I have not seen the movie, so admittedly my note is about the Salon review itself. In my opinion, there is absolutely nothing wrong with an anti-soldier view. I share it. Sure, there are plenty of different reasons one may have to decide to be a part of US military or Marine Corps, but few of them, if any, are compelling beyond the personal pragmatic reasoning such as the college tuition. Let's think of the recent 50 years or so of this military. What is the balance between the "good" and the "evil" the military has perpetrated. Let's see. The bad: Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, a few small stunts here and there. The good: ???? We happen to live in a country whose government will every now and then commit its military forces to an unjust and morally reprehensible cause, based on faulty reasons. Anyone familiar with the recent history would know that. Why join the military then? Whatever the reason, the moral implications are clearly on the negative side. Frankly, I am tired of hearing the "support our troops" motto. I'd rather forget about the troops and support the sane, normal people who didn't volunteer to go abroad on killing missions. The military is a large part of the problems we face in our militarist society, but there is not a problem to which it would serve as a solution. Not in the last 50 years, anyway. Returning to Mendes: after the astounding "American Beauty", "The Road to Perdition" seemed mediocre. I'm curious how "Jarhead" is. The topic discussed here is only superficially related to the film's value as a work of art.

I'm a former Marine grunt but I'll spare you the typical chest-thumping tirade about how great the Corps is and how any work of art that portrays the Corps in a negative light is the work of commies and thumb-sucking liberals because that would be boring and narcissistic. Still, I must say that as much as I appreciate Stephanie Zacherak's criticism of JARHEAD the movie for being anti-soldier, I think she's blaming the wrong person. I think if she'd taken a deeper look at Anthony Swofford's book she'd have seen that Swofford clearly despised the Marine Corps and everyone in it (including himself).

I was leery of Swofford's book from the beginning. When Swofford writes that he joined the Marine Corps simply because his recruiter told him that he could get a blow-job in in the Philippines (47), it just doesn't bode well for the rest of the book (I think Swofford is being disingenuous in this instance.) I could rattle off the titles of a dozen deeply subversive war memoirs whose narrators showed far more respect for their brothers-in-arms than Swofford does in JARHEAD (here's three: GOODBYE, DARKNESS by William Manchester; A RUMOR OF WAR by Phillip Caputo; HOMAGE TO CATALONIA by Orwell).

Reading Swofford's book, I couldn't shake the feeling that he was taking cheap shots at the Corps and his former Marine comrades just to please his newfound MFA comrades at the University of Iowa. I think Swofford hates soldiers far more than anyone associated with the film based on his book does. I applaud Zacharek for saying that being anti-soldier is wrong-headed and facile, I just think she should've looked closer at Mendes' source before she condemned the film. How can you say Mendes is being anti-soldier when Swofford writes about his decision to enlist as a moment of "blind stupidity and dumb loyalty" (30) and repeatedly describes his comrades in such unflattering terms: "That jarhead, with the high and tight haircut...farmer's tan, poor grammar and plain stupid look on his face, he is you" (117). I have to ask, how much more anti-soldier can you get?

However, what's really sad about the film and the movie is that they both show American soldiers as moronic brutes and this portrayal does little to encourage other Americans to develop more mature and nuanced opinions about America's military. This is unfortunate given that our current predicament in Iraq is almost exclusively the product of civilian stupidity and misapplication of military power, not the stupidity of those in uniform.

David J. Morris

Captain, USMC (ret.)

Lecturer, University of California, Irvine

The previous letter disappoints me. I can't agree with his comments but I do try to honestly consider his ideas, and where they came from. I wonder if the writer is likely, or even capable of doing the same? I always tell people that I fought for your right to be wrong, and to support ideas that I may not agree with. My ideas have changed based on experiences that I've actually had, not simply lifted from TV or read.

There is usually a little truth on both 'sides' and adopting a polarized position isn't intellectually or even emotionally honest.

What would the writer be willing to fight for? I mean an honest 'kill or be killed' kind of fight, not just an 'in your face' Dolores park protest.

I never desired or expected to be in that position, but it could happen to any of us, at any time. We're just one serious terrorist horror away from that. I hope that we never find out, because I have my doubts that our current society is capable of rising to the occasion and doing the terrible work of war, when the time and cause is right and just.

Early on, I actually thought that this war was a response to our country being attacked, and that our efforts were an appropriate response. I was not alone, though I had doubts at the time. Then we entered an election year, and news reporting changed. Over time, the nature of the story changed, and now we're actually seeing the supposed mentally and morally superior attacking those in the military who make their self-rightous blustering possible.

Please don't interpret this as support for this war, At best it was an ill-advised mistake, at worst it's evil, but I like to say that it's 'criminal stupid'. I do have serious problems with the current administration and the fact that it is using our fears as a vehicle to legitimize wholesale surrender of our rights. Frankly, I'd rather take my chances with the terrorists, but... It's not black and white, or even blue and red. It's just not that simple. To get this right, we need a little perspective.

I've lived here in San Francisco for the past year after leaving the active duty military after a 3 year "recall" from the reserves. I've spent a few months in Iraq and other exotic locales wearing camouflage, body armor and chemical gear. I think the only thing that I don't like here is that everyone wears their politics for all to see. I think that many people here lack perspective.

I've been scared shitless and felt the entire range of emotions that Swoffords book describes. I don't agree with everything that Mr. Swofford said in his excellent book, but he did earn the right to say it. His stories struck me as honest and accurate, if unsettling. He earned his perspective, and right or wrong it's honest. Read the book.

I'll see the movie. Sadly, I do expect to be disappointed. Hollywood has a hard time getting these stories right. I think it may be because most of those people haven't ever served, and couldn't imagine doing so. The people in the military aren't just a bunch of stupid dupes, though I did encounter a few of those, they're the finest people you'll ever meet and I do miss the opportunity to work and share good times with them. If you don't actually know any of them, you're missing out... and lack perspective.

For an interesting perspective, watch or rent "Gunner Palace".