Of course I would never compare myself to someone who actually went through a war, but I definitely matured shooting 'The Pacific.' I'm more calm and I have more patience.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
I don't go to war for the adrenaline rush. I cover wars because that's what I've ended up doing.
I'm a warrior at heart; I'm an ex-Navy Seal. I'm too old to wage war anymore, and so now I wage it mentally. And so I find politics very stimulating; it's war without guns.
I've grown up, luckily, with only a distant relationship to war and soldiering.
I've gone to war zones before and never got shot.
I have to admit that the empty prestige and the stupid glory - yes, the horrible rush, the deadly sense of importance that war brings to life - are hard illusions to shake off. Look at me, a war correspondent.
I was essentially trained by World War II vets who combined a progressive view of life with a deep distrust of anything authoritarian.
The thing that strikes you most about being a soldier in a war zone and in action to the small extent that I was, when actually people start shooting, which happened to me a couple of times, everything goes on automatic and there's a feeling of tremendous elevation and even elation.
My life isn't always at risk, even if I'm in a war zone. A lot of these places have areas of calm, so covering war doesn't necessarily mean being shot at all the time.
I'm not a war photographer. I've always dealt with the consequences of conflict.
For the record, I'm a Second World War veteran and served in the Pacific.