After the tragic event of 9/11 in 2001, the US government started a “War on Terror” in mainly Muslim countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya etc. that lasted for 20 years. Although the war involves invading territories outside of the US, politicians justify it as an act that protect the US and the world from Terrorism. True, terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda and ISIS/ISIL were greatly suppressed thanks to the military force, but that fact is that civilians in those countries suffered the most. For those civilians, they may not be supporting the actions of terrorists, but they are killed by both US and ISIS/ al-Qaeda soldiers, their homes were raided, destroyed. To people outside of those countries in war, people may just treat them as just another unlucky person that born in the wrong place or a “threat” because “they stand by the terrorists”, while soldiers who soldiers that killed them are remembered as “heroes” for making the world safer.

In “Frames of War: When is Life Grievable?”, Judith Butler suggest that they could be seen as “threats” but not “lives” to us (42). The lives of threats are significant and not grievable.  American soldiers that died on the war field are seen as sacrificing their lives to protect their families, their homes and their country, they are remembered, they are honored, their names are carved on memorials. On the other hand, under influence of politicians and mass media (that could be to a certain extent controlled by the government and politicians), we tend to ignore lives of muslim states civilians. I am not trying to discredit what soldiers who fought for our safety and freedom, but rather to contrast the unfairness of treatment between the two types of people.

In the first chapter of “Redeployment”, Klay portray the inability of Sergeant Price to adapt to  a normal life when he returned to his hometown, Wilmington. The first chapter of the book ended with Sergeant Price using his gun to shoot his old and dying dog to end his pain. When we were talking about the scene on class, I remember many of us thought it was “cruel” and “terrible” to shoot a cute pet dog. It inspired me to think: why was killing people in Iraq okay for us but killing a pet dog is not? This links back to Butler’s point: Iraqis are treated as “threats” and the pet dog Vicar is treated as “special friend of human”, therefore, we decide who to grieve for. Also, on the class, we talked about what the scene and Vicar represent for Sergeant Price. I believe Vicar is a symbol of Sergeant Price’s normal life and his humanity. By killing the dog, a part of Sergeant Price died.

Humans are proud to be human beings because we possess virtues that many other forms of life do not – empathy and sympathy. Are we becoming less human when we celebrate for and justify the death of people we are less related to?