In O"Brien's story he does an amazing job in creating a story without using the typical "formula" for a story. Usually when I think of the plot and characteristics of a story it goes in the order of: Introduction, rising action, climax, descending action, and then a resolution. However, in "The Things They Carried" he doesn't follow that exact formula. In the beginning of the story he is talking about a woman who he practically loves and how much he wish he was with her and then almost in the blink of an eye, he is in Vietnam as a soldier at war. It doesn't have a clear beginning middle and end. .
I think that O"Brien chose to write this story that way because it gives the story a more "rugged" and unpredictable feeling rather than everything going as expected by the reader, just as is the scenario of them being at war is unpredictable. I think that if he wrote the story following that conventional method that it wouldn't have remotely the same effect and wouldn't touch the reader the way it does. .
However the story isn't entirely free of some conventional methods which I think are essential to any story. Some elements are the great deal of suspense which he uses when describing the death of one of the soldiers. Something a bit less conventional is the amount of conflict in the story. There is conflict everywhere in this story. From all of the soldiers being extremely and rightfully homesick, to their fears of death and knowing that they may very well experience it being in the situation in which they are. .
I believe that O"Brien wrote this story the way he did in an effort to send his message and get the reader involved, which he could not have possibly done had he taken a more conventional approach. Therefore, I think that he made the right choice in the way he decided to writ this short story and otherwise it would never have had such a profound impact on his readers and it would not have effected their views and made them think so deeply had he decided against it.