Features » September 8, 2006

The Good War on Terror (cont’d)

U.S. Marines salute behind memorials to their fallen comrades at a service memorializing those killed in Iraq.

In the film, a small company of American soldiers manages to survive the D-Day invasion, and are then led by their commander, John Miller (Tom Hanks), on a quest to find Private Ryan. Ryan’s three brothers have, unbeknownst to him, all recently died in combat, and U.S. General Command has decided to find the lone surviving Ryan boy and get him home to his grieving mother. Miller and his company, comprising a charmingly diverse assemblage of white guys, wander the French countryside still dotted with Germans, looking for the elusive private, who had parachuted ahead with the airborne.  

But the film’s real message revolves not around Ryan, but Cpl. Timothy Upham. We first meet Upham when Miller goes to fetch him from his desk where he is poring over maps and translating communiqués from French and German. Young and wispy, with hair brushing his upper lip, Upham is a translator, not a fighter: He hasn’t fired a gun since basic training and wants to take his typewriter with him. He quickly earns the unit’s ire by annoyingly chatting everyone up and quoting books and poetry.  

At one point, after engaging a German tank that manages to kill one of their own men, the American soldiers capture the lone surviving German and force him to dig his own grave before they execute him. As the German pathetically mutters nonsensical English phrases, Upham objects to Miller. “Captain, this isn’t right,” he says, “You know this. He’s a prisoner, he surrendered. He surrendered, sir.” Miller is skeptical, but ultimately swayed. He blindfolds the German and tells him to walk 1,000 paces and then turn himself in to the first American soldiers he sees. The other men grumble.

It’s not the last we see of the German. In the film’s climatic battle, as the Americans try to hold a bridge under a heavy German attack, this same former prisoner returns to shoot and kill Captain Miller. Meanwhile, during the battle, Upham is paralyzed by a fear so total that, as his Jewish comrade wrestles hand-to-hand with a menacing Nazi, he can only cower in the stairwell below, crying as the Nazi plunges a knife in the Jewish soldier’s chest.  

The message is clear. In the great struggle for the future of the free world, the intellectual cannot be trusted. His concern for the laws of war means he is weak and cowardly, and will contribute to defeat. Only the true soldier can win the war. This is the ethos of the Cult of the Soldier, which would come to entirely dominate our politics in the years to follow.

“For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press,” Zell Miller boomed during his keynote speech at the 2004 Republican National Convention. “It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag who gives that protester the freedom he abuses to burn that flag.”

The Cult of the Soldier wasn’t confined solely to the Republican Party. Just a month earlier, the Democratic National Convention had been converted into a four-day military pageant, with home movies of John Kerry as a young solider, his Swift Boat crew assembled on stage on the convention’s final night, and the nominee opening his acceptance speech with a stiff salute and the words, “John Kerry, reporting for duty.”  

It didn’t work. Whatever points Kerry scored from his military valor were negated by ceaseless attacks on his character: from the incessant charge of flip-flopping to the slander of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. More devastatingly, Kerry’s personal story didn’t fit the idealized notion of honorable, dutiful, courageous combat, because after his service he returned home to question the war’s purpose and the war crimes of his fellow soldiers.  

If he played Miller in the war’s first act, he played Upham in its second.

But even without the particulars of Kerry’s own moral journey, it was still destined to fail. Reality can’t compete with the power of these established symbols. To reinforce the Cult of the Soldier is to reinforce the same set of oppositional culture war cliches that undergird our current political discourse. You’re either with the war or you are against the troops.  

Not everyone was so naive as to miss this. Even before 9/11, historian Howard Zinn, himself a WWII bombardier, wrote in The Progressive that he refused to celebrate the Greatest Generation “because in doing so we are celebrating courage and sacrifice in the cause of war. And we are miseducating the young to believe that military heroism is the noblest form of heroism. … Indeed, the current infatuation with World War II prepares us—innocently on the part of some, deliberately on the part of others—for more war, more military adventures, more attempts to emulate the military heroes of the past.”

The experience of Vietnam had largely succeeded in cleansing Americans of whatever romantic notions of military heroism they may have once held dear. For neoconservatives, our collective suspicion of war was a weak-kneed impediment to fulfilling our imperial calling, a national illness they diagnosed as “Vietnam syndrome.” Searching for a cure took up no small amount of conservative energy, but it was the centrists and liberals who produced the WWII nostalgia who ultimately provided it.  

It is a grand irony that Spielberg claimed repeatedly that his entire motivation behind making Saving Private Ryan was to deconstruct the simplified version of WWII that Americans had come to accept. “All wars,” he said in a typical interview, are “chambers of horrors.” And that’s certainly true of the film’s opening and of the gruesome descriptions in Ambrose’s books and Brokaw’s recounting. But what emerges from these works is a picture of war as a chamber of physical horrors—torn limbs, exposed viscera, muck, blood. Absent completely are the moral horrors of combat, the horror of taking a life, of feeling the killer within. There’s a good deal of evidence that suggests the most traumatic experience of war isn’t being the target of violence, but rather the agent. A 1994 study of post-traumatic stress in veterans of World War II, Korea and Vietnam found that “responsibility for killing another human being is the single most pervasive, traumatic experience of war.”

So when, as Spielberg and Brokaw both point out, WWII veterans refuse to say they are heroes, it may not be due to any generational humility, but rather because, in their view, they really aren’t heroes. Taking another human life may sometimes be necessary, but it is rarely, if ever, heroic.

In fact, the more recent Greatest Generation texts by and large display far less moral nuance than the classic World War II literature produced by the men who fought in it. In Catch-22, to name just one example, there is no glory or moral clarity, only surreal, horrific absurdity. At one point, as Yossarian is about to embark on a bombing run, he asks his comrades, “Do you guys realize, we are going to bomb a city that has no military targets, no railroads, no industries, only people?”  

The WWII that emerges from accounts of the late ’90s is one scrubbed clean of its moral complexity. There is no mention of American big business financing the build-up of the Nazi war machine, no America First campaign determined not to shed American blood for European Jews, no firebombing of civilians in Dresden. The war was difficult, yes, and bloody, but pure and just: a battle, not to put too fine a point on it, between good and evil.  

In the hands of the men who would come to dominate American military policy in the Bush administration, this Manichean framework was a useful template to apply indiscriminately to any and all of the military confrontations they had long sought. To the neocons and some breakaway lefties, al-Qaeda members are “Islamofascists,” 21st century heirs to the murderous ideologies of Nazism, fascism and totalitarianism. It is always Munich 1938, every dictator is a “tyrant,” and anyone opposed to a state of perpetual war is guilty of “appeasement.”

“In the 20th century, some chose to appease murderous dictators, whose threats were allowed to grow into genocide and global war,” Bush said in a March 17, 2003, address that would herald the beginning of the bombing of Iraq. “In this century, when evil men plot chemical, biological and nuclear terror, a policy of appeasement could bring destruction of a kind never before seen on this earth.”  

Making WWII the touchstone for martial combat allowed the militarists we politely call “neoconservatives” to imbue all wars with the same moral purpose. The Greatest Generation nostalgia succeeded in helping to subtly shift the burden of proof, such that wars were presumed innocent and righteous, as opposed to the far more sane position that war is guilty until proven innocent.  

If there’s a single guiding ethos for the Bush’s administration’s foreign policy, it is this: that contrary to the age-old insight about the “fog of war,” war brings moral clarity even as it clouds the senses. In the first days of the escalating missile and rocket strikes between Israel and Hezbollah, Dan Bartlett, a White House aide, explained that “[The president] mourns the loss of every life. Yet out of this tragic development, he believes a moment of clarity has arrived.”

Through the crucible of battle, evil and good announce themselves. In the absence of violence, they remain hidden.  

The perils of unity

The people who produced the books and movies that would come to define WWII nostalgia were by no means reactionaries. Spielberg is famously liberal, Brokaw widely rumored to be a Democrat, and Ambrose an establishment centrist who in 1995 penned an op-ed calling for Colin Powell to run for president.

So whatever the nationalistic and militaristic effects of the symbolic vocabulary they built, war and patriotism weren’t the primary aims. No, what seems to motivate the soft-focus reflections on the ’40s is the unparalleled experience of unity that the Good War created. “The one time the nation got together was World War II,” says Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) in The Greatest Generation. “We stood as one. We spoke as one. We clenched our fists as one.”  

By appealing to an era of broad national consensus, Brokaw, Spielberg and Ambrose tapped a popular urge to rise above the social striations and fissures of post-’60s upheavals. After 30 years of culture war, they were calling for a truce. And as the initial reaction to 9/11 showed, Americans were ready for one.  

On the 60th anniversary of Pearl Harbor, with the country still just three months removed from the 9/11 attacks, George W. Bush invoked, as he would many times in the years that followed, the unwavering unity America had displayed during World War II. “During four years of war,” he said, “no one doubted the rightness of our cause; no one wavered in the quest of victory.”  

A state in which “no one doubts the rightness” of its cause is a state in which politics has ceased to exist. In retrospect, that is what the nation sought in the waning days of the 20th century. Crowding into theatres to watch Saving Private Ryan, curling up to read The Greatest Generation, Americans were longing for something greater, more noble and less petty than mere politics. But mere politics turns out to be the only bulwark we have against the collective madness that war engenders. When politics dies, when it is suffocated underneath the warm blanket of patriotic consensus, the conscience of the republic dies along with it.

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  Both my father and maternal grandfather served in the WWs-2&1;respectiively. Both men were volunteers, and my grandfather was wounded. Three of his four brothers were killed in the war, which sent my great grandmother mad with grief.

  Neither men were under any illusions about war, and both were utterly immune to BS rhetoric about the glory and moral clarity that violence and death brings.  Although both are now dead, I learnt at an early age that War brings nothing but death and tears, even if, as in WW2, it was felt to be necessary. Because both were real soldiers, volunteers, not conscripts, and because both were intelligent men, neither of them had any time at all for blow hard jingoism, and attempts by third rate politicians to rally young men into wars that were not a product of a real struggle, but the product of ideological crusades and the desire to mobilise sentiment to support the reelection of scoundrels

  The political campaign in both the US and to a lesser but still palpable extent here in Australia, to dress up hunting down terrorists, (who when all said and done, employ an oppositional technique that was common in much of 19th century Europe) as the moral and existential equivalence of WW2, is, simply, a disgrace. To dress it up as the new ‘cold war’ is both historically and factually, illiterate. I think that the true meaning of all the guff you describe may be that the politicians and the absurd and sinister ratbags who amplify this rubbish, are searching for a narrative that makes them the heroes, and the rest of us, politicaly immobile.

  I, for one, am simply unpersuaded, and I hope for the rest, that the people who are the sons and daughters of the people who actually did the fighting in WW2, as opposed to those who now make money talking and making films about it, will aslo resist this pathetic, dangerous and politicaly illiterate campaign of obfuscation and deceit.

  It is vitally impoertant that everyone resist, and the first step in resisting the nonesense is to take a deep breath, and ask yourself, if all this is the moral equivalent of WW2, who is making the sacrifices, and what kinds of sacrificies would be apporpriate in any case?  If it is to be the moral equivalent of the cold war, how will we know when we have won?

  Posted by Jane Doe on Sep 8, 2006 at 10:37 PM

  The author seems to ignore the sham of it all.  The “Pearl Harbor” analogy isn’t explored for validity (or for premeditation).  As with all 9-11 references, they take the government’s version unquestioned and proceed from that starting point. 

  I for one, do not believe the government’s story about September 11.  I also have a real problem with western intelligence services CREATING THE ENEMY by financing, protecting, training, and arming the most radical Islamic zealots.  Then they turn around and claim we are all at risk from their own creations. 

  We are being played by the men in the shadows.  There is abundant evidence for this.  In nearly every attack attributed to “al Qaeda” you will find the fingerprints of MI-6, ISI, Mossad and CIA (not to mention others).

  The most powerful forces in the world, those that can pull the strings behind the scenes, decided long ago that “terrorism” was the new “communism,” and needed to be coddled and raised to be a seemingly credible threat. 

  You can see how this plays out in western governments (like congressional “investigations") when they cover up and do not mention the most important evidence that comes out. 

  For example, the hands of Pakistani intelligence are all over the 9-11 financing.  The head of ISI ordered $100,000 wired to Mohamed Atta, by Omar Saeed Sheikh (a British born “terrorist” with some vague ties to bin Laden and to other Pakistani terror groups in Kashmir).

  This financing was exposed by the press.  The head of ISI was implicated in the 9-11 attacks.  And the only place you hear about this stuff nowadays is from people like me.

  The head of ISI resigned immediately after being caught red handed by Indian intelligence in the financing portion of 9-11, but he remains nowhere to be seen on the FBI’s Most Wanted List. 

  He (Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad) seems to have never existed if you go by the 9-11 Omission Commission, or the Congressional Joint Inquiry (redacted) report.

  This Pakistani ISI financing of 9-11 is my favorite example to trot out, seeing the anniversary and all.  But I could easily go through my files, and find 100 more examples of links between terror attacks and western intelligence services.  These have come out in mainstream news, and have been corroborated by the news organizations.

  Still, most people don’t get it, and perhaps never will.

  Posted by johndoraemi on Sep 10, 2006 at 10:04 PM

  BRAND NEW 9/11 FILM:

  9/11 Press For Truth
  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1016720641536424083

  Brand new film uses Paul Thompson’s Complete 9/11 Timeline as the spine of this in-depth investigation into 9/11, Al Qaeda, and the cover-up.

  This is arguably the best and most comprehensive study of September 11th 2001 available.  Send this link to your friends and those skeptical of the “truth movement.”

  Posted by johndoraemi on Sep 11, 2006 at 2:27 AM

  Today’s Democracy Now has a debate on the movie Loose Change. The problem with the conspiracy theories is that they don’t make sense in that there are too many witnesses. I don’t trust the Bushites but I don’t think they are that smart either.

  As I’ve said before, if anything, the administration should have raised an alarm concerning a threat that they were warned about before the attack --- but I can understand why they didn’t. On the other hand not giving a warning can be conceived of as a conspiracy if the motivation was political in nature. We can’t know that one way or another.

  We do know that the Bushites used the attack to achieve their ideological/political goals but that is another story. Most all right wingers were very very happy about the attack, especially Jewish right wingers who were gloating that now they can get the USA to go after the ragheads, their enemies.

  On the other hand the recent scare about the attack on cross Atlantic planes was clearly politically manipulated and was done very stupidly so that Blair and Bush looked like crooks to anyone but mainstream audiences that where already convinced that they were under attack.

  What we have to worry about is the manipulation to start the war against Iran and we need thousands and thousands of people in the streets. PLEASE PLEASE go to a World can’t Wait demonstration near you on October 5th.
  worldcantwait.org

  Posted by Spinoza750 on Sep 11, 2006 at 1:16 PM

  Hi Spinoza,

  Putting words in Ahmadinejihad’s mouth is a good place to start.

  Deliberate mistranslation for Propaganda.

  Surprising how many people believe sincerely that IRAN wants to wipe Israel off the map.

  Well, understandable more like, because the media barrage on this here in france, and UK, is non-stop.  Soundbites around the clock, in most of the newspapers, etc..

  You are correct on the Liquid Bomber Scare

  A complete farce.

  Posted by frog on Sep 15, 2006 at 3:34 PM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 10 posts.

Also featured Do You Have a Minute for ?
Bigger Than Hip Hop
Bird-Dogging Hillary Clinton

Full contents
Previous issues
Subscribe and save!

Also by Christopher Hayes

• The New Road to Serfdom
  Over the course of 500 pages in The Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein documents the moments of chaos and disruption that allow a small coterie of experts to swoop in and administer what's invariably called "bitter medicine," "painful reforms" or "shock therapy"Posted on November 9, 2007
• Who’s Afraid of Democracy?
  Believing that "people are rational as consumers and irrational as voters," many conservatives would favor free markets without democracyPosted on May 25, 2007
• What We Learn When We Learn Economics
  Is a little economics a dangerous thing?Posted on November 27, 2006
• The Abramoff Babies
  Like the "Watergate Babies" of 1974, the new Democratic Congress will have to pick between sustanative or procedural reforms.Posted on October 19, 2006
• Economic Populism Proves Popular
  To thwart legislation that put caps on payday lending rates, Republican lawmakers in Oregon had to pass itPosted on August 7, 2006