Monday, July 30, 2007
Hollywood's War
With a presidential election zooming in over the horizon, Hollywood is wasting no time in releasing a spate of Iraq-themed films that, they hope, will sway war-weary voters at the polls.
The relationship between Hollywood and warfare throughout the years has been varied and tumultuous. During the First and Second World Wars, Hollywood released movies that were little more than pro-American propaganda. It wasn't until after those wars ended that more nuanced (but still sanitized) films (like The Longest Day, Patton and The Great Escape) were released. Realistic depictions have only emerged in recent years, like Saving Private Ryan.
For many years, Hollywood was afraid to touch the subject of Vietnam, aside from M.A.S.H., which was "A Vietnam movie, set in Korea." The first Hollywood forays into Vietnam depicted returning veterans as deranged villains, such as in Black Sunday. Then we got films like Coming Home and The Deer Hunter, which primarily dealt with the emotional scars felt by veterans. We also got fictionalized and sensationalized movies like Platoon and Apocalypse Now (a nightmare vision based on Heart of Darkness) that combined the most unseemly instances from that war into a single picture. It hasn't been until fairly recently that we got balanced, character-driven pieces like We Were Soldiers, Hamburger Hill, and the TV series Tour of Duty that pulled few punches in displaying the brutality of war, but glorified and honored the men who withstood the horrors of war and gave all for their comrades.
The first crop of Iraq movies that Hollywood gives us will include such "gems" as Redacted and Stop Loss. They'll depict American soldiers as baby-killers who will murder one of their own to keep the truth from getting out, or betray their oaths and their comrades in order to avoid doing another tour. While these stories may be based on real events, they paint a misleading and harmful picture of the vast majority of American soldiers and Marines who have served in Iraq. It took First Blood to redeem the reputation of Vietnam veterans after the hostility of the 70's and films like Black Sunday. Unfortunately, it looks like Iraq veterans will be subjected to several Black Sundays, with little hope for a First Blood in the near future.
Why can't Hollywood do a character-driven piece about the ingenuity of the armored calvary who spearheaded the fall of Baghdad, or about the tenacity of Marines who fought house-to-house in Fallujah? Such a film would deny some preachy, self-righteous director an opportunity to make a strong anti-Bush, pro-surrender movie. But if Hollywood really cares about the troops, and wants to avoid using them as props for political gain, they should stick to non-fiction accounts of the war and stories that focus on the positive character traits of the American soldier.
The relationship between Hollywood and warfare throughout the years has been varied and tumultuous. During the First and Second World Wars, Hollywood released movies that were little more than pro-American propaganda. It wasn't until after those wars ended that more nuanced (but still sanitized) films (like The Longest Day, Patton and The Great Escape) were released. Realistic depictions have only emerged in recent years, like Saving Private Ryan.
For many years, Hollywood was afraid to touch the subject of Vietnam, aside from M.A.S.H., which was "A Vietnam movie, set in Korea." The first Hollywood forays into Vietnam depicted returning veterans as deranged villains, such as in Black Sunday. Then we got films like Coming Home and The Deer Hunter, which primarily dealt with the emotional scars felt by veterans. We also got fictionalized and sensationalized movies like Platoon and Apocalypse Now (a nightmare vision based on Heart of Darkness) that combined the most unseemly instances from that war into a single picture. It hasn't been until fairly recently that we got balanced, character-driven pieces like We Were Soldiers, Hamburger Hill, and the TV series Tour of Duty that pulled few punches in displaying the brutality of war, but glorified and honored the men who withstood the horrors of war and gave all for their comrades.
The first crop of Iraq movies that Hollywood gives us will include such "gems" as Redacted and Stop Loss. They'll depict American soldiers as baby-killers who will murder one of their own to keep the truth from getting out, or betray their oaths and their comrades in order to avoid doing another tour. While these stories may be based on real events, they paint a misleading and harmful picture of the vast majority of American soldiers and Marines who have served in Iraq. It took First Blood to redeem the reputation of Vietnam veterans after the hostility of the 70's and films like Black Sunday. Unfortunately, it looks like Iraq veterans will be subjected to several Black Sundays, with little hope for a First Blood in the near future.
Why can't Hollywood do a character-driven piece about the ingenuity of the armored calvary who spearheaded the fall of Baghdad, or about the tenacity of Marines who fought house-to-house in Fallujah? Such a film would deny some preachy, self-righteous director an opportunity to make a strong anti-Bush, pro-surrender movie. But if Hollywood really cares about the troops, and wants to avoid using them as props for political gain, they should stick to non-fiction accounts of the war and stories that focus on the positive character traits of the American soldier.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Bill Richardson: Master and Commander of Foreign Policy
Amongst the nation's governors and presidential candidates, few boast the foreign policy credentials of New Mexico's Bill Richardson. I mean, he's been to North Korea twice, right? Anybody who appears on cable news shows to comment on North Korea MUST be a foreign policy guru, right?
My point is that Bill Richardson has done a lot of posturing and created the impression that he has strong foreign policy credentials. Richardson may have experience, but it would seem that his experiences haven't taught him much. He's served as Ambassador to the UN and made trips to Iraq and the Sudan (among other countries,) which does count for something. His experiences as Energy Secretary (although universally reviled by his old agency) allowed him to travel to North Korea to discuss that nation's nuclear weapons program.
At the same time, Richardson believes in an idealistic and naive foreign policy that makes him look amateurish by comparison to other Democratic presidential hopefuls. Richardson believes that America's enemies will only make concessions after America has capitulated. That's a very dangerous way to do business, and rarely (if ever) works to America's advantage. While front-runners like Barack & Hillary believe that the US should still leave a sizeable contingent of its armed forces in Iraq to perform limited missions, Richardson would pull everybody out as part of a "grand bargain" involving Iran and Syria. Now, if America capitulates, what incentive to Iran and Syria have to do anything constructive in Iraq? They'll turn it into their own playground, while terrorists consolidate in Iraq and plot new attacks against American and allies.
In evaluating Bill Richardson's foreign policy positions, I can only conclude that experience doesn't always add up to intelligence.
My point is that Bill Richardson has done a lot of posturing and created the impression that he has strong foreign policy credentials. Richardson may have experience, but it would seem that his experiences haven't taught him much. He's served as Ambassador to the UN and made trips to Iraq and the Sudan (among other countries,) which does count for something. His experiences as Energy Secretary (although universally reviled by his old agency) allowed him to travel to North Korea to discuss that nation's nuclear weapons program.
At the same time, Richardson believes in an idealistic and naive foreign policy that makes him look amateurish by comparison to other Democratic presidential hopefuls. Richardson believes that America's enemies will only make concessions after America has capitulated. That's a very dangerous way to do business, and rarely (if ever) works to America's advantage. While front-runners like Barack & Hillary believe that the US should still leave a sizeable contingent of its armed forces in Iraq to perform limited missions, Richardson would pull everybody out as part of a "grand bargain" involving Iran and Syria. Now, if America capitulates, what incentive to Iran and Syria have to do anything constructive in Iraq? They'll turn it into their own playground, while terrorists consolidate in Iraq and plot new attacks against American and allies.
In evaluating Bill Richardson's foreign policy positions, I can only conclude that experience doesn't always add up to intelligence.
Sunday, July 08, 2007
The Domenici Turns
It would seem that every week brings at least one Republican Senator who turns against President Bush's Iraq strategy; the trend looks like it will continue unabated until only President Bush and Senator McCain are left to support the surge.
The most surprising defection this week comes from Pete Domenici of New Mexico. Once a supporter of the surge, the senator now blames the Iraqi government for the failure to quell that country's violence, and he stands by the Baker Plan to withdraw most US forces by March 2008.
Pete Domenici's defection comes as a personal shock to me. About a month and a half ago, I attended a Memorial Day ceremony where Domenici defended his support for the surge. He claimed that he believed in General Petraeus, praised his genius, and said that he supported the surge because General Petraeus looked him in the eye and told the senator what he needed. I used to like Senator Domenici, but now I think that he's a castrated coward who is prematurely turning his back on a man whose intellect he had formerly praised. I don't find it coincidence that the Baker Plan calls for US redeployment by 2008: the same year that Sen. Domenici will either run for re-election, or support a Republican candidate to replace him (should he retire.)
I agree with the senator's frustration with the Iraqi government. But the point of the surge is that it's supposed to reduce the violence to levels that will allow that dysfunctional government to finally find compromises for its problems. Historian Frederick Kagan, co-author of the surge plan, believes we will see tangible results by August. I am personally willing to wait until the end of December, giving the full surge a full six months to produce tangible results. After all we have sacrificed, I believe that we owe some patience to see things through. Our honored dead deserve a chance that their sacrifices will not have been in vain.
The most surprising defection this week comes from Pete Domenici of New Mexico. Once a supporter of the surge, the senator now blames the Iraqi government for the failure to quell that country's violence, and he stands by the Baker Plan to withdraw most US forces by March 2008.
Pete Domenici's defection comes as a personal shock to me. About a month and a half ago, I attended a Memorial Day ceremony where Domenici defended his support for the surge. He claimed that he believed in General Petraeus, praised his genius, and said that he supported the surge because General Petraeus looked him in the eye and told the senator what he needed. I used to like Senator Domenici, but now I think that he's a castrated coward who is prematurely turning his back on a man whose intellect he had formerly praised. I don't find it coincidence that the Baker Plan calls for US redeployment by 2008: the same year that Sen. Domenici will either run for re-election, or support a Republican candidate to replace him (should he retire.)
I agree with the senator's frustration with the Iraqi government. But the point of the surge is that it's supposed to reduce the violence to levels that will allow that dysfunctional government to finally find compromises for its problems. Historian Frederick Kagan, co-author of the surge plan, believes we will see tangible results by August. I am personally willing to wait until the end of December, giving the full surge a full six months to produce tangible results. After all we have sacrificed, I believe that we owe some patience to see things through. Our honored dead deserve a chance that their sacrifices will not have been in vain.
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
The Red, White & Blue (Courtesy of the ChiComs)
Back in February 2004, I attended the opening ceremonies of the Daytona 500. President Bush was present, and tens of thousands of spectators were supposed to hold small American flags as part of the "Salute to America" opening ceremony. Upon picking a discarded flag off the ground, I noticed that each tiny, plastic flag had originally been printed with the words "Made in China" along the mast of the flag. And workers at the Daytona International Speedway had painstakingly taken each of the hundreds of thousands of flags and cut that offensive phrase away, leaving a rectangular hole in its place.
Associated Press is reporting on states that are banning the sale of American flags that are made outside of America. While these state legislatures are clearly overstepping their bounds by telling stores what flags they can sell, all Americans have a patriotic duty to use their "power of the purse" and make a difference. If we want to tell retailers that they're pushing globalism way too far by exporting the production of America's flag, we as consumers have the power to boycott these imported flags. Consumers should be smart, open their eyes, and only buy the real deal that's made in the good old USA. If the retailers complain about the boycott, we can tell them to shove their Chinese-made flagpoles up their candy-asses.
Associated Press is reporting on states that are banning the sale of American flags that are made outside of America. While these state legislatures are clearly overstepping their bounds by telling stores what flags they can sell, all Americans have a patriotic duty to use their "power of the purse" and make a difference. If we want to tell retailers that they're pushing globalism way too far by exporting the production of America's flag, we as consumers have the power to boycott these imported flags. Consumers should be smart, open their eyes, and only buy the real deal that's made in the good old USA. If the retailers complain about the boycott, we can tell them to shove their Chinese-made flagpoles up their candy-asses.
Sunday, July 01, 2007
Birds of a Feather
The media is portraying the failure of the immigration bill as a major defeat for the Bush Administration. But does the president really deserve the blame? While the public may associate the bill with the president, the Democratic leadership in Congress was just as responsible for the bill as the president was, and perhaps even more so. After all, the bill was a compromise that the leaders of both parties thought they could ram through Congress without much debate.
Earlier, I had predicted that the Democrats would stonewall on the immigration issue. I was wrong. The Dem leadership joined with the President in supporting the bill. The spoiler came when conservative Republicans withdrew their support.
I think that the immigration bill had the right idea, but the fines were too watered down to have a real punitive effect, and the bill would have fast-tracked too many immigrants who should have to go through a thorough screening process before they could be put on the path to citizenship.
My reading of the polls is that Americans are happy this bill is dead. I think that a majority of Americans are apathetic about the status of illegal immigrants who are currently in America. What Americans really want to see is border enforcement, and the stronger the enforcement is, the more popular an immigration bill will be. Polls have shown that the public trusts the Dems more than the president on immigration issues, but those polls are poorly-written; there is no monolithic Democratic position on immigration.
The president could score major points by calling for an enforcement-only bill, and challenging the Democrats to do something about it. Of course, the legal standing of current illegals will need to be addressed in the near future, but Americans are convinced that our broken borders are an issue that can't be pushed onto the back burner any further.
Earlier, I had predicted that the Democrats would stonewall on the immigration issue. I was wrong. The Dem leadership joined with the President in supporting the bill. The spoiler came when conservative Republicans withdrew their support.
I think that the immigration bill had the right idea, but the fines were too watered down to have a real punitive effect, and the bill would have fast-tracked too many immigrants who should have to go through a thorough screening process before they could be put on the path to citizenship.
My reading of the polls is that Americans are happy this bill is dead. I think that a majority of Americans are apathetic about the status of illegal immigrants who are currently in America. What Americans really want to see is border enforcement, and the stronger the enforcement is, the more popular an immigration bill will be. Polls have shown that the public trusts the Dems more than the president on immigration issues, but those polls are poorly-written; there is no monolithic Democratic position on immigration.
The president could score major points by calling for an enforcement-only bill, and challenging the Democrats to do something about it. Of course, the legal standing of current illegals will need to be addressed in the near future, but Americans are convinced that our broken borders are an issue that can't be pushed onto the back burner any further.
