Most students approach an analytical essay with a clear structure defined by a thesis and supporting evidence, each piece of which receives attention in its own paragraph. Although this provides for adequate organization and effortless reading, the essay is often bland and fails to captivate or convince the reader of its argument. During my time as a college student, I have recognized that I struggle with this problem when writing analytical or argumentative essays. My writing process consisted of simply reading the prompt then putting ideas to paper. My writing contained the thoughts and facts, but failed to properly support the argument or create an atmosphere of interest for the reader. I now realize that an essay isn’t made exceptional by these thoughts or facts, it is the process by how these thoughts and facts are developed, presented, and expanded upon.

My writing is characterized by a plethora of personal input and descriptive flow of thought. However, these elements often lead my writing astray or won’t connect to the point that is being argued in an effective way. While using extensive description in a paper intended to convey a personal outdoor experience, my descriptive writing accurately creates an image of the event for the reader, but the writing isn’t controlled and can confuse the reader. The descriptions preceding “Our strength was renewed” in the third paragraph followed by “My resolve was renewed” in the fourth paragraph misleads the reader to false climaxes, while the true climax queued by “the sun greeted us once more” is built up to with much less description than the previous paragraphs (“One More Mountain” 3-4). The cause of this incident can be attributed to multiple factors during my writing process. Instead of organizing my thoughts, I simply let them flow into the paper. While I can understand what I was intending to convey, my thoughts put emphasis on the more memorable challenges during the event. This caused the climax of the paper to seem trivial in comparison to these challenges. A well thought out organization to the paper that planned what it intended the reader to feel throughout and after reading the paper would have focused my thoughts, thus achieving effective description and a proper portrayal of the event.

In my research paper on the argument between drones and fighter pilots, I was allotted more time and planning to organize my thoughts. Although I was forced to perform the planning process because of the curriculum for the grade, both my paper and my personal writing process benefitted. Before I had written “One More Mountain”, other than brainstorming to determine the topic of the paper, there was no planning process at all, I simply wrote as I remembered the event. The planning and preparation I did for the research paper allowed me to focus my thoughts on what I wanted the reader to see and think before, during, and after reading it. Instead of writing from memory, I organized the content of the paper to flow with the thesis I was trying to argue. I used “Uncertain” in the title to leave the reader open to my thoughts and evidence as I progressed from the strengths then weaknesses of the drones followed by the strengths then weaknesses of the pilot (“Man vs. Drone” 1). I used the opening sentences of the paragraphs to set the focus of my thought and what I wanted the reader to focus on. “The drone features many functions that make it invaluable” followed by “The drone…is not perfect” allowed the reader to see the strengths then weaknesses of the drone, after which I introduced the strengths and weaknesses of the pilot and how they complimented each other as a team (“Man vs. Drone” 2-3). This was a strategic process during which I planned to give the reader the information they would be interested in, but also the information that would make them question certain aspects of the weapon system. At that point I introduced or reintroduced the opposing platform, not as a complete alternative, but rather as a joint solution where both would serve their primary purpose. Unlike my first paper, through my planning process prior to writing the paper, I was able to devise and practice this strategy then implement it into my argument. This allowed for a smooth flow of reading and an organization that my reader was able to understand. However, while the paper was smooth and easy to understand, the factual evidence used to support my thesis was usually inadequate and most of the substance that the reader had to rely on was my personal input.

Although my personal input was presented well, the reader had no way of knowing the credibility of my statements; therefore evidence from experts was needed. While I presented quotes from experts, they did little to actually aid what I was trying to present. Instead of supporting quotes that confirmed or backed up what I was saying, I merely gave factual quotes. One such example was when I was describing the capabilities of drones and quoted the statement “about 20 to 24 hours” to inform the reader of its approximate time of operation (qtd. in “Man vs. Drone” 2).  . This quote provided almost no direct support to the evidence, unless the reader had prior knowledge of the operational time of a pilot. I should have used a quote that compared this to the pilot’s operational time to directly show the reader the drone’s advantage, thus adding to the points I was making in the paragraph about where the drone excelled. This would have connected my thoughts with the credibility of experts, giving my paper another level of support when trying to convince the reader of my thesis.  However, there were instances in my writing where I was able to effectively relate a quote to the argument I was making.

Although my research paper contained several quotes that did not connect well with my input to support my thesis, it did contain several correct implementations of quotes that supported my points effectively. In my third paragraph, I used the quote “an infinitely more adaptable platform…” to support my argument that in a combat situation, the pilot was more useful (qtd. in “Man vs. Drone” 4). By using this quote, I was able to show that my analysis had similar conclusions to that of two experts in the aviation world. I was aware that this quotation was stronger than the previous quotes, but until I had reflected upon the paper in preparation for my portfolio assignment, I was unaware that the previous quotes were almost completely useless. Again, through reflection I was able to determine that the faults of my paper were due to poor planning and lack of a well thought out writing process. Instead of writing from my thoughts and the research in front of me, I should have organized the research and looked deeper into the sources to pull out key phrases that would have been beneficial to my argument if quoted correctly. I now recognize that the writing process is vital to organizing your ideas and information and how they can be effectively implemented into the paper.

While I am able to create a paper with intellectual insight with plenty of factual input, my writing process is weak and can have an effect on the flow and credibility of my papers. Although I have not perfected my writing process, the portfolio assignment has given me an opportunity to reflect upon my work. I now understand that without an organized writing process, a paper’s effectiveness in conveying its message is extremely limited.

Works Cited

Singh, Drake. “Man vs. Drone: The Uncertain Future of Military Aviation.” VMI. April 2015.

Singh, Drake. “One More Mountain.” VMI. January 2015.

We hear time and again of the numerous battles, conflicts, and fates of the people living during the time of the Second Great War. They are stories of hardship, horror, and usually an eventual triumph. However, of all these stories there is one we have not heard, the repatriation of Russian prisoners of war that fought for the German Army. Unlike the countless tales we have heard of in this war, this one has no triumph or celebratory outcome. The fate of these men was that of death, imprisonment, and hopelessness. In the documentary film Between Two Fires by International Historic Films, we get a rare glimpse into this unsung story of the Second World War, in particular the fate of 153 Russians held at Fort Dix, New Jersey. The director and producer, Douglas Smith, touched by previous knowledge of this incident, attempts to convince an audience of historical enthusiasts  that the outcome of this situation was un-American and immoral according to international law. He does this by presenting direct experiences from survivors, the opinions of experts, and by using music and staged scenes to show the viewer that not only was it unjust politically, but morally as well shown by the fate of these survivors and their friends.

The film begins with the use of parallelism with a scene portraying the prisoner exchange between the Romans and the Huns. This scene reveals that prisoners were merely pawns in the game of politics and war. This situation parallels with the Americans and the Russians during their post-World War Two prisoner exchanges, appealing to the targeted audience’s knowledge of history. The purpose of the documentary also helps to persuade the viewers of the argument presented in the film. The film’s purpose is to inform and argue a viewpoint according to the experiences of those that went through the hardships of the event presented. Most history enthusiasts enjoy discussions such as this and the presentation of a less known event like the repatriation of Russian soldiers fighting for Germany gives them new subject matter to discuss. The context of later to post-World War Two also helps to pull in the viewer. World War Two is a popular topic among professional historians and the average person alike and the presentation of subject matter relating to World War Two is sure to grab their attention. But the films introduction is not the only thing that aids the persuasion of the viewer. The producers are thorough with their presentation of evidence and the sources from which they come, assuring the viewer that the situation genuine and tragic.

The producers gather evidence from multiple survivors of Russian repatriation, as well as through the events of the riot at Fort Dix. The survivors recount their lives in Russia, giving the viewer an idea behind their reasoning for fighting for the Germans. These stories are then backed up by historical evidence of the situation in Russia presented by the narrator. This helps the viewer to sympathize with the survivors’ views and experiences. The viewer is then presented with what happened when the survivors were captured. The survivors recount their experiences as prisoners to the Americans and their journey to the United States. The survivors reveal that they rioted when news arrived that they were to be returned to Russia. This, backed up with the narrator’s presentation of the riots at Fort Dix, reveal that the survivors would rather die than return to Russia. This visual and historical evidence presented by the survivors and the narrator help to show the reader that this was a tragic situation that affected real people resulting in countless deaths. However, the producers also appeal to the viewers’ morals and whether obeying a political agreement or looking out for the welfare of prisoners of war is what the United States should have stood by.

The narrator also presents the viewer with the situation regarding Stalin’s manipulation of the Yalta Accord with the United States in order to show that even though the US was abiding a political agreement, they were sentencing thousands of Russians to their imprisonment or death. The film presents Stalin as a deceptive negotiator whose main concern is to get the most out of all negotiations for the Soviet Union. This is used to show the viewer that the prisoners of war were justified in their actions and that their return to the Soviet Union would only result in their death or suffering. The film also made it clear that Stalin and the government of the Soviet Union did not view the prisoners as Russian, through the inclusion of a public statement issued by the Russian foreign minister Molotov saying “there are no such Russians” (Vyacheslav Molotov, Between Two Fires), showing that they would be treated as enemy prisoners should they be returned to the Soviet Union. Again this affirms the producer’s beliefs that the prisoners’ return to the Soviet Union was blatantly unjust, considering the evidence the United States had that these men would be sent to their death or a life of work.

Between Two Fires shows us the dilemma faced by the United States as they struggled with deciding what to do with thousands of Russian prisoners who fought for the Germans, in particular the fate of the Russian prisoners at Fort Dix and how they started a riot or commit suicide in order to avoid return to Russia. Through the film’s use of centralizing its argument around this event, interviews from the survivors, and a strategic use of music and scenery, it is able to argue that the decisions made by the US were against the American way of thinking and that the US doomed these men to their deaths.

Works Cited

Between Two Fires. Dir. Douglas N. Smith. International Historic Films, 2000. DVD.

Today’s world seems to operate on the functions of some of the most advanced technology our society can offer. We can perform countless tasks with the touch of a button or the tap of a screen. Anything from purchasing a new video game to arming the security system of your house can be done instantly from the convenience of your mobile device. This rapid advance in technological capabilities has defined the modern age and how far we have come as a collective world society. However, even though we have made great strides in technological advances, we still suffer from the most basic of dilemmas faced by our ancestors: poverty, famine, and war. War in particular benefits from these advancements in technology. As we continue to find new ways to perform tasks, we also find new ways to subdue and destroy or enemies. One such weapon developed from the advances of modern technology is the UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) or drone. The drone is a remotely piloted aircraft that is primarily used for surveillance and covert airstrikes. Currently very few countries possess UAVs, but of these the USA boasts the largest and most active fleet. While the drone is a useful asset, it does not come without its drawbacks. With the addition of the drone to the US military arsenal, the use of pilots has become considerably lessened. This decrease in use of manned aircraft has led many people and some officials in the military to believe that the age of the pilot is coming to a close and that the use of UAVs is the future for all aerial military operations. However, the pilot has many advantages and uses that the drone doesn’t have on the battlefield, such as being able to adapt to the changes on the battlefield with speed and efficiency. The pilot and the drone are different and perform different roles for the military and therefore should work in conjunction to get the best possible results from operations in both the war on terror and future conventional wars.

The drone features many functions that make it an invaluable asset on today’s battlefield. According to airforce.com, the drone and its operators “assist in mission planning, including close air support, interdiction, armed reconnaissance, combat search and rescue and limited forward air control” (“Sensor Operator”).  The drone is not directly manned by a pilot, so there is no risk of human casualty. Because of this, the drone has the “ability to loiter for long periods” (Campell 14). According to Colonel Todd Smith in an interview, a drone can perform these operations for “about 20 to 24 hours” (Smith) before needing to refuel. Col. Smith also went on to say that drones are relatively inexpensive compared to the fighter aircraft used by pilots and that drones are much harder to detect by radar and human senses. There is also an optimistic future for the drone. Because it is being used so extensively in Iraq and Afghanistan, the drone has proven to be a key weapon in the fight against major terrorist groups. This coupled with the reality that the US isn’t currently engaged in any conventional wars, means that the expansion of the drone fleet is a real possibility that the US military is considering. But if the US were to engage in conventional war, whether invading or being invaded, the UAV would “provide awareness and cueing of operational-level enemy maneuvers” (Barnett, 54) allowing US forces to use this information to fight the enemy with the proper tactics and equipment that the situation requires. Clearly the drone boasts a wide are of uses for the demands of the war that the US is currently fighting, all while keeping the cost and human risk low. However, while the drone has its share of uses, it is not without its share of faults.

The drone, while extremely valuable in current military operations, is not perfect and is often limited by its capabilities. Drones operate on command based system where the operator gives the drone a command, such as move to grid location G5, and the action is carried out by the drone momentarily. This “semi-autonomy” (Smith) system has a latency delay or lag. This lag is the result of operating a drone remotely and even more so from a location across the globe. According to Col. Smith, there have been instances during the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan where this latency issue has resulted in unwanted outcomes, such as civilian casualties. Amitai Etzioni states that “some hold that the number of civilians killed amounts to an overwhelming majority of all those killed” (Etzioni 2).   However lag is not the only possible origin of civilian casualties in these operations. The drone operators often spend hours regulating and directing the drone, resulting in boredom.  This boredom could lead to catastrophic outcomes for the people under the area of effect of the drone’s weaponry as the operators slowly “find it hard[er] to distinguish between…killing…human beings and targeting mere pixels on a screen” (Cole 23). In addition, because the drone operators are not actually on the battlefield, they have a limited view of the situation. While drones are equipped with several cameras to monitor the surrounding areas, these cameras are limited to a two-dimensional view which can cause alterations to the reality of the terrain or situation. The fact that the operators are not there, coupled with the previously mentioned latency issues means that a drone and its operators cannot quickly respond to a change in the battlefield operations or its environment. This is extremely important, because a conventional battlefield is constantly changing and the drone would most likely have a hard time keeping up. In addition to this, “unmanned aircraft have flown only in uncontested airspace” (Chopra) and have proven they cannot defend against aerial attack; therefore if a fighter aircraft or anti-air weaponry was used again the drone, it would most likely be shot down. Finally, a fighter aircraft can hold a bigger payload of munitions to use for close air support than a drone, meaning that while the drone can linger longer, it will not be able to continue to aid an offensive without leaving the battlefield multiple times to rearm. These drawbacks of drones show that while capable and extremely useful for the operations performed in the war on terror, the drone is only useful for surveillance when thrown into the rigors and realities of conventional warfare.

In the case of conventional warfare, the manned aircraft should be the tool of choice for the US military. While drones can survey an area or perform precision airstrikes, they cannot perform mid-air refueling for other aircraft, large bombing missions, or any air-to-air combat. All of these missions must be carried out by human pilots. Until drones become more technologically advanced, it is best that it stays this way in order to avoid unnecessary risk to anyone or anything affected by these missions. For example, the latency delay for drones could result in disastrous outcomes should a mistake be made while performing a bombing mission of similar scale to that of a manned bomber’s. The pilot is trained for more than a year and is constantly honing his skills through training exercises and live missions in conflict zones allowing him to be “an infinitely more adaptable platform and are irreplaceable when considering the high-threat environments of future wars” (Malandrino and Mclean). This results in the pilot to continually becoming sharper and more deadly as he gains more experience and better understands how to use his aircraft and its weapons to gain the upper hand on the battlefield. The aircraft fighter pilots use are far faster, more maneuverable, and can carry more weaponry than a drone. This allows the fighter pilot to have the flexibility of responding to additional ground targets or aerial threats that may force him to engage in air-to-air combat. Because of his flexibility and ability to react to the changing battlefield the fighter pilot provides a much more versatile weapon that can be deployed to any airspace in the world with a high chance of mission accomplishment, while the drone is limited to airspace that is uncontested due to its lack of air-to-air defense. Although the US is not currently engaged in a conventional war, it is important that the US maintains a well-trained fleet of fighter pilots should their need someday arise. Without pilots at the ready, the US could find itself struggling to support its ground operations or worse, vulnerable to aerial attack from foreign nations who do keep a current fighter pilot fleet.

However, like the drone, the fighter pilot is not without his drawbacks. Firstly, there is the obvious risk of putting a human life in danger, but one must remember that this pilot has voluntarily offer to do this job and is aware of the risks that his job entails. While this may sound inconsiderate from certain stand points, the pilot knows that this is his job and is proud to perform it. The drone also has the advantage of operation time. A pilot can operate for “about 10-12 hours” (Smith) at a time so that the pilot may rearm, refuel, and rest. Utilizing pilots is also a very expensive strategy. It costs “anywhere from 4 to 5 million dollars” to train a pilot, then there is the matter of the expenses of their aircraft which amount to several million dollars and added to that is the cost of the fuel they consume. The fighter pilot is also limited in his flying abilities due to GLOC or gravity induced loss of consciousness. GLOC is the result of performing a high-G maneuver for too long. If the pilot GLOCs, there is the possibility that he will remain unconscious for too long for him to regain control of the aircraft before he crashes or is destroyed by the enemy. However, the drone has not yet developed the ability to perform in air-to-air combat, where these types of maneuvers would be utilized, so this is a risk that must be taken by pilots regardless of the existence of drones. Another drawback of the fighter pilot is that their aircraft are easily detected. While the drone operates with a propeller and has a small signature, fighter aircraft are generally large and have loud jet engines that alert nearby enemies for miles around. Although the US has aircraft with stealth capabilities, they still show a signature on radar, it just appears smaller. But the stealth for fighter aircraft is not meant for long term use, it is generally meant to gain the advantage of surprise before an attack, while the drone uses its stealth to remain hidden while it carries out its mission. The drawbacks of the fighter pilot and his aircraft show that while the fighter pilot is still needed for military readiness and national defense, there are missions that the fighter pilot once did that the drone can now do better and with less risk.

Both the drone and the fighter pilot have their uses and their drawbacks, but it is because of this that they should not be pitted against one another, but rather used together. The drone and the pilot don’t oppose each other, rather they complement one another. The fighter pilot should be used as the first line of defense for the airspace of the nation and initial strike force when the military takes action against a foreign enemy. The drone should then be responsible for maintaining intelligence of the current situation in the area of operations through surveillance and reconnaissance. This operating procedure ensures not only mission accomplishment, but the lowest possible risk to achieve it with speed, effectiveness, and efficiency. Even as the drone continues to be researched and developed, it will never fully replace the fighter pilot. The fighter pilot will always be needed to conduct close air support for ground troops and to gain aerial supremacy so that operations can be conducted free of threat from aerial attack and the drone has now too earned a spot in military operating procedure where it will be used for some time to gather intelligence about enemy troop movements and enemy high value target locations. The fighter pilot and the drone are not rivals competing for funding and recognition, but rather tools that should be used in conjunction to achieve the best possible route to mission accomplishment.

Works Cited

Barnett, Jeffery R. “Attack Enemy Invasion/Occupation Forces.” Future War an Assessment of         Aerospace Campaigns in 2010. Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala.: Air UP, 1997. 53-58.             Print.

Campell, Lloyd. “The Debate: Manned vs Unmanned.” Frontline Defence 8.2 (2011): 14-15.             Web. 27 Feb. 2015.

“Careers.” SENSOR OPERATOR. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Apr. 2015.             <http://www.airforce.com/careers/detail/sensor-operator/>.

Chopra, Anil. “Manned vs Unmanned.” SP’s Aviation (n.d.): n. pag. Web. 27 Feb. 2015.

Cole, Chris. “Rise Of The Drones.” New Internationalist 448 (2011): 22-23. Academic

Search Complete. Web. 27 Feb. 2015.

Etzioni, Amitai. “The Great Drone Debate.” Military Review 93.2 (2013): 2-13. Academic             Search Complete. Web. 27 Feb. 2015.

Malandrino, Greg, and Jeff MClean. “The Unmanned Wingman.” Foreign Policy (2013): n. pag.     Web. 27 Feb. 2015.

Smith, Todd D. Personal interview. 12 Mar. 2015.

As the United States continues to develop military technology used for warfare, the need for human interface seems to decrease. Most of the technology seen in today’s world is capable of taking care of most simple tasks, allowing the jobs of both the civilian and the soldier to be much more manageable. However, as technology continues to develop, we begin to see that what once viewed as science fiction is now reality. UAVs or Drones are one such instance where what was once seen as an exclusive human trade can now be done with very minimal human interaction. The development of the drone has sparked a debate over whether or not the pilot is needed in today’s warfare. At first glance, the average person would agree that the fighter pilot is no longer needed because of the drone, stating it’s safer and more effective for today’s military operations. However, many military officials view that while the drone is good at what it currently does, it cannot completely replace the responsiveness and combat capabilities a fighter pilot can bring to the battlefield.

The unmanned aerial vehicle, or UAV, is being used extensively in the current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It plays a vital role in surveillance and precision airstrikes. Because drones are unmanned, they have the “ability to loiter for long periods” (Campell 14), gathering intelligence or waiting for the opportune moment to strike an enemy target, and because there is no human pilot in the cockpit of a drone, there is no risk of human casualty. Drones are also less expensive than fighter jets. If the US military invested in more drones than fighter aircraft, they could easily expand their drone fleet and be able to meet the growing demand for drone operations in the Middle East. Drones also have an optimistic future due to the continued development of technology, which could result in the drone matching or even exceeding the capabilities of a manned fighter aircraft.

However, the drone is not without its faults. With this continued development, we are seeing a rise in the prices of drones, which may soon reach or exceed the cost of a conventional fighter aircraft. In addition, “unmanned aircraft have flown only in uncontested airspace” (Chopra) because drones cannot defend against air to air threats, thus limiting where they can be deployed. Such an example would be the recent airstrikes in Syria. Due to potential aerial threat, drones could not be used or they would have simply been intercepted and shot down before they could attack their target. The drone is also susceptible to problems with its operating crew. Drone operation consists of “young service personnel subjected to long hours of boredom while in control of lethal technology” (Cole 23). This can lead to the crew forgetting that they are launching munitions at places where real people live, resulting in unnecessary collateral damage and civilian casualties. According to Amitai Etzioni, “some hold that the number of civilians killed amounts to an overwhelming majority of all those killed” (Etzioni 2). Drones also have a limited view of the situation happening on the battlefield, due to a limited number of cameras and the fact that the operator is not actually there assessing the situation with his own eyes. In addition, because the operator is not on the battlefield and in a life or death situation, it is much harder for the drone to adapt to a new situation and counter the effects it might have.

The manned fighter aircraft, while believed by many as outdated, can offer just as much to the battlefield, if not more, as the drone. Fighter pilots are trained for at the very least a year and offer “an infinitely more adaptable platform and are irreplaceable when considering the high-threat environments of future wars” (Malandrino and Mclean). The fighter pilot is trained to adapt to any situation the battle can throw at him and counter it with speed and effectiveness. The fighter pilot has a full and direct view of the battlefield below him and has a closer connection with the men on the ground he is providing support for. The fighter pilot can be equipped with both air to air or air to ground weapons, making the fighter pilot a highly versatile tool on the battlefield. In addition, the aircraft fighter pilots operate are faster, more maneuverable and can carry more ordinance than a drone. Fighter pilots are also equipped with anti-missile counter measures that allow them to defend against attack should they engage with enemy aircraft or anti-air ground forces. This combined with the previously stated armament that fighter pilots go in battle with, allows a fighter pilot to engage in combat anywhere in the world, where as a drone could not due to its inability to defend against attack.

However, the fighter pilot also has his drawbacks. The first of these draw backs is simply that he is human. Having a fleet of fighter jets requires pilots to operate them with the knowledge that they are in the profession of war and that this could result in injury or death. The fighter pilot is also susceptible to GLOC, or gravity induced loss of consciousness. GLOC results when the pilot performs a high-G maneuver, putting up to 9 times the pilot’s weight on his body, resulting in the blood being pulled from his head into his extremities thus ending in the pilot losing consciousness. This is also another risk that the pilot must face, because if a fighter pilot GLOCs during aerial combat it could result in his death. In addition, the pilot is not able to stay as long on the battlefield as a drone, due to fuel usage and fatigue. The fighter pilot is essentially held back by his human boundaries and can only perform his mission as long as these boundaries will take him.

In conclusion, the drone offers an excellent tool for surveillance and long term target tracking, but when it comes to performing in a combat situation, the pilot’s adaptability and skill can change the tide of battle in the air or on the ground. However it is important to remember that neither has to submit to the other, instead a conjunctive use of drone and pilot could combine the best of both weapons systems, resulting in even more effective and efficient combat missions.

Works Cited

Campell, Lloyd. “The Debate: Manned vs Unmanned.” Frontline Defence 8.2 (2011): 14-15.             Web. 27 Feb. 2015.

Chopra, Anil. “Manned vs Unmanned.” SP’s Aviation (n.d.): n. pag. Web. 27 Feb. 2015.

Cole, Chris. “Rise Of The Drones.” New Internationalist 448 (2011): 22-23. Academic             Search Complete. Web. 27 Feb. 2015.

Etzioni, Amitai. “The Great Drone Debate.” Military Review 93.2 (2013): 2-13. Academic             Search Complete. Web. 27 Feb. 2015.

Malandrino, Greg, and Jeff MClean. “The Unmanned Wingman.” Foreign Policy (2013): n. pag.     Web. 27 Feb. 2015.

The first time I saw House Mountain I was in high school and was visiting Lexington to see my brother, a cadet at the Institute. It was his first year at VMI and he had plenty of stories to share with our family. He told us of the hardships, the laughter, and the pride he shared with his brother rats. However, the one story that stuck with me was his run up House Mountain. I remember we asked which mountain was House Mountain then he simply looked off to the right and pointed to the biggest, steepest mountain in view. I marveled at its enormity and how it overlooked the town as if a giant guardian. Although I didn’t want to admit it, something deep in my being told me that this wasn’t the last time I see House Mountain and certainly not the closest.

Four years later, I found myself standing at the base of House Mountain surrounded by my brother rats. I gazed up at the formidable mountain, it glowed bright green in the sunlight that shown though the blanket of clouds that covered the sky. I glanced back at my brother rats; there was determination on their faces, they were eager to begin the long hard trek up the mountain. We set out that day to compete with the other companies to see who could climb House Mountain the fastest. Our company was known for winning most competitions, so there was no option for us other than victory. I refocused, finished stretching, and took my place with the fast group that would be leading the charge up the mountain. We formed a column at the base of the trail and waited for the signal to begin. Those few seconds were some of the longest in my life.

“Begin!” And we were off. We bounded for the trail, the dirt kicking up beneath our boots. We rounded a corner concealed by a thick bush and discovered what looked to be almost half the trail that led to the summit of the mountain. However, the revelation wasn’t reassuring; the trail only promised that we would have to work to achieve what we wanted. The trail had a gentle incline, but quickly punished us for any thoughts of an easy climb as it rapidly developed into the steep incline we had previously anticipated. With each stretch of the trail, our breath became labored and our legs screamed for relief, but still we pressed on. I found myself staring at the trail for fear of miss stepping and causing a delay that could be fatal to our time. The front of the column began to slow as we hit an outcrop of boulders. We quickly mounted the large chunks of rock, reduced to all fours using nearby branches and roots as hand and foot holds to speed the climb. The rock was rough and soon became wet with our sweat and blood, but with the obstacle came a barrage of encouragements to keep moving with speed and intensity. “Come on brother rats!” we shouted, “Good job guys we’ll be to the top in no time!” we roared. Our strength was renewed and once we cleared the boulders we realized we were nearly there.

I lifted my head and saw my brother rats in the front of the column moving at an astonishing rate, then looked behind and saw they too were filled with a determination that could not be dampened. I marveled at the spectacle I was watching. The column was pushing up the trail, a cloud of dust and dirt surrounded us and the sunlight from a part in the clouds filtered down through the treetops bathing us in rays of beauteous gold. It was as if God himself were shining a spotlight upon us, showing the world the challenge that we were facing. A sense of pride rushed through my body, I couldn’t have asked to be with a better set of men or be a part of a better Corps of Cadets.  My resolve was renewed not just for the hike, but for the rest of the challenges that came with being a rat at the Virginia Military Institute.

I once again refocused my attention to the task at hand. We could see the top now, but to get there we had to climb an almost vertical incline lined with more boulders. The column continued up the mountain, one by one each of us climbing from level to level up the rocks. Before we reached the end of the vertical climb, we had to climb up a boulder that posed an intimidating challenge. It was far larger than any boulder we had encountered thus far, it required one our taller men to climb it first so that way he could help the shorter of us up. When it was my turn to climb the boulder, I approached the wall of grey that stood before me and stood in awe of its sheer size. Then a hand appeared from its top and then a face, both gestured me to grab hold. I reached and took hold and before I knew it I was clear of the wall and on my way to the summit.

The rocks turned to thickets and bushes, the trail leveled off and we knew we had made it. The excitement welled up inside me as I glimpsed the horizon through the foliage. My brother rats let out a roar as they found the same excitement, “We did it!” Then it hit me. The landscape opened before my eyes, the rolling mountains and hills of Virginia like green waves of the sea. The sun greeted us once more through the clouds, telling us we had achieved our goal. I looked to my brother rats and said “I guess this was that ‘one more mountain’ that the CO was talking about last time we came up here.”

My name is Drake L. Singh and I am a freshman at the Virginia Military Institute. I am currently studying Electrical and Computer Engineering and am on a four year Air Force ROTC scholarship. I plan to pursue a career as an Air Force pilot then eventually become a general officer and lead the next generation of Airmen. I also plan to continue a career in Electrical Engineering with the goal of someday running my own engineering firm.

Welcome to your brand new blog at Virginia Military Institute ePortfolio.

To get started, simply log in, edit or delete this post and check out all the other options available to you.

For assistance, visit our comprehensive support site, check out our Edublogs User Guide guide or stop by The Edublogs Forums to chat with other edubloggers.

You can also subscribe to our brilliant free publication, The Edublogger, which is jammed with helpful tips, ideas and more.