Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom.1

In his book, The Jungle is Neutral, Freddy Spencer Chapman describes his experience as a World War II British soldier fighting in the Malaysian jungles. The fighting was intense, but the effect on the soldiers’ mindset was even more unsettling:

My experience is that the length of life of the British private soldier accidentally left behind in the Malayan [modern day Malaysia] jungle was only a few months…to them the jungle seemed predominantly hostile, being full of man-eating tigers, deadly fevers, venomous snakes and scorpions, natives with poison darts, and a host of half-imagined nameless terrors. They were unable to adapt themselves to a new way of life and a diet of rice and vegetables; in this green hell they expected to be dead within a few weeks – and as a rule they were…

It’s not surprising how the terror of jungle warfighting took a toll on soldiers.

However, not all soldiers capitulated. Some soldiers viewed the jungle opportunistically, with supplies and cover available for all:

The other school of thought, that the jungle teems with wild animals, fowls, and fish which are simply there for the taking, and the luscious tropical fruits-pawpaw, yams, bread-fruit and all that, drop from the trees, is equally misleading. The truth is that the jungle is neutral. It provides any amount of fresh water, and unlimited cover for friend as well as foe – an armed neutrality, if you like, but neutrality nevertheless. It is the attitude of mind that determines whether you go under or survive. There is nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so. The jungle itself is neutral.

The jungle was neither for nor against any soldier. Neither good nor bad. Just neutral. How soldiers responded to this neutral environment determined the “good” or “bad” outcomes.