Commentary & Reply - Saving Private Ryan - Sir Halford Mackinder - Letter to the Editor

Parameters, Winter, 2000 by Reed R. Bonadonna, William J. Prior, Michael P. Noonan

If I have one quibble with Professor Prior's article, it is that he concludes with the word "guilt." I believe that this is the wrong note on which to end. There is a large literature about the guilt of combat veterans. There are many who no doubt are less than proud about what they did or failed to do. But the prevailing feeling of most of them, and again not only on the part of veterans of World War II, is justly one of pride, just as the prevailing sentiment toward them must be one of honor.

Dr. Reed R. Bonadonna, LtCol USMCR

Adjunct Faculty, Marine Corps University, Norwich University

S-3, 25th Marine Regiment

The Author Replies:

I want to thank Lieutenant Colonel Bonadonna for the attention he has paid to my essay on moral conflict in warfare. I think he is in large measure in agreement with my analysis; at any rate, I am in large measure in agreement with his. If I focus below on a couple of areas of disagreement, one of which is largely a matter of emphasis, I don't want that to obscure the fact that there is a large area in which we have the same view.

I agree with Colonel Bonadonna's character analysis of Captain Miller, and with the point that when Miller refuses to kill the German prisoner he acts in accordance with his professional obligation. The laws pertaining to the treatment of prisoners are an attempt, in light of the considerations of "just war" theories, to reconcile the morality of war and the morality of decency. As Colonel Bonadonna states, these laws represent the best traditions of the military profession. I claim, however, that there are practical considerations pertaining to the prosecution of the war and the completion of the mission that argue in favor of killing or at least disabling the prisoner. My contention is that this conflict is built into the situation in which Miller finds himself. I would also note that Stephen Ambrose says that American soldiers did kill prisoners; Ambrose was a technical advisor for the film, and the scenario described in the film provides a situation in which such an (admittedly illegal and immoral) act m ay appear justified.

I find Colonel Bonadonna's analysis of Corporal Upham problematic. Upham, we should remember, is after all correct about the fact that the prisoner should not be killed. If he is somehow out of place in a combat unit, that suggests (though it certainly does not prove) that the morality of decency is somehow out of place there as well. Incidentally and for what it's worth, I think that Upham's failure of courage in the final battle is attributable not to a lack of masculinity, but to inexperience and a lack of training. He has not held a weapon since basic training. He has not experienced combat until the start of the mission. He is surrounded by combat veterans who are highly trained members of an elite unit. He can't be expected to behave as well under fire as they do. One wonders, though, whether continued service in such a unit might not inure Upham to the moral principle he is zealous to defend in the first encounter with the prisoner. (He does, after all, eventually kill the man himself, when the man ha s once again become his prisoner.)