To a casual glance, W.D. Ehrhart's "The Invasion of Grenada" and Wilfred Owen's "Dulce et Decorum Est" paint a very similar view of war. Both seem to condemn war as being an unsuitable instrument for deciding the course of human affairs. However, this view is not supported on a close-reading of the two texts. While Ehrhart rejects war entirely, Owen only openly rejects the romanticizing of war, not the practice itself. It is only when you infer from the text to a more general sentiment that one finds a complete rejection of war in "Dulce et Decorum est."

To consider this, one must first understand what is behind both poems. I have already extensively dealt with "Dulce et Decorum Est" in a related paper, and so won't tread over the same ground. "The Invasion of Grenada", however, bears examination for its content. The first stanza is allusory, calling the reader's attention to what Ehrhart feels should have been a lesson. The first three lines are a very clear allusion to the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington, D.C., a "vast black wall of broken lives." Lines four through seven continue this trend, referencing both roads and stamps; familiar objects from people's day to day lives that are supposed to serve as reminders, but instead fade into the background of daily static.

With the second stanza, Ehrhart simply states his premise, but, because of the title, he does not refer back to the Vietnam war, but rather to the current events of the early 1980's, which was the United State's Invasion of Grenada. This leads to the poem's most interesting turn, at lines eleven through thirteen.

What I wanted was an understanding
That the world is neither black-and-white
Nor ours.

The line "nor ours" is significant. It is a direct refutation of the concept that lead to the invasion of Grenada by U.S. troops; mainly, that it was America's job to engage in protectionism and the building of what we see as being the "correct" form of society. Structurally, however, it calls attention to itself. It is the shortest line of the poem, with the only close competitor being line fifteen. Line thirteen serves to reject the notion that America's leaders were operating under. Line fifteen acts similarly, calling instead to the Constitution. If "We the People" have truly declared our government to be representative of us, we should have some claim in its administration and its policies. Lines fifteen and sixteen echo the sentiment of many Americans in times of war… the idea that our government does not represent us, and that we are somehow removed from its consideration. For someone who has deep emotional ties to the Vietnam War, as the speaker obviously does, such an action by our government would seem to be a betrayal of the idea of a representative government. It also references another fact from the Vietnam war, that of the draft, where a young man is very seldom asked if he wishes to be in the army. In essence, "The Invasion of Grenada" is not an anti-war poem, but an anti-government poem that opposes, not the ideals of the government, but the accidents.

Owen's poem contains little of this animosity towards the government. Rather, his words are addressed to a "friend" mentioned in line twenty-six. Evidence from the rest of lines twenty-six and seven would indicate that this friend is a recruiter of some sort, or at least a vocal booster for the recruiting office. The friend is said to tell children (young recruits) "with … high zest … the old lie: dulce et decorum est pro patria mori", much as a recruiter would do to some young man when war has sapped the volunteer army of manpower, but before the draft is instituted. The date on this poem makes its origins ambiguous; while the events referenced in it obviously refer to World War I, the post-war publication makes it uncertain if Owen himself was drafted, or if he served as a volunteer. Given that he addresses the poem to a recruiter, and not a draft board (as shown above), that he served on a semi-volunteer basis is reasonable.

Thus, we have two poems, addressed to two very different subjects. The first faces down the entirety of government, while the second addresses a recruiter. Their final goal is similar in purpose, but not in scale; Ehrhart wishes the government to admit its limitations and the lack of glory in its actions, while Owen simply wants the same from a single recruiter. It is the scale which gives these poems their message, however. In addressing a singular person, Owen does not reject the notion that America should go to war; his limited scale calls only for limited results. Ehrhart, in addressing the entire nebulous notion of government, however, calls for less limited results; nothing less than the cessation of wars save in personal defense. Ironically, due to its limited scope, Owen's poem is perhaps more effective at Ehrhart's goal. Describing the horrors for a singular audience, who by way of the poem becomes any reader, not just the recruiter that the speaker addresses, has a profound and visceral impact. Ehrhart, however, merely rages against his sense of impotence in the American government. His readers will likely feel similarly impotent, and thus are more likely to shrug off his complaints as ones that cannot be addressed.