mhelie wrote:
"The ideological differences between Barnes and Elias get somewhat blurred as the end approach, as they both end up wasting just as many people. Other point of note is that these two account for roughly 90% of the platoon's total kills."
I disagree that the kill rate blurs the differences between these characters. The point as I saw it is that they are contrasted figures who drive the conflict within the platoon. Barnes is unrestrained by command or ethics. He does whatever it takes to get what he wants, whether that be undermining his commanding officer to influence patrols, holding a gun to the head of a man he's interrogating or executing a critic. In contrast,
Elias is a soldier with honour. He takes care of his men in the rough way you'd expect of a good
sergeant. He understands the terrain better than the other
NCOs, and has a better appreciation of what's going on when they get caught by an ambush. I don't see it significant that Elias is also a competent
killing machine - that's his job. Elias is a good soldier. The plot wouldn't be plausible if he was a wimp.
In his final
narration, the
protagonist describes the "war within ourselves". His character's journey through the plot is dominated by the conflict between virtuous and barbaric influences. These extremes are represented by Elias and Barnes respectively.