Wilson's War

Reader,

I recently watched Charlie Wilson's War, which was an entertaining and provocative movie, even though as usual, I was left questioning the "based on a true story" label. But regardless of the entertainment value of the movie or even the historical accuracy, the movie takes an interesting stance on the place of "war" in terms of larger strategic objectives.

The movie in large part glorifies the actions of Congressman Charlie Wilson who was apparently responsible for raising money for covert weapons sales and training Afghanistan's "military". (The movie also passingly tries to pin the current state of Afghanistan and the growth of terrorism on U.S. Congressional apathy, but that is largely irrelevant to the current issue, which is...) The movie makes no apologies for the support for this war against the Soviet Union, even as it demonstrated the typicality of the Soviet helicopter pilots discussing presumably very American or Western relationship problems.

Of course, the movie decries the horrors of war: depicting the injuries in the refugee camps and telling the stories of the victims, which included the indiscriminant actions of brutal Soviet pilots. There was the occasional mention of rape, torture, tactical murder and malice upon children, along with mass murder and displacement. Each of these terrors has always been a relatively common, widely reviled occurrence in warfare. Yet, instead of glorifying a peacemaker or someone responsible for disarmament, the movie chooses the arms supplier as the protagonist and hero and the supply of arms was not one of his "character flaws," (like in Lord of War) but his flaws were actually his philandering and alcohol abuse. The supplying of arms itself was the action that made him heroic and his redeeming quality. Moreover, Wilson's arms supplying was not lauded because he saved the Afghani people or saved individual lives, but instead because by helping conduct this proxy war in Afghanistan, he helped achieve a larger strategic objective of defeating and destroying the Soviet Union.

The film provided a re-freshing look at the politics of conducting a war. Nowadays, Hollywood movies, made almost exclusively by those who seek to end U.S. involvement in foreign wars, have tended to merely demonstrate the horrors of wars and portray the personal tragedies incurred, almost never depicting possible benefits of some wars. The films have often taken to portraying the emotional torment of a soldier having to unwittingly fight a battle that he had scarcely signed up for. Sometimes, the plight of the film is to display the realization that the enemy has everyday problems, such as relationship issues, feeding children quandaries, and moral dilemmas much like the American soldier. Some films focus on the "underlying" causes (which are usually shown as American intervention or consumerism. The notion of these stories is often similar to that of Bambi, where America is Man that comes in and kills Bambi's mother. Of course, in the scenario Bambi becomes a terrorist, but I broke from that analogy to soon.) There are occasionally even films that show war's negative impact on American society. But, there are rarely movies, other than run-and-gun popcorn thrillers that illustrate the reasons why an American war was "necessary" (really, why the war was a logical or beneficial strategic maneuver, such as efforts to prevent genocide, to dethrone a maniacal dictator, or to prevent one country from taking over another.) A mild prior example of a movie that demonstrates some of the reasons people continue to advocate for one war or another is Three Kings, (which is mostly an action flick). In Three Kings, there are many typical anti-war devices, such as: the movie is about disobeying disillusioned soldiers, the movie humanizes the enemy during a scene depicting the torture of an American soldier, and it decries the oil issues in the war, as well as the American government's balking at keeping promises of aiding those in need under the suffering of tyranny. But, the ending at least, shows some semblance of why a war might be helpful to the suffering people of Iraq (in Persian Gulf 1,) which puts the movie in rarified air.

Since there is no such a thing as a last resort (see a prior blog entry), there must be some criteria whereby war is an acceptable course of action, when war is a reasonable reaction to a set of circumstances perhaps such as in the case of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. And even though there were other motivations for the U.S. involvement and support for the war, including the larger strategic goal of defeating the Soviet Union, preserving the United States oil interests in the middle east, and trying to implant a U.S.-friendly regime in place of an unfriendly pro-Soviet regime, there was at least one humane interest in the war, protecting civilians from an oppressive government. (Of course, detractors will say, why act in one country and not another? Well, because economics dictate, by definition, that any entity (like a country), has limited resources and must make choices based on those limitations. Thus, no one can act everywhere, whether that means military intervention or supplying foodstuffs to the hungry. So, how do we choose where to act? It would have to be a complex mixture of emotional attachment and a calculated matrix of the level of desperation of the people in need, coupled with our ability to aid those people, and yes, perhaps factoring in that country or people's ability to help us in the future (which would enable us to help more people in the future). So, even though we cannot help everyone, I would contend we should try to help those people who we can afford to help and who can use our help to lift themselves up on their own and then contribute back to making a better society. That statement might be controversial, but its purposefully vague too.)

Of course, one should ask, why resort to war, unless self-preservation (or possibly something as horrid as genocide is involved) when there are other alternatives to war. If there is another way to prevent atrocities, almost everyone would agree that diplomatic means, international pressure, or financial pressures are preferable to massive amounts of killing and American deaths. But, diplomatic means are essentially talking (with often unreasonable counterparts who do not appreciate being told what to do or being talked down to), international pressure is the virtual equivalent of peer pressure (which works on teenagers more than on dictators), and the only ways of influencing an adamant country is usually through money (or other natural resources) or violence. Money in the form of aid, could set a bad precedent and encourage other nations to believe that they should be paid for doing something or more dangerously paid to not doing something "wrong", like let's say ever country demanded money not to start a nuclear program instead of feeding a massive starving population. Sanctions and embargoes often hurt the wrong people, the people without the power to affect change (and makes those people villify the sanctioner). Violence on smaller scales is dangerous because an assasination gives the world the idea that the U.S. controls foreign governments by killing off unfriendly regimes. And whether it succeeds or fails, it might not have the desired affect, therefore excaerbating the problem. Moreover, every future death or attempted murder of a leader in that country and perhaps every other country would make the U.S. a legitimate primary suspect. Smaller scale operations, such as CIA funding of foreign wars or Special Operations involvement are often insufficient to accomplish the task, while war, or a war equivalent is a blunt, aggressive tool that physically forces the opposition into submission. Its the most dangerous tool that we have, so it is not feasible that we enter into war lightly, and even though there is no such a thing as a last resort, it is likely that even flawed ignorant politicians considered the alternate possibilities and eliminated them as options sufficient to achieve the intended goals.

That is not to say that we are still trying to infuse the world with President Woodrow Wilson's 14 Points of Light, spreading democracy throughout the world in an ideological manifest destiny. President Wilson, under Bernard Baruch's tutelage, also established a wartime leadership that some have considered the first corporate capitalist government (a euphemism for fascism) to stave off the German Kaiser. World War 2 was fought in Europe primarily to prevent the spread of fascism. The U.S.-Japanese front was fought primarily because the Americans were looking to secure various oil transport islands (U.S. naval oil supply lines) from Japanese control and domination, which in turn threatened the Japanese oil supply, which was needed particularly for its expansion efforts (which were to gather outside resources, like oil. It's an endless cycle really.) Japan thus felt it had no choice but to attack the United States, and chose to attack the U.S. military and try to decapitate the sleeping giant's Navy, rather than attack the closer tactical island targets. Of course, there were then the domino theory inspired Cold War battles conducted all over the world from Korea to Vietnam to Panama to Israel to...

But, the bottom line is that there were questionable primary motives for just about all of the wars in history, from Helen of Troy to the Napoleonic Wars, from the tax on tea to the Spanish-American War, and from the most understandable wars in American history to the least comprehensible. Regardless of whether the wars in Afghanistan or the Iraq Wars were properly justified by the theories upon which we entered, the final result and the historical perspective will determine the worth and success of the war. Of course, we can academically debate the justification for war (i.e. discuss whether the current war is a delayed conclusion to the war ten years prior that involved preventing a tyrant from taking over an independant ally nation, part of a larger war against terrorism to eliminate ties or to consolidate the ties and open up a new front (keeping attacks off U.S. soil against U.S. civilians), a legitimate attempt to remove a dictator that had used chemical weapons on the Kurdish people and tortured political prisoners with rape chambers, who was thought to have additional weapons of mass destruction, or was a neo-con ploy to maintain the military, oil company lobbying, personal vengeance against Sadaam, and part of a Christian (or Jewish) conspiracy to eliminate a potentially powerful Islamic threat) or the hypothetical repetition of the scenario in the future (e.g. what happens if Iran...), but as long as we all are hoping and planning for the same positive results of a better safer world, we are all on the same page. And as long, as we can all evaluate what is best for the country and the world based on our current situation, rather than trying to reestablish a prior relatively war-less situation 10 years ago, then we are having the right discussion about our current state.

The difference between prior wars and current wars is that the United States has gone through a dramatic increase in the priority of our value of life, so much so that we televise the name of every troop that passes away. And at the same time, we have devalued other things that are still extremely important throughout the rest of the world, such as honor. I am not arguing it as a negative societal change, but it makes war victory a much grimmer and more problematic destination. So, when Bill Murray tried to motivate his troops in Stripes by declaring, "We're America, we're 9 and 1," he was using the old standard for what accounts for a win. (The new-age standard for winning in warfare is often described as "nobody wins", which is not to be confused with the new-age standard for determining children's competitions in that "everybody is a winner".)

Tom Hanks's (and Tom Brokaw's, and I think every other Tom I know's) mild obsession with World War 2, has probably given him a wider perspective as to both the terrors of war and the potential glories of war, at least historically. So, when he makes a film about a more modern war, and of course, most modern wars are fought with constant media attention, and with the scrutiny of modern values, I often pay particular attention to what messages he relays. Of course, Mr. Hanks has a political leaning: liberal, I believe he is a supporter of Hillary Clinton, he is likely for the withdrawal of troops in order to best support the troops, and probably operates under the assumption that the current war in Iraq was not "a war of necessity" in other words, not the best means or even likely an effective method of achieving our short or long term goals. But, with the added perspective, whether or not to attack Iraq and whether or not to currently withdraw troops, there is the possibility that one could see a legitimacy behind the assault, behind the harsh politics of right vs. left, behind the gritty reality of thousands of dead and wounded soldiers, and a nation of Iraq that is only very slowly making progress towards becoming a safe and self-determining country.

So, it is on several levels (two levels) that I applaud the film: it was entertaining in that the characters were quirky, funny, and charismatic and it was intellectually provocative in that the plot was an engaging tale of intrigue in the U.S. involvement in what was essentially the Soviet version of Vietnam, except it actually helped tear down the Soviet empire. And more specifically, the movie played a part in the film industry's rediscovering the potential for honor in warfare. It boldly depicted a historical moment of advocacy for the Wilsonian ideals of spreading democracy throughout the world, even if the original Wilson's ideals were diluted by the president's attempts at stifling democratic processes at home. But, venom towards opposition, or passionate illogical vehemence rarely gets us as a nation, the world as a whole, or you as an avid reader of my "column," closer to a larger good, a larger truth, or larger happiness (which actually comes from re-reading the blog over and over.) (Note, I have political leanings of my own, and if asked, I would freely disclose them and/or please feel free to extrapolate or misinterpret my views at your whim.)

I also saw Sweeney Todd, which was based on a true story. The title character was a butcher falsely accused of something, landing him in prison, and upon returning, he seeks vengeance upon all the people who wronged him. But he settles by taking vengeance on pretty much everyone, because there are two kinds of people in this world: the people who go out about their business and do good things, and the people kicking those good people in the face, so it would behoove the world to get rid of the bad people and it is a mercy to liberate the good people. That theory is unfortunately not that far from truth, but is violence really the answer? Maybe (see above discussion for details). Depp, as always was excellent, and even his singing was up to the task. Burton and Depp made these despicable characters human, and made these crazy characters flawed. I understand that the film was not quite as funny as the show, but I had a good number of laughs (hopefully appropriately, such as the dream sequence picturing the melancholy, pale, psychotically revenge-focused Mr. Todd on typical vacations.) Overall, the movie is not for the feint of heart, but it's a beautifully shot and positively Burton-esque (probably the greatest auteur of our generation). The pairing of this director and actor has placed a virtual lock on my ten dollars (really twelve and rising) from now on. The choice of which movies are going to get my hard earned money in the future is often going to be between some dark comedy musical like a Burton-Depp pairing or instead some war related piece that forces me to think about war and politics and history, and why on earth would someone choose to spend their precious free time dwelling on those depressing things?

Thinking big,
Papa Bear (ME)