“War is a gun that fires in both directions, aiming not only at your enemy but also at yourself.”

One of the most difficult choices soldiers have to make during the war is their decision whether to kill their enemies. Everyone is taught, even at a young age, that violence is wrong. Their ideas of right and wrong are blurred and they can no longer follow their moral compass. This statement emphasizes the second the man takes a gun and aims it at the opponent who people claim is the enemy. During that split second decision, one feels as though they’re losing themselves. Frankly, they are. Both empathy and sympathy disappear, and what’s left is not the soul but the body committing thoughtless actions and being influenced by the circumstance they’re faced with. Morality is thrown away because survival is seen as first priority. This watercolor artwork best visualizes the thesis because it illustrates it in a very literal way. The soldier is not only holding a gun to his opponent, but unaware that he’s holding one up to himself. The white gun is symbolic because it is a metaphorical one; it doesn’t exactly kill the soldier physically, but kills his humanity. The visual depicts a Vietnam War soldier in a battlefield holding two guns: one to the unknown enemy, and the other to his head. The black M-16 is aimed to no one in particular, but is a symbol that the soldier is willing to fire. However, the white gun pointed towards his head represents the idea that he is losing himself at the same time; his purity and all the basics of his morality are gone. His helmet covers his eyes, which are the windows to the soul. This means that he’s become a war piece only meant to bring the nation closer to winning, rather than seen as a person. The background is a dark faded blur because to the soldier nothing is clear or hopeful. He’s numb to the deaths of the opposition. Proof can be seen in “The Man He Killed,” a poem by Thomas Hardy. The poem is about a man who questions how different situations alter one’s decisions. If the man he had a killed was just in an ordinary setting, he would’ve been friendly. But he states that, “Yes; quaint and curious war is,” because he’s killing someone who he has nothing against. If they weren’t in the war, the man he killed would’ve been just another “fellow”. This reverts back to the thesis because being in the impacted his morals, decisions, and actions.