� Stupid TEst | Main | Confessions of Saddam Hussein �
October 07, 2004
Tears of the Sun
The Tivo served up a selection of Bruce Willis movies based on the preferences I ascribe. Works for me. And so over the past couple nights, I've been allowing my emotions to be manipulated by a heart-wrenching story of a prototypical hardball American Special Forces Lieutenant with a soft creamy center. He goes off mission to rescue two dozen refugees from a village caught in the middle of a savage civil war. It has a happy ending.
Watching this film goes a long way in describing what I believe about the character of Americans and American soldiers, and the principles behind the story are those I support for our can-do troops.
There is a tangible tension I am constantly feeling in this film between the priorities of following orders in the context of what keeps soldiers alive and implementing a military strategy, and using those skills to do right in the context of what's in front of your face. It's the most basic of human dilemmas. Can one afford to step out from the safety of society to do a good deed? Surely soldiers must feel as Willis' character did - he hardly knows if what he's doing is good any longer. He simply bears heavy witness to the cruelty of combat and does everything possible to keep his men alive and well.
No matter what American soldiers are ordered or allowed to do, I think we all understand that they are basically good people doing dangerous and necessary work. Yet that sentiment tends to disappear as rank increases. No character is so routinely villified as the General. The General is a stock villain in just about every movie I can think of since 'Patton'. It's a contradiction which is apparent in our politics, but since we have an even higher figure, the President, behind all of this we have shifted the fault up the chain.
It was true of the reports about Abu Ghraib. It was true about the 'failure' to secure the Turkish incursion route. It was true about the interpretation of intelligence reports. Americans all want to blame the big guy at the top. I think that's the reason Kerry felt confident that he could suggest that we led a 'Coalition of the Bribed'. Yike.
But aside from the capture of Saddam himself we have had almost no news whatsoever about the actions of Majors, Lieutenants, Captains or Generals. What are they doing out there? To hear the news, they are standing around misunderstanding and insulting Iraqis or just dying senselessly. I can't say that I've been watching television news which may have captured some of this mid-level action and decision-making, but all the debate these days is centered on Presidents lying and grunts dying. This elementary school picture of war leaves us all at a serious disadvantage.
For people like me who support the entire theoretical thrust of the PNAC vision of international intervention, I am left with simply that: theory. I have no way of knowing how troops are working in the field, what objectives they are pursuing and how well the execution of those actions are going. I've complained about this before. For people like (oh I don't know whom, stand up and identify yourself), this same absence of coverage requires them to judge the entire context of the war based on the inconsistencies of the promises going in and the bad news coming out. It completely ignores the dynamic of war itself and leaves all of us with no real accurate way of determining whether or not soldiers are actually doing a good job. For all of us it's a slam dunk based upon an outcome we predict - which will never come in time for a realistic political decision.
In the meantime, things like movies about soldiers substitute for live coverage on the ground that our current class of journalists are completely unprepared for. Please remember that note as well - everyone in all the media outlets will tell you that they are doing the best job humanly possible, but there is a reason that Al Jazeera has made a name for itself in this conflict. It has to do with real American chickenheart reporters who don't have enough first hand material to do much more than use theories like the rest of us.
Posted by mbowen at October 7, 2004 08:57 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.visioncircle.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2630
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Tears of the Sun:
� Deuce Four from Cobb
Bruce Willis will bring Deuce Four to the big screen. Amen Halleluja! [Read More]
Tracked on November 29, 2005 08:46 PM
Comments
Don't know if you've seen the DVD version of Tears, but the "making of the movie" feature was great. It gave you an idea of Antoine Fuqua's motivation in regard to the story.
More moving was the fact that the African extras broke down in tears during the shooting of the village scene because many of them had actually experienced it.
Too many IMO, got too caught up in their accusations of celluloid jingoism to see the story underneath. The dynamic of the Black American SEALS helping Africans to determine their own destiny was probalby too much for them to digest.
But of course, getting to look at Monica Bellucci for two hours is always a big plus.
Posted by: Robert at October 7, 2004 02:14 PM
I think you're talking in several different directions at once. Most people, I suspect, not only extend all military personnel the benefit of the doubt on attributes including bravery, industriousness and patriotism, they lend them unwavering moral support. Don't rely upon Hollywood stereotypes to draw your cues on how soldiers are perceived.
Truth be told, the majority of Americans don't want to see the reality of combat broadcast into their living rooms and our gov't is more than happy to comply. What's really odd is the commercial media has largely capitulated to distributing the Official Viewpoint unchallenged -- a disturbing dereliction of the free media's obligation to society. I suspect their acquiescence is rooted in the occasional greenmailing of broadcasters by various politicians. Regardless, if Janet Jackson's nipple sent Americans into apoplexy, airing nightly beheadings would surely trigger an apocalyptic panic. We've got to be the only culture on Earth that turns to television to experience reality.
I will acknowledge the growing perception of military officers as detached bureaucrats because... that's often what they are. More to the point, officers -- perhaps unintentionally -- reflect the existence of a wealth-based hegemony in American society. As I don't doubt individual officers' commitments or their sacrifices, I do understand that many have assumed conflicting loyalties (e.g.; The loot or the people?). Were our military structured to cultivate officers primarily from enlisted personnel, we'd probably see a different military paradigm.
Posted by: MIB at October 7, 2004 02:44 PM
The loot? What loot? Army officers make butkis. Even the most highly trained are skilled in systems with no commercial applications. The transition from military to civilian is no picnic. Few do it well.
Posted by: Cobb at October 7, 2004 02:57 PM
I'll save the political commentary for a different post and say that I love TIVO.
Posted by: Jack at October 7, 2004 03:28 PM
Cobb,
'The Atlantic' some months ago had an excellent article covering what mid-grade officers are doing around the world. Highlighted was a US Army Major, serving as the liason in Mongolia. He spends a lot of his time riding around with the Mongolian grunts, helping their Army on the ground. The upshot being that he - a middle aged soldier whom you'll never know - is doing our country a world of good.
Posted by: brian at October 7, 2004 05:10 PM
I meant in the context of what they're to defend; private commercial interests or American people. Officers are part of America's gentry class. As such, there is a natural inclination toward supporting the concept of property rights. Grunts, infantrymen, etc., in contrast fight for human values.
Posted by: MIB at October 7, 2004 05:21 PM