also once again taken, he had no choice but to shoot, if he hadn’t he instead would have been shot. Kiowa even reminded him, stating “Tim it’s war…he had a weapon right?”. Despite Tim being aware that everyone “had him zeroed in” he could not justify what he had done, but I think deep down he’d have realised it wasn’t his fault, he didn’t have a choice but to shoot him. In “In the Name of the Father” Gerry Conlon is convicted for the implementation of the London bombing that killed five people. He is innocent. His freedom to live out a normal life is taken. The actual bomber McAndrew even told him that “It’s a war-you are the innocent victims”. Due to the extremity of the times in Britain a new law was passed “The Prevention of Terrorism Act” which allowed British authorities to hold suspects for seven days without them having access to the outside world. Gerry was held under this act and during this time tortured and beaten. Due to this, he signed a confession. This was ironical for Gerry as in effect he was forced to confess and hence give away his life and his freedom, when he was in fact profoundly innocent. Gerry had no choice but to confess, submitting his life’s freedoms away in the process.In “After the First Death” Miro Shantas was picked up from a refugee camp by his ‘mentor’, Artkin. He was only a small child at the time but through years of twisted teachings his innocent mind was manipulated into one of a murderer’s. Artkin was such a figurehead to Miro that his essence had all but complete control, when Artkin stated, “You neglected your duty…You almost wrecked this operation” he “winced” and “grimaced”. Miro “felt the lash of Artkin’s words. The sting”. He hoped the girl couldn’t hear because he knew it “would cause even greater humiliation and embarrassment”. Miro was entirely transfixed in trying to maintain Artkin’s approval, “whose praise he’d always sought”. Artkin since abducting him from the refugee camps at a young age had molded and brainwashed Miro into believing whatever he wanted. Miro never had a choice; his innocence was transformed from that of a child’s to a monster. He was fooled into believing that freedom could only come through the ‘great cause’ when in fact Artkin was sapping his freedom. Sapping it until it was reduced to nothing. His freedom was taken at a young age and transformed in a malicious way until he too became a monster. War takes the freedom from all, including children. Miro was just one of its innocent victims. Patriotism v Fanaticism, and the fine line that separates the twoIn war you fight and die for your country, you are remembered with pride and bravery by society. However there is a line.  A line that if crossed, makes you blind and thoughtless, changing you from a brave patriot to a fanatical monster. In “On the Rainy River” Tim detests the Americans “blind thoughtless…simple minded patriotism”, he doesn’t like it how they are so patriotically blind that they are willing to force their own countrymen to fight in a war that lacks reason. He “would have willing marched off to the battle” if he believed it was for a good cause and was for the greater good but this war was “shrouded in uncertainty”.  The Americans made it obligatory for their young men to march off to war, taking their freedom away in the process. Giving them no choice but to have long-term negative side affects and drawing their potential as great people from them. However this blindness nature was not just restricted to the government it was ridden throughout the American society, including his hometown of Worthington “I detested their automatic acquiescence…prideful ignorance. I held them responsible”. The American society crossed the fine line and became fanatics of war. In “The Man I Killed” Azar is a complete fanatic; while at war he definitely crosses the line between patriotism and fanaticism. When Tim killed the innocent “academic” of the Vietnamese republican guard, he was thrilled, stating, “Oh man, you fuckin’ trashed the fucker”. This behavior seems inexplicable to a moderate thinker in today’s world but that’s the extremity of some fanatics, he even relates the dead soldier to a simple school grade stating “On the dead test, this particular individual gets an A plus”. On the other hand of the spectrum the Vietnamese soldier didn’t cross the line he was just patriotic. He was seemingly pressured into the war because “he was afraid of disgracing himself, and therefore his family and the village” but was still willing to fight. He knew “..patriotic resistance had the force of tradition, which was partly the force of legend..”, and therefore was willing to give up his life in respect out of tradition rather then out of pure cruelty. Azar’s fanaticism further highlight’s certain Americans “blind patriotism” especially in the context of killing the innocent patriots of Vietnam.In “In the Name of the Father” British authorities willingly convict Gerry Conlon despite knowing of his innocence. This action crossed the fine line between patriotism and fanaticism. The authorities went past the point of trying to protect their country; they instead were trying to protect themselves, satisfying their own selfish needs with a conviction. They knew the needed to convict “someone” to try show they were doing their job and satisfy the public. They went to the extent of torturing the innocent into signing confessions and hiding their alibis so they could not defend themselves. Miss Pierce, Gerry’s lawyer, found their alibi with a note saying, “Not to be shown to the defence”. The sickness of this concept creates a volatile situation in even the most democratic of counties such as Britain and questioned their legal system in its entirety. A member of the trial even stated “My Lord, this brings the entire English legal system into disrepute”. Fanaticism that of which was shown by the British authorities crossed the fine line and in the process put their ‘democratic’ country and legal system under intense scrutiny.  In “After the First Death”, General Marchand sends his own son Ben to be a ‘messenger gambit’ to the terrorists. General Marchand knows Ben is right for the job because he has monitored his sons every move since being born, he knew Ben “better than anyone else in the world”. He knew how he would respond in any situation, had analysed his every move since birth. General Marchand could even predict exactly how he’d respond in a given situation “All the measurements showed us your potentialities, your susceptibility…to the point where it became possible for me to know how well you might do in a game or a given situation.” He did this without Ben’s knowledge, stating “I knew so much more about you, Ben, then, then you ever suspected”. This is where he crossed the line, not only he sent his son directly to the terrorists to be tortured but he’d analysed everything about him, invading his privacy his entire life consequently forbidding him from a normal life. General Marchand crossed the line and became a fanatic; destroying his ‘sons’ life in the process.ConclusionThree ideas seem given in any war, through the texts that have been discussed you can clearly see them. War has a destructive effect on those involved; from Tim O’Brien mentally capitulating to Miro being transformed into a monster you can see how this common theme is apparent. The idea that wars despite usually being fought for freedoms ironically result in loss of choice (freedom) for some was shown through the fact Tim was forced to go to war and murder, by the ‘democratic’ nation of America, along with the innocent conviction of Gerry in “In the Name of the Father”. The third and most interesting idea discussed is that a fine line separates the “good” patriot from the “evil” fanatic and that at times the line is unknowingly crossed, this idea was portrayed strongly by Azar who was savage in his remarks emphasizing the sickness of fanaticism. General Marchand destroying his own ‘sons’ life further supported this concept. These three ideas were the ‘connection’ among the four texts and these ideas are appear to be constant in any given war. Hamish Kelt