He was elected, at least partially, on the promise that he would end the war in Iraq. He was re-elected, at least partially, because he did end the war in Iraq. And now that he doesn't have to worry about being elected or re-elected, President Obama wants to rekindle the war in Iraq. So what does this all mean?
First off, let's take a good look at the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, and what they've been up to in the past couple of weeks. This is hardly the first time I'm discussing them here. We have to talk about the brutal execution of a Jordanian Air Force pilot at the group's hands, of course - the man was burned alive. Part of what's interesting about this is how unconcerned ISIS is about making allies in the Muslim world. The Jordanian hostage, Moath al-Kasasbeh, was a devout Muslim, and his nation launched a staunch wave of retaliatory attacks against the Islamic State. Last week, when 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians were beheaded in Libya by an affiliate of ISIS's, Egypt launched airstrikes of its own. ISIS has no allies - not even Al Qaeda will affiliate itself with the group. ISIS is officially the Westboro Baptist Church of the world. ISIS has also claimed that Arizona native Kayla Mueller was killed in one of the Jordanian airstrikes. And we're supposed to believe that? Top officials in Jordan's Air Force asserted that no strikes were made at the location in question when Kayla was killed, which only serves to reinforce the theory that ISIS killed her in cold blood, as they have so many westerners (and easterners, at this point - let's not forget the Japanese hostages).
So, to recap, ISIS has threatened the United States, most of western Europe (including France, Germany and the UK), Russia, Japan, Australia, and much of the Islamic World. And all the while, they've been bragging about their barbaric exploits and publicizing their actions for all the world to see. The Nazis did their utmost to hide the extent of their atrocities, as did Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, and many others. Not even Al Qaeda and the Taliban publicize their actions - it took three years for Bin Laden to admit to the 9/11 attacks. ISIS is running rampant, calling the world's bluff. Which is why I think Obama's plan to wage a ground war is long overdue. I'm not a war hawk, so hear me out: ISIS has no armored infantry. Its air capabilities extremely limited. The videos they post bragging about the capabilities of their "soldiers" on the battlefield show individuals who are downright pathetic next to US marines. Not even Special Forces or Navy SEALs - regular old US marines. ISIS has attacked American bases and gotten very close to others, practically daring our forces to attack. I think we should go with Obama's suggestion and engage. He uses flowery language to make it sound like he isn't calling for a ground war, but we all know that he is. And why is that a problem? Our troops are better-trained, better-equipped, and better-supplied, not to mention that we have hundreds of thousands of soldiers, marines, airmen and sailors ready for combat. The M1 Abrams can shred any ISIS vehicle to pieces with a single round. And this isn't anything like Iraq '03. This is more like Iraq '91. We're facing an enemy who has given us plenty of cause to go to war. That enemy has provoked much of the international community, including much of the Islamic world. We could assemble a broad coalition to sweep through the infected areas and cut out the cancer that is the Islamic State in a matter of months - in theory, at least. Perhaps best of all, Obama's plan doesn't call for any long-term engagements in the region. And the odds that he would abuse this power are fairly low. Much stranger things have happened, but I don't think Obama would go back on his word here.
But, as I said at the beginning of this segment, this would be a huge change in policy for Obama. He structured both his campaigns on two major promises: relief for the lower and middle classes, and extraction from foreign conflicts. He achieved both of these with varying degrees of success, depending on how you look at the big picture (and, of course, who you're asking). Obama ended the war in Iraq back in 2011 and plans to remove the vast majority of American military personnel stationed in Afghanistan by the end of this year. He didn't get the military involved in the Syrian conflict, and he didn't escalate any of the numerous situations involving North Korea. Now, Obama stands poised to send our country back to Iraq in a move I believe will mirror the Gulf War - which is part of the reason why I'm in favor of it. Right now, America simply can't afford a drawn-out war. And ISIS is just as bad as Saddam Hussein was - brutal slaughter of innocent civilians, attempted genocide, and so on and so forth. You could argue, as I would, that they're even worse. But in spite of this all, the irony is still very much in evidence. Seven years ago, if you'd told me that Barack Obama was going to reignite the war in Iraq, I probably would have laughed at you. Actually, since I was in the fifth grade at the time, I probably would have been rather confused...but the point still stands. Obama sent his war plan to Congress, which is a new twist - if Congress actually declares war on ISIS, it will be the first time since World War Two when it has done so. If Congress authorizes Obama's plan, it will be the first time since...well, since Iraq '03. Technically, Obama has the authority to carry out the strikes as he underlines them in his plan. He's probably only asking Congress for authorization so nobody can claim he's a warmonger who went back on his promise for no reason. People will claim that, of course, but they won't have any legitimate argument. In all honesty, I believe (at least, I hope) that this is something the Democrats and the Republicans in the House and the Senate will be able to get behind and support. Because if history has taught us anything, it's that nothing unites Americans like a quick, successful war. Isn't that comforting?
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
Saturday, February 7, 2015
Alternate History: If the South Had Won (Conquest)
Four historical wars made the United States what it is today: the Revolutionary War, the Mexican-American War, the Civil War, and World War Two. You could argue that each war America has entered has shaped its national history, but I think we can all agree that these four have had the biggest impact. The Revolution made us a nation. The Mexican-American war gave us control of the continent (don't say it, Canada). The Civil War made us a nation of free men. And World War Two made us a global superpower. For today's purposes, I'll be discussing the Civil War.
As it was in 1860, when Lincoln was elected president and the Southern states were outraged, the South had no chance of winning the war in the sense that the North won it - invading and dominating the land occupied by the other nation. Right off the bat, the Confederacy lacked the resources and the manpower to conquer the Union. You can argue that the Confederate commanders were superior strategists to their Union counterparts - I would certainly argue that Robert E. Lee was a better general than Ulysses S. Grant. However, Grant's army was better-trained, better-supplied, and much better-staffed than Lee's army. The fact of the matter is, the South did not have the industrial capacity to keep up with the North.
But what if it had?
What if, in the days after the War of 1812, the Southern cities had industrialized as their Union counterparts did, while the slaveholding agrarian society continued beyond the city borders? What if Atlanta, Nashville and Charleston had become industrial centers to rival New York, Detroit and Boston? What if Southern Congressmen had worked harder to pass legislation for better infrastructure within the Southern states?
If this had happened, the Civil War would have played out very differently.
Robert E. Lee's assault on Gettysburg was part of a planned invasion of the North. The North won the battle through a mix of manpower, individual resilience, better weapons, and quite a bit of luck. Southern miscommunications and miscalculations during the battle proved invaluable to the Union's triumph. But in my alternate scenario (let's call it "the Industrial South"), Gettysburg may have happened even sooner. With better supply lines, the Confederates would have found it easy to transport men and supplies to battlefields on the border with - and even within - the Union, as the Union did in our time. With better training and more recruits (after all, urban environments do tend to produce more people and attract more migrants than their rural counterparts), it's feasible that Grant's army would have fallen, and Confederate troops would have made their way through the Union, conquering as they did.
So how would American history, and today's America, be different? It obviously would be different, but I'd argue it wouldn't be as different as you might think. And here's my rationale:
When the Confederacy won the war, the hero wouldn't be President Jefferson Davis. No, the hero would be Robert E. Lee. Lee would be seen as the Confederacy's equivalent of George Washington. And, as Grant became president in our timeline, it stands to reason that Lee would have become president in this alternate timeline. Here we must examine Robert E. Lee, the man who rejected Grant's position in the Union army because he suspected his home state of Virginia would secede. A fact often forgotten by today's Americans would have shaped President Lee's America: Lee despised the institution of slavery. In one of American history's greatest ironies, General Grant owned slaves at the end of the Civil War. General Lee did not. It seems unlikely that Lee would have abolished slavery if he were elected president. But it also seems unlikely that he would simply allow slavery to continue. What seems to me the most likely scenario is that Lee would put in place steps to gradually reduce slavery in the South, and beyond it. Perhaps under disguise of mending the relationship with the North, he would likely ban slavery in the western territories. It would sound a lot better to southerners coming from Lee, their hero, than it did coming from Lincoln. Especially if the South was industrial - after all, industry played a role in eliminating northern dependence on and use of the practice. It stands to reason that Industrial Southerners would be better inclined to abolishing slavery than agrarian southerners. Given the international community's abhorrence for the practice by the late 19th Century and the lack of logic for its continuation once America entered the Gilded Age, it stands to reason that American slavery would have died out by the early 20th Century. That's not to say we would have anything resembling racial equality, though.
What would today's America look like if the South had won? Well, the Deep South would most likely resemble the Deep South of our 1920's - racial segregation, lynchings, and other acts of brutality and oppression against black Americans. The north would be better, but we probably wouldn't be the most politically correct of people. In this sort of a society, the less extreme of the n-words (the Spanish for black, if I'm not mistaken), would be used by white Americans as a sign that they respected black Americans as human beings, not as a derogatory term. America might also have been/would be more of an imperial power than it was in our timeline. Some evidence suggests that the Confederate leaders planned to create an empire in the New World. Were that the case, we would probably have quite a few more possessions, and quite a few more states. Latin America would probably be incorporated into the American sphere of influence, either through economic ties or direct American control. Castro's government, if it had ever been created, wouldn't have lasted long. The American Empire would be a very real thing, not just some idea or concept. And the government would be an entirely different animal. And lastly (for the sake of our purposes, of course, because there would be too many differences for me to begin to address here), state governments would have more power than they do in our America, and the federal government would be weaker. Lincoln's actions in strengthening the federal government during the war years had an enormous influence on the strength of the federal government. Similarly, it was out of respect of and desire for states' rights that many Southerners who were against slavery (Lee being the most notable case) threw their lot with the Confederate cause. It would be a very different America from the one we know today, at any rate. But it wouldn't be unlike the America of the past. And that isn't a good thing. So let's be thankful Lee's luck ran out at Gettysburg.
As it was in 1860, when Lincoln was elected president and the Southern states were outraged, the South had no chance of winning the war in the sense that the North won it - invading and dominating the land occupied by the other nation. Right off the bat, the Confederacy lacked the resources and the manpower to conquer the Union. You can argue that the Confederate commanders were superior strategists to their Union counterparts - I would certainly argue that Robert E. Lee was a better general than Ulysses S. Grant. However, Grant's army was better-trained, better-supplied, and much better-staffed than Lee's army. The fact of the matter is, the South did not have the industrial capacity to keep up with the North.
But what if it had?
What if, in the days after the War of 1812, the Southern cities had industrialized as their Union counterparts did, while the slaveholding agrarian society continued beyond the city borders? What if Atlanta, Nashville and Charleston had become industrial centers to rival New York, Detroit and Boston? What if Southern Congressmen had worked harder to pass legislation for better infrastructure within the Southern states?
If this had happened, the Civil War would have played out very differently.
Robert E. Lee's assault on Gettysburg was part of a planned invasion of the North. The North won the battle through a mix of manpower, individual resilience, better weapons, and quite a bit of luck. Southern miscommunications and miscalculations during the battle proved invaluable to the Union's triumph. But in my alternate scenario (let's call it "the Industrial South"), Gettysburg may have happened even sooner. With better supply lines, the Confederates would have found it easy to transport men and supplies to battlefields on the border with - and even within - the Union, as the Union did in our time. With better training and more recruits (after all, urban environments do tend to produce more people and attract more migrants than their rural counterparts), it's feasible that Grant's army would have fallen, and Confederate troops would have made their way through the Union, conquering as they did.
So how would American history, and today's America, be different? It obviously would be different, but I'd argue it wouldn't be as different as you might think. And here's my rationale:
When the Confederacy won the war, the hero wouldn't be President Jefferson Davis. No, the hero would be Robert E. Lee. Lee would be seen as the Confederacy's equivalent of George Washington. And, as Grant became president in our timeline, it stands to reason that Lee would have become president in this alternate timeline. Here we must examine Robert E. Lee, the man who rejected Grant's position in the Union army because he suspected his home state of Virginia would secede. A fact often forgotten by today's Americans would have shaped President Lee's America: Lee despised the institution of slavery. In one of American history's greatest ironies, General Grant owned slaves at the end of the Civil War. General Lee did not. It seems unlikely that Lee would have abolished slavery if he were elected president. But it also seems unlikely that he would simply allow slavery to continue. What seems to me the most likely scenario is that Lee would put in place steps to gradually reduce slavery in the South, and beyond it. Perhaps under disguise of mending the relationship with the North, he would likely ban slavery in the western territories. It would sound a lot better to southerners coming from Lee, their hero, than it did coming from Lincoln. Especially if the South was industrial - after all, industry played a role in eliminating northern dependence on and use of the practice. It stands to reason that Industrial Southerners would be better inclined to abolishing slavery than agrarian southerners. Given the international community's abhorrence for the practice by the late 19th Century and the lack of logic for its continuation once America entered the Gilded Age, it stands to reason that American slavery would have died out by the early 20th Century. That's not to say we would have anything resembling racial equality, though.
What would today's America look like if the South had won? Well, the Deep South would most likely resemble the Deep South of our 1920's - racial segregation, lynchings, and other acts of brutality and oppression against black Americans. The north would be better, but we probably wouldn't be the most politically correct of people. In this sort of a society, the less extreme of the n-words (the Spanish for black, if I'm not mistaken), would be used by white Americans as a sign that they respected black Americans as human beings, not as a derogatory term. America might also have been/would be more of an imperial power than it was in our timeline. Some evidence suggests that the Confederate leaders planned to create an empire in the New World. Were that the case, we would probably have quite a few more possessions, and quite a few more states. Latin America would probably be incorporated into the American sphere of influence, either through economic ties or direct American control. Castro's government, if it had ever been created, wouldn't have lasted long. The American Empire would be a very real thing, not just some idea or concept. And the government would be an entirely different animal. And lastly (for the sake of our purposes, of course, because there would be too many differences for me to begin to address here), state governments would have more power than they do in our America, and the federal government would be weaker. Lincoln's actions in strengthening the federal government during the war years had an enormous influence on the strength of the federal government. Similarly, it was out of respect of and desire for states' rights that many Southerners who were against slavery (Lee being the most notable case) threw their lot with the Confederate cause. It would be a very different America from the one we know today, at any rate. But it wouldn't be unlike the America of the past. And that isn't a good thing. So let's be thankful Lee's luck ran out at Gettysburg.
Saturday, January 24, 2015
The US This Week: Tsarnaev's Trial
Almost two years ago, a duo of Islamic extremists planted homemade bombs at the finish line of the Boston Marathon. Two explosives went off, one after the other, as the runners started to pour through. The first was to cause an initial wave of devastation. The second was to kill the rescuers. Three spectators were killed, and hundreds more were injured. The two extremists fled, killing a police officer with a handgun in the days after the attack, before the law caught up with them.
The suspects, as we all know, were two brothers - Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. They were born in the Soviet Union (former Soviet Union, in Dzhokhar's case) and raised in the nation's Muslim regions. Their family moved to the United States in 2002. But two things set the Tsarnaev brothers apart from many other Islamic Extremists. First off, they were not raised in a house that condoned religious extremism. The Tsarnaev brothers grew up in a moderate, traditional Muslim home. Secondly, and much more importantly, they were homegrown terrorists. Dzhokhar was a popular, well-liked kid who liked hip hop music, volunteered to help students with special needs, and wanted to be a dentist. His brother Tamerlan seems to have been the source of the radical ideology that destroyed both of their lives - by all reports, Dzhokhar idolized his older brother. It didn't end well for the two of them - Tamerlan was gunned down in a shootout in police, while Dzhokhar lay bleeding from wounds in a boat all the next day. He scrawled a note, saying that the attacks were retribution for American actions against Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan. The evidence points to Tamerlan having been responsible for introducing his brother to the radical ideology.
Fast-forward almost two years: Dzhokhar's trial is set to begin in the upcoming weeks, having been delayed. A spokesperson for the US District Court asserted that the initial date for the trial's commencement, this past week, was unrealistic. The defense team is trying to get the case moved out of Boston - and, indeed, out of the state of Massachusetts - on the grounds that the local feelings towards the bombers will deny Tsarnaev of his constitutional right to a fair trial. To be quite honest, though, I don't think that will help their case much. Tsarnaev and his brother are certainly guilty of a number of crimes, among them four murders, a carjacking, and resisting arrest. He's also guilty of an breaking an unwritten law, that may very well be his doom - he attacked the United States. He attacked innocent Americans in cold blood. His own moral justification for the events doesn't quite sit with the vast majority of Americans. The vast majority of Americans are calling for his head. Nothing unifies us like an attack on our country. These times of trouble are really the only times when liberals and conservatives will even consider working together. Politicians didn't bury the hatchet in the aftermath of the bombings, but many across the nation - particularly in the Boston area - stood strong after the attack, and forgot their trivial partisan separations. And in launching his brutal assault on American citizens in their own country, Tsarnaev may have ensured that he winds up as his brother did - dead, and not from natural causes.
There's no question of the fact that Tsarnaev is guilty. He did plead not guilty in 2013, but we all know that's complete crap. The chance that Bin Laden wasn't really behind the attack on the World Trade Center is greater than the chance that Tsarnaev is innocent. The real focus of this trial - we all know it - is whether or not Tsarnaev will get the death penalty for his actions. And it seems likely that he will. If the judge denies the defense's request to transfer the trial to another state, Dzhokhar will almost certainly be put to death. The defense isn't wrong - odds are, a Boston jury will be calling for blood. The interesting thing about this whole case is that America has spared men responsible for many more deaths than Tsarnaev is. Take the Taliban men President Obama exchanged for (perhaps willingly) imprisoned Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl. They may not have injured more Americans directly, but their crimes are above and beyond Tsarnaev's (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/
06/02/bowe-bergdahl-was-traded-for-5-taliban-commanders-heres-who-they-are/). But their crimes aren't personal to any potential Boston jurors. The bombing of the marathon, on the other hand...that's very personal.
Is the death penalty appropriate in this case? I'm certainly not an authority on the subject. I don't live in Boston, for one thing. Also, I've never heard Tsarnaev's side of the story. At the very least, he does have the right to a trial. Ironic, though, that that right is protected by the very nation he attacked on that day in 2013. The nation he called home for most of his life. This entire case is a mess of home-grown domestic terrorism, the morality of the death penalty, and American nationalism, and is far too complicated for me to communicate in a single post. We'll just have to wait and see how the trial unfolds. And we may have to wait a while.
Saturday, January 17, 2015
Movie Review: American Sniper
I saw the film last night with a few friends. At first, I'd planned to write this post upon arriving back home. However, the film required a bit more processing than that. And so, here I am, twenty-four hours later, finally ready to talk about what I saw. And, though this goes without saying, spoiler alert.
American Sniper chronicles the life of Chris Kyle, one of the most lethal snipers in world history. Kyle, a Texan, joined the Navy in 1999 and became a SEAL. An expert marksman, he often acted as a sniper, providing cover on missions. All told, he served four tours of duty in Iraq and racked up at 160 confirmed kills. Upon leaving the Navy, he ran a training company for law enforcement and wrote two books on his experiences before his death in 2013 (more on that later). In the film, Kyle is portrayed by a nearly-unrecognizeable Bradley Cooper. Cooper gained forty pounds for the role, of course. But that isn't what puts this performance in a league of its own. The laid-back funnyman I've grown accustomed to seeing Cooper play is long gone. His mannerisms, his facial expressions, even his hairstyle...everything is completely different. Cooper's Texan drawl is spot-on - noticeable, but not forced. There's an unmistakeable tensity throughout the film, just from the way Cooper plays Kyle. The character changes drastically after his first experience in combat, and seems to exhibit symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. He is distant from his family, with that thousand-yard stare, and is prone to fits of anger - in one harrowing scene, he whips his dog for playing too roughly with his son. It's also implied that he associates certain everyday sounds with the war, another symptom of PTSD.
The film does an excellent job of keeping true to Kyle's story, as I understand it. Some parts are embellished, of course, for the sake of the film. Having never read Kyle's autobiography, I can't say for certain which scenes deviate from his description of the events, but I assume that the total is greater than those I'm listing here. Director Clint Eastwood and writer Jason Hall did deviate for the sake of action, or for the sake of depth. To get the classic "good guy, bad guy" element going in the film, the writers created a rivalry between Kyle and an insurgent sniper. At the climax of the film, Kyle kills this sniper with a 2100-yard shot. This isn't what happened in real life, to my understanding - Kyle didn't kill a rival sniper who'd killed some of his friends with a 2100-yard shot. He did, however, take out an insurgent armed with a rocket-propelled-grenade (in layman's terms, a bazooka) from such a distance. And in spite of this rivalry, the film draws interesting parallels between Kyle and the insurgent sniper - they are both fathers, they both have wives, and they are both fighting for their homes and their countrymen. From interviews I've seen featuring the real Chris Kyle, I would venture a guess that Cooper played his PTSD symptoms up a bit for the sake of the film. I may be wrong - Kyle may have put on a brave face for the cameras. And the transition from military life to civilian life certainly took a toll on him - he attested to that in multiple interviews. But on camera, he seemed perfectly at ease with his situation - cool as you please and laid back.
Since this is a film relating to the war in Iraq and directed by Clint Eastwood, you would expect it to either condemn or justify the actions our country undertook in Iraq. But if that's what you're searching for in this film, you'll be sorely disappointed. Sniper neither condones nor condemns the war, in that it does both to roughly the same extent. The psychological toll the war takes on Kyle and other veterans is the central theme in the film. In several extremely intense scenes, Kyle has women and small children in his crosshairs (that's all you're getting out of me), and these instances clearly shake him. Many of Kyle's good friends from the SEALs are lost in combat in violent fashion - some of them grow disillusioned with the cause altogether. You hear all that, and you'd expect it to be an anti-war flick, right? Well, that's because I haven't mentioned one scene where an Iraqi father and son are tortured and killed with an unconventional weapon, and another where the bloody, mutilated corpses of American soldiers are strung up like butchered animal carcasses, and another where a seemingly hospitable man turns out to be a heavily-armed insurgent. When Bradley's Kyle calls his foes "savages," you don't disagree with him. There are definitely partisan undertones in the film, though. Cooper's Kyle comes across as a stereotypical nationalist-patriot. The film's version of Kyle is definitely a lot more reserved in this respect. The real Chris Kyle was unabashedly conservative with an aversion to political correctness who may or may not have punched out former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura at some point. He had no qualms about killing insurgents, who he viewed as savages. But Cooper and Eastwood brought that point across in the film as well: both Kyles regretted the American lives they couldn't save more than they regretted the enemy lives they took. Some of the other SEALs provide a more liberal view on the conflict, as does Kyle's wife, Taya. Granted, their "partisan" views are motivated by the fact that they want the war, which has an enormous impact on their immediate lives, to come to an end rather than by politics, but the message still gets across.
It's history, so this isn't really a spoiler: Chris Kyle and another veteran were killed on February 2, 2013, by an ex-marine with severe PTSD they were trying to help counsel. Eastwood and Cooper showed a scene of a recovered Kyle to add to the meaning of what had happened. The film ended with actual footage and photographs from Kyle's memorial service at AT&T Stadium (home of the Dallas Cowboys) in Arlington, Texas, the funeral procession from Midlothian to Texas State Cemetery in Austin, and the burial itself. I don't often cry during films. And by "I don't usually," I mean "I hardly ever." My eyes have been bone dry for the vast majority of pictures I've seen. The ending of Return of the King got me the first time around, and It's A Wonderful Life tends to hit close to home, but aside from that, very little. But I did tear up at the end. The way the final scene with the actors was structured emphasized the cruel irony of Chris Kyle's death - after he survived combat and rebuilt his relationship with his family, he was gunned down by a man he was trying to help. And perhaps the best indicator of the ending's power lies in the audience's reaction. When the screen went dark and the credits started scrolling, every single person in that theater walked out in complete silence.
American Sniper may not be the best film I've ever seen. But it is, beyond all doubt, the greatest film I've ever seen in theaters in my seventeen years. I'd recommend it for anyone with a strong enough stomach - some of the images are pretty graphic. It's a gritty, no-holds-barred, brutally honest film that showcases the arguments for and against the conflict in the Middle East while focusing on the life of a very human soldier. It was definitely worth the money for the ticket, and it definitely deserved those six Oscar nominations. Go check it out when you have the time.
American Sniper chronicles the life of Chris Kyle, one of the most lethal snipers in world history. Kyle, a Texan, joined the Navy in 1999 and became a SEAL. An expert marksman, he often acted as a sniper, providing cover on missions. All told, he served four tours of duty in Iraq and racked up at 160 confirmed kills. Upon leaving the Navy, he ran a training company for law enforcement and wrote two books on his experiences before his death in 2013 (more on that later). In the film, Kyle is portrayed by a nearly-unrecognizeable Bradley Cooper. Cooper gained forty pounds for the role, of course. But that isn't what puts this performance in a league of its own. The laid-back funnyman I've grown accustomed to seeing Cooper play is long gone. His mannerisms, his facial expressions, even his hairstyle...everything is completely different. Cooper's Texan drawl is spot-on - noticeable, but not forced. There's an unmistakeable tensity throughout the film, just from the way Cooper plays Kyle. The character changes drastically after his first experience in combat, and seems to exhibit symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. He is distant from his family, with that thousand-yard stare, and is prone to fits of anger - in one harrowing scene, he whips his dog for playing too roughly with his son. It's also implied that he associates certain everyday sounds with the war, another symptom of PTSD.
The film does an excellent job of keeping true to Kyle's story, as I understand it. Some parts are embellished, of course, for the sake of the film. Having never read Kyle's autobiography, I can't say for certain which scenes deviate from his description of the events, but I assume that the total is greater than those I'm listing here. Director Clint Eastwood and writer Jason Hall did deviate for the sake of action, or for the sake of depth. To get the classic "good guy, bad guy" element going in the film, the writers created a rivalry between Kyle and an insurgent sniper. At the climax of the film, Kyle kills this sniper with a 2100-yard shot. This isn't what happened in real life, to my understanding - Kyle didn't kill a rival sniper who'd killed some of his friends with a 2100-yard shot. He did, however, take out an insurgent armed with a rocket-propelled-grenade (in layman's terms, a bazooka) from such a distance. And in spite of this rivalry, the film draws interesting parallels between Kyle and the insurgent sniper - they are both fathers, they both have wives, and they are both fighting for their homes and their countrymen. From interviews I've seen featuring the real Chris Kyle, I would venture a guess that Cooper played his PTSD symptoms up a bit for the sake of the film. I may be wrong - Kyle may have put on a brave face for the cameras. And the transition from military life to civilian life certainly took a toll on him - he attested to that in multiple interviews. But on camera, he seemed perfectly at ease with his situation - cool as you please and laid back.
Since this is a film relating to the war in Iraq and directed by Clint Eastwood, you would expect it to either condemn or justify the actions our country undertook in Iraq. But if that's what you're searching for in this film, you'll be sorely disappointed. Sniper neither condones nor condemns the war, in that it does both to roughly the same extent. The psychological toll the war takes on Kyle and other veterans is the central theme in the film. In several extremely intense scenes, Kyle has women and small children in his crosshairs (that's all you're getting out of me), and these instances clearly shake him. Many of Kyle's good friends from the SEALs are lost in combat in violent fashion - some of them grow disillusioned with the cause altogether. You hear all that, and you'd expect it to be an anti-war flick, right? Well, that's because I haven't mentioned one scene where an Iraqi father and son are tortured and killed with an unconventional weapon, and another where the bloody, mutilated corpses of American soldiers are strung up like butchered animal carcasses, and another where a seemingly hospitable man turns out to be a heavily-armed insurgent. When Bradley's Kyle calls his foes "savages," you don't disagree with him. There are definitely partisan undertones in the film, though. Cooper's Kyle comes across as a stereotypical nationalist-patriot. The film's version of Kyle is definitely a lot more reserved in this respect. The real Chris Kyle was unabashedly conservative with an aversion to political correctness who may or may not have punched out former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura at some point. He had no qualms about killing insurgents, who he viewed as savages. But Cooper and Eastwood brought that point across in the film as well: both Kyles regretted the American lives they couldn't save more than they regretted the enemy lives they took. Some of the other SEALs provide a more liberal view on the conflict, as does Kyle's wife, Taya. Granted, their "partisan" views are motivated by the fact that they want the war, which has an enormous impact on their immediate lives, to come to an end rather than by politics, but the message still gets across.
It's history, so this isn't really a spoiler: Chris Kyle and another veteran were killed on February 2, 2013, by an ex-marine with severe PTSD they were trying to help counsel. Eastwood and Cooper showed a scene of a recovered Kyle to add to the meaning of what had happened. The film ended with actual footage and photographs from Kyle's memorial service at AT&T Stadium (home of the Dallas Cowboys) in Arlington, Texas, the funeral procession from Midlothian to Texas State Cemetery in Austin, and the burial itself. I don't often cry during films. And by "I don't usually," I mean "I hardly ever." My eyes have been bone dry for the vast majority of pictures I've seen. The ending of Return of the King got me the first time around, and It's A Wonderful Life tends to hit close to home, but aside from that, very little. But I did tear up at the end. The way the final scene with the actors was structured emphasized the cruel irony of Chris Kyle's death - after he survived combat and rebuilt his relationship with his family, he was gunned down by a man he was trying to help. And perhaps the best indicator of the ending's power lies in the audience's reaction. When the screen went dark and the credits started scrolling, every single person in that theater walked out in complete silence.
American Sniper may not be the best film I've ever seen. But it is, beyond all doubt, the greatest film I've ever seen in theaters in my seventeen years. I'd recommend it for anyone with a strong enough stomach - some of the images are pretty graphic. It's a gritty, no-holds-barred, brutally honest film that showcases the arguments for and against the conflict in the Middle East while focusing on the life of a very human soldier. It was definitely worth the money for the ticket, and it definitely deserved those six Oscar nominations. Go check it out when you have the time.
Saturday, January 10, 2015
The World This Week: Charlie Hebdo
It's happened again.
A peaceful setting shattered. Innocents cut down. At least sixteen French civilians dead, along with three radical Muslim assailants. But that isn't the worst part.
No, the worst part is the fact that I'm no longer surprised.
I could talk about the attack itself, but that would be pointless. That two-line second paragraph tells you all you need to know about the events of the attack. What I need to discuss is what motivated the assailants, and just how disturbing it is that these sorts of events have become commonplace.
The French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo, published cartoons satirizing all sorts of things, including the major religions of the world. Christianity, Catholicism in particular, was jabbed, as was Judaism. Islam, of course, also was mocked by the publication. I've seen some of the cartoons. And they're hardly sensitive. In fact, as a Catholic, I would describe their portrayal of my faith as downright offensive, and I could definitely see any Muslim feeling the same way about the portrayal of theirs. Was I irritated by what I saw? Yes. Did I have any desire to make the writers and cartoonists pay with their own blood? No. Because it's satire. It's meant to make a point, but not to be taken too seriously. When someone makes a joke about Christianity, I let it go. I may get offended, but I still let it go. I occasionally want to punch Bill Maher in the mouth, but I still think he's entitled to his own views. If you think religion is garbage, well, I strongly disagree with you, but you have every right to believe that. And many Christians, Jews and Muslims across the world are of a similar opinion. Many Muslims across the world, from the United States to the heart of the Middle East, slammed the shootings as utter barbarism. Millions of people from around the globe have expressed solidarity with the satirists and raised their voices in support of free speech. Jon Stewart summed it up perfectly in a recent episode (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OWD9aP7O6o) - in our society, we tend to take free speech for granted. And without free speech, it's only a matter of time before the world we know is replaced with an Orwellian dystopia. And hundreds of thousands of people are in France tonight, in support of free speech -and indeed, freedom from fear.
There's something else at play, though, that is highly disturbing. In the aftermath of this horrible attack, the desire for political correctness is absolutely mind-boggling. French officials are refusing to label the acts as Islamic terrorism. And that's absolutely ridiculous. Bill Maher, the guy I sometimes want to punch in the mouth, hit the key point in the aftermath of the shooting: it's pathetic that people are refusing to call these acts what they are for fear of offending people. The acts were obviously committed by Islamic extremists in the wake of a negative portrayal of their faith. To suggest that all Muslims are of similar ilk is utter garbage. But to suggest that the assailants' Islamic faith played no role in motivating the attack is just as unbelievable. Going back to Bill Maher: if some radical Catholic group stormed his studio and shot him and his writers down because of their views, I would be first on line to call that terrorism. The Pope probably would as well. And I don't think it's presumptuous to assume that the vast majority of Muslims in France, the United States, and across the western world view the shooting at Charlie Hebdo in a similar light. To not call the attacks what they are because you may offend extremist Muslims who loathe you in the first place, and perhaps a few non-extreme Muslims as well...that's unfathomably incompetent. I can't put it into words how much this disgusts me. The Charlie Hebdo writers were killed because they offended Islam. To refuse to risk offending Islam in the aftermath of the attack...well, the French government would be giving the terrorists what they sought. And that sort of attitude only fosters more terrorism, because the terrorists see that their tactics are working.
That brings me to the point that I'm no longer surprised by news of acts of terrorism by Islamic jihadists. To be honest, why should this be surprising? When I was growing up, the news was full of Taliban car bombs and Bin Laden's famous suicide vests. And even in the last few years, when the west has backed its armies away from radical jihadists, the attacks have continued. And they've spread. There was Times Square back in 2010 - attempted bombing. And, of course, there was the Boston Marathon in 2013 - successful bombing. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's trial will unfold in the upcoming weeks - but that's a discussion for another day. ISIS's bloody rise to power in the Middle East, which now looks toward Saudi Arabia - again, a discussion for another day. Hundreds of shootings and murders across the globe, in the years before and since 9/11. And who could forget that café in Sydney, not even a month ago? Terrorism is something that westernized countries (I use the term to include Israel) have grown accustomed to. Israel was always accustomed to it, of course, but we've joined in its ranks. My first thought when I heard about the shooting was, "Another one?" I've said it before, but it's a vicious cycle. The only way to stop Muslim extremists is through brute force. But that brute force only encourages some Muslims to adopt the radicalized, twisted version of their faith promoted by terrorists and take up the fight themselves. This is what we've seen in the Middle East in the last fourteen years. What is the end to this deadly circle of terrorism? Who can say?
One thing's for sure, though - Charlie Hebdo wasn't the first attack of its kind. And it certainly won't be the last.
Tuesday, December 30, 2014
Holiday Movie Review (Part One?)
I have done several things worth mentioning over break thus far: first and foremost, I've caught up on my sleep. Second of all, I finished my final college applications. Fourteen schools, twenty-something essays, and quite a few hours of my life, and it's done! Now the waiting game begins. And I've spent some of those waiting hours at the movie theater, which is out-of-character for me. Movie theaters make me nervous for some reason. That aside, I've seen two films over the break: the third installment in Peter Jackson's Tolkien-inspired The Hobbit trilogy, and a Mark Wahlberg flick called The Gambler. And, though this goes without saying, spoiler alert.
First of all, I need to discuss The Hobbit. Those of you who have read my blog in the past know that I'm a huge Tolkien fan. And if you think the Harry Potter series is better than Tolkien's work, then this is my reply: you're entitled to your own (completely and totally wrong) opinion. Virtually every character and plot device in Harry Potter is a cheap Tolkien ripoff in one way or another, from the main protagonists to the various monsters to the strong female lead to the concept of Horcruxes...but I'm getting sidetracked. And don't rush to assumptions from my harsh words. I love Harry Potter - it was an enormous part of my childhood. But comparing it to The Lord of the Rings is like comparing LBJ to Lincoln. That aside, Peter Jackson's interpretation of The Lord of the Rings is, without a doubt, among the best film adaptations of a work of literature the world has ever seen. And as such, it's impossible to watch The Hobbit without comparing it to Jackson's previous trilogy. For the film adaptation of a book, it does an excellent job. But it pales in comparison to The Lord of the Rings. Part of that is hardly Jackson's fault - the studio initially signed him for a trilogy that started with The Hobbit (Tolkien wrote The Hobbit decades before he wrote The Lord of the Rings), but things changed and only LOTR was produced. When Jackson went back to produce The Hobbit, he had no choice but to do so as a prequel trilogy. You really can't blame him for deviating much more from the book in The Hobbit. And his interpretation of the events that happened while the book of The Hobbit takes place is spot-on. Gandalf's imprisonment and the confrontation with Sauron in Dol Guldur are heavily implied to have taken place by the grey wizard's lengthy tales in the early chapters of The Fellowship of the Ring. Anyhow, let's talk about the film itself...it was okay. It definitely deviates from the book, but it was all right. The performances weren't forced in the least. Sir Ian McKellen was excellent, of course, as Gandalf. Martin Freeman wasn't too shabby himself, in the big hairy shoes of Bilbo Baggins. And Richard Armitage captured the madness and redemption of Thorin Oakenshield - again, things that were implied in Tolkien's universe - perfectly. I expected the film to be one continuous battle sequence, but it wasn't. The Battle of the Five Armies didn't actually start for the first hour and a half of the film. Jackson spent a great deal of time developing the characters and underlining the sources of tension between the different factions. It was, all in all, a decent flick. I'd recommend it to all my fellow Tolkien fans.
Now for The Gambler. I wasn't expecting much out of this film. Mark Wahlberg hasn't been the best actor in the past. Heck, he hasn't even been a good actor in some films. But I was pleasantly surprised here. The film follows a literature professor (Wahlberg) who owes several hundred thousand dollars to a crime lord, thanks to his gambling addiction. The story is a very human one that perfectly captures the essence of addiction. Wahlberg's character gets a sort of a high off his gambling victories and pushes his limits accordingly, which lands him in debt. When he bets everything he has on a roulette game at the climax of the film, in the hopes that he'll win and come away with enough money to pay back the crime bosses he's in debt to, the strain and panic within the character is tangible. And even though (spoiler alert) he wins the bet, I was expecting him to lose. That's my favorite thing about the film. It shows the entropy of this man's life - how random everything is in his line of "work." And I say "this man" because as the film goes on, you start to forget that it's Mark Wahlberg up on the screen. This is, without a doubt, the best acting I've ever seen Wahlberg do. The side characters are excellent as well. John Goodman is excellent as one of the crime lords Wahlberg's character is indebted to. He's anything but typecast in this film - the jolly, somewhat nervous character he usually plays is gone, replaced by a cold, calculating, often cruel man. There weren't very many big names in the film, aside from Wahlberg and Goodman. And personally, I feel that this choice really helped the film. The characters were genuine and very human. Even the worst of the characters had redeeming qualities or moments, and that made the film what it was. It was a good movie - nothing exceptional, but certainly not a bad film.
There are still a few films left on my wish list. I definitely want to catch Unbroken before the conclusion of break. I have the book, but I've never had the time to read it. And beyond that, I'm waiting for American Sniper to be released across the nation come January. I've heard nothing but positive reviews for the film, which is what I've come to expect from Clint Eastwood. We'll just have to wait and see for ourselves.
First of all, I need to discuss The Hobbit. Those of you who have read my blog in the past know that I'm a huge Tolkien fan. And if you think the Harry Potter series is better than Tolkien's work, then this is my reply: you're entitled to your own (completely and totally wrong) opinion. Virtually every character and plot device in Harry Potter is a cheap Tolkien ripoff in one way or another, from the main protagonists to the various monsters to the strong female lead to the concept of Horcruxes...but I'm getting sidetracked. And don't rush to assumptions from my harsh words. I love Harry Potter - it was an enormous part of my childhood. But comparing it to The Lord of the Rings is like comparing LBJ to Lincoln. That aside, Peter Jackson's interpretation of The Lord of the Rings is, without a doubt, among the best film adaptations of a work of literature the world has ever seen. And as such, it's impossible to watch The Hobbit without comparing it to Jackson's previous trilogy. For the film adaptation of a book, it does an excellent job. But it pales in comparison to The Lord of the Rings. Part of that is hardly Jackson's fault - the studio initially signed him for a trilogy that started with The Hobbit (Tolkien wrote The Hobbit decades before he wrote The Lord of the Rings), but things changed and only LOTR was produced. When Jackson went back to produce The Hobbit, he had no choice but to do so as a prequel trilogy. You really can't blame him for deviating much more from the book in The Hobbit. And his interpretation of the events that happened while the book of The Hobbit takes place is spot-on. Gandalf's imprisonment and the confrontation with Sauron in Dol Guldur are heavily implied to have taken place by the grey wizard's lengthy tales in the early chapters of The Fellowship of the Ring. Anyhow, let's talk about the film itself...it was okay. It definitely deviates from the book, but it was all right. The performances weren't forced in the least. Sir Ian McKellen was excellent, of course, as Gandalf. Martin Freeman wasn't too shabby himself, in the big hairy shoes of Bilbo Baggins. And Richard Armitage captured the madness and redemption of Thorin Oakenshield - again, things that were implied in Tolkien's universe - perfectly. I expected the film to be one continuous battle sequence, but it wasn't. The Battle of the Five Armies didn't actually start for the first hour and a half of the film. Jackson spent a great deal of time developing the characters and underlining the sources of tension between the different factions. It was, all in all, a decent flick. I'd recommend it to all my fellow Tolkien fans.
Now for The Gambler. I wasn't expecting much out of this film. Mark Wahlberg hasn't been the best actor in the past. Heck, he hasn't even been a good actor in some films. But I was pleasantly surprised here. The film follows a literature professor (Wahlberg) who owes several hundred thousand dollars to a crime lord, thanks to his gambling addiction. The story is a very human one that perfectly captures the essence of addiction. Wahlberg's character gets a sort of a high off his gambling victories and pushes his limits accordingly, which lands him in debt. When he bets everything he has on a roulette game at the climax of the film, in the hopes that he'll win and come away with enough money to pay back the crime bosses he's in debt to, the strain and panic within the character is tangible. And even though (spoiler alert) he wins the bet, I was expecting him to lose. That's my favorite thing about the film. It shows the entropy of this man's life - how random everything is in his line of "work." And I say "this man" because as the film goes on, you start to forget that it's Mark Wahlberg up on the screen. This is, without a doubt, the best acting I've ever seen Wahlberg do. The side characters are excellent as well. John Goodman is excellent as one of the crime lords Wahlberg's character is indebted to. He's anything but typecast in this film - the jolly, somewhat nervous character he usually plays is gone, replaced by a cold, calculating, often cruel man. There weren't very many big names in the film, aside from Wahlberg and Goodman. And personally, I feel that this choice really helped the film. The characters were genuine and very human. Even the worst of the characters had redeeming qualities or moments, and that made the film what it was. It was a good movie - nothing exceptional, but certainly not a bad film.
There are still a few films left on my wish list. I definitely want to catch Unbroken before the conclusion of break. I have the book, but I've never had the time to read it. And beyond that, I'm waiting for American Sniper to be released across the nation come January. I've heard nothing but positive reviews for the film, which is what I've come to expect from Clint Eastwood. We'll just have to wait and see for ourselves.
Wednesday, December 24, 2014
The US This Week: The Interview (and North Korea)
You can't go on the internet these days without seeing a picture of James Franco and/or Seth Rogen. Ever since the North Koreans hacked into Sony and threatened retaliation if theaters showed The Interview, the film has sparked controversy across the nation. It's worth pointing out that North Korea denies any role in the hacking, but then again, why would we believe anything they say? North Korea took issue with The Interview several months ago, when details of the film were released to the public. In the film, two bumbling journalists (Rogen and Franco) are tasked with assassinating North Korea's portly basketball-loving Supreme Leader, Kim Jong Un. Kim Jong Un doesn't seem to appreciate Franco and Rogen's sense of humor. To some extent, many of us can relate to that. On the other hand, most of us wouldn't threaten to kill people who find the pair amusing. North Korea (or, in the highly unlikely event that some other group hacked Sony, that group) has no such qualms. Sony's decision to pull the film from theaters was criticized across the board. President Obama lambasted the decision as a huge mistake. For once, Congress was on the same page. Some congressmen even called for the movie to be screened on Capitol Hill. Sony has loosened its stance in the recent days: the film is set to be released tomorrow for a limited run, and there's even been some talk of the film going on YouTube. But this is hardly relevant. What is relevant is our not-quite-good relationship with the tiny Communist dictatorship occupying the northern half of the Korean peninsula.
In the speech where he criticized Sony's response to the threats, President Obama vowed to retaliate appropriately to North Korea's actions. Soon afterwards, the internet in the small nation was cut off. It's possible that this is a mere coincidence, but given the temporal proximity to Obama's statement, the chance of that is low at best. With the exception of the one Texan who recently fled behind the dictatorship's closed borders, most Americans probably want this to be the case. It would certainly give President Obama a helping hand, after one of the roughest years of his presidency. Screwing with North Korea's infrastructure and technology is something we can get behind as a nation. The Tea Party and the far, far left will undoubtedly take issue with whatever Obama does, but that applies to everything Obama does. If the FBI or the CIA is involved in the collapse of North Korea's internet, the vast majority of Democrats, Republicans and Independents will be happy. Kim Jong Un could use a taste of his own medicine for once. Even if he didn't launch or order the Sony hack, we can all agree he deserves it.
North Korea, we can all agree, is hardly a humanitarian nation. The notorious line of Kims - stretching from Jong Un through Jong Il to Il Sung - has quite a bit of blood on its hands. George Bush's "Axis of Evil" comment actually applies to the Democratic People's Republic. The Kims spend huge sums of money on luxurious foreign food while their people starve. If it wasn't for the international aid it occasionally receives, North Korea's population would be miniscule. That's the harsh reality of the situation - one third of North Koreans are critically malnourished. You can be jailed for posessing a bible or having the wrong haircut or owning a car. Two hundred thousand civilians live behind the walls of prison camps. If you break a law, your grandparents, parents and children will be severely punished as well. Secret police and informants, reminiscent of the Soviet Union's early days, are everywhere in the nation. And yet marijuana is legal. It's no wonder the rivalry between North and South Korea is so intense. It's worth remembering that South Korea only exists because "UN" forces (I use quotation marks because we all know which member of the UN the bulk of the fighting) chased them out. It's also worth mentioning that North Korea only exists because the bulk of the Chinese Army chased the Americans and South Koreans back towards the current border.
When will the conflict end? When North Korea goes too far. When China decides it wants no more to do with Kim Jong Un, and the rest of the world decides it's had enough of North Korea's garbage. That day will inevitably come. But it won't come because of a James Franco movie. We'll just have to wait and see what happens with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
In the speech where he criticized Sony's response to the threats, President Obama vowed to retaliate appropriately to North Korea's actions. Soon afterwards, the internet in the small nation was cut off. It's possible that this is a mere coincidence, but given the temporal proximity to Obama's statement, the chance of that is low at best. With the exception of the one Texan who recently fled behind the dictatorship's closed borders, most Americans probably want this to be the case. It would certainly give President Obama a helping hand, after one of the roughest years of his presidency. Screwing with North Korea's infrastructure and technology is something we can get behind as a nation. The Tea Party and the far, far left will undoubtedly take issue with whatever Obama does, but that applies to everything Obama does. If the FBI or the CIA is involved in the collapse of North Korea's internet, the vast majority of Democrats, Republicans and Independents will be happy. Kim Jong Un could use a taste of his own medicine for once. Even if he didn't launch or order the Sony hack, we can all agree he deserves it.
North Korea, we can all agree, is hardly a humanitarian nation. The notorious line of Kims - stretching from Jong Un through Jong Il to Il Sung - has quite a bit of blood on its hands. George Bush's "Axis of Evil" comment actually applies to the Democratic People's Republic. The Kims spend huge sums of money on luxurious foreign food while their people starve. If it wasn't for the international aid it occasionally receives, North Korea's population would be miniscule. That's the harsh reality of the situation - one third of North Koreans are critically malnourished. You can be jailed for posessing a bible or having the wrong haircut or owning a car. Two hundred thousand civilians live behind the walls of prison camps. If you break a law, your grandparents, parents and children will be severely punished as well. Secret police and informants, reminiscent of the Soviet Union's early days, are everywhere in the nation. And yet marijuana is legal. It's no wonder the rivalry between North and South Korea is so intense. It's worth remembering that South Korea only exists because "UN" forces (I use quotation marks because we all know which member of the UN the bulk of the fighting) chased them out. It's also worth mentioning that North Korea only exists because the bulk of the Chinese Army chased the Americans and South Koreans back towards the current border.
When will the conflict end? When North Korea goes too far. When China decides it wants no more to do with Kim Jong Un, and the rest of the world decides it's had enough of North Korea's garbage. That day will inevitably come. But it won't come because of a James Franco movie. We'll just have to wait and see what happens with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)