One was how I have been conditioned for violence, particularly viewing it. I found myself a bit frustrated that the film wasn't showing the horror and gore of battle. Something that we are often shown in most war movies. On one hand I think this is good, after watching "The Pacific" those that served in that theater of conflict gained my highest respect. The pure hell of it was captured in that series that left me wondering how anyone could see such a depiction of war and ever sign up for the possibility of being in such a conflict. So the horror sometimes awakens us to the pain and suffering of others and could influence us in our choices.
But the other thing was that I think there is a odd glamorizing of it all that conditions us to kinda 'thirst' for it. Maybe the whole 'colosseum' thing...a blood lust that cultivates a hunger to see more and more extreme examples of killing or desperation. It was something that was strange for me...feeling a bit 'bored' by the lack of 'action' or at least the one-sided view of it...bullets being fired...but not seeing whom they are hitting. Even one of the soldiers in the film complained about not being able to 'see the faces' of those he was killing.
The film relied upon the faces and voices of the soldiers stories more than visual carnage and even though I shared the thoughts above, don't think that it doesn't work, because it does. There are moments where you see that war...shapes a soul like nothing else. There are stares and pauses in the interviews that feel like eternity. The emotion captured in brief moments was petrifying.
The scene where the Sargent is killed during 'Rock Avalanche' and the film captures the shock and grief of a few of the soldiers is forever imprinted on my psyche. That moment was brutal, heart-wrentching and one of the most raw moments captured of human pain.
One other part that has left me mulling over the film, was watching the attempts to woo Afghan hill folk with 'getting rich, projects and progress'...by the soldiers attempting to gain security and information. The whole perception of 'Nation Building' and 'Helping' felt exposed in the jockeying for terrorists. Those boys were there to kill bad guys not educate the dirty, toothless herdsmen that were cutting off heads of their fellow soldiers in videos. Seeing the meetings where they were attempting to build a sense of solidarity through bribery and bullying was pathetic. Not that the soldiers were pathetic...but the point of it all seemed so utterly foolish. Making some grunt have to feign compassion or humanitarian aspirations in order to flush out some enemy combatants was a really hard part of the film for me to process. The thinness of it all was exposed through those moments of the film.
But one of things that has stuck with me the most, and was the same with the Pacific, was at the very end when the small print comes across the screen that tell us that: fifty soldiers lost their lives fighting in the Korengal Valley, yet the US military withdrew from it in April 2010.
After all of that courage, suffering and loss...we withdrew.
The futility of it all was so hard to process...and I still don't quite know how someone can deal with that. How does a mother or a wife or a sister process that her loved one was killed trying to 'take' a pieces of a hillside and then the whole thing is abandoned.
After watching the film my respect for our soldiers was yet again raised and yet, my resolve to see such nobel actions wasted on foreign policies that do not warrant such heroic loss was reinforced.
6 comments:
I watched the National Geographic Channel version, not sure it it's the same or not. Junger's book WAR is better than the documentary as Junger eloquently explores how he felt watching these guys go through their deployment. Those times when Kearney and Ostlund were at shuras sure bring back frustrations and certainly did look silly. I've said some of the same things and at the time, I totally believed it. It just takes some time and space sometimes to really consider how effective your supposed 'negotiations' truly are. I probably should have listened to my better half and skipped it cause it was a pretty depressing, although captivating, couple of hours. Great job by Junger and that camera guy!
Eric, your reflection offered great perspective with incredible insight as to where your heart is, as usual. I have been battling my own demons from my time as well since watching the movie. As Bryan indicated, probably not the best movie to get for a movie night if you know it will stir up those hard to forget memories. Your link to the Sal Giunta story was also a jarring reality from an incredibly fierce and as you stated humble warrior. These topical documentaries and clips like those done by Junger and Hetherington should be mandatory to watch before joining the military. ~Shane
Bryan...I was going to pick that book up but it was like 23 bucks...so Im looking for a cheaper copy for my trip to Thailand.
I imagined it was a tough film for both of you or anyone who had walked that path. It was quite a film to process more than Hurt Locker or Black Hawk Down...and as much but different than Band of Brothers or The Pacific.
Any other films or books you would recommend on the Iraq/Afghanistan wars?
I am brewing on a post related to the topic of 'lack of real dialogue' going on in day to day life around here about foreign policy, the wars etc. I read a blog from a dad whose caught said that she only remembers 2 times the wars were particularly discussed in class in the last 10 years. Astounding.
'whose daughter' oops.
Eric,
I'd highly recommend David Kilcullen's book the Accidental Guerilla for an in depth look at the thinking behind what I believe are our current policy objectives in Afghanistan. Read that or just google Andrew Bacevich and Michael Scheur's reviews of the book to get the gist. Kilcullen also posted a response to Bacevich on the Small wars journal. This is a great way to get at the heart of the debate between those with belief in interventionism versus Scheur and Bacevich's view against that policy. Kilcullen is a counterinsurgency expert who has shaped policy in both the current and former administrations (worked for Rice and Petraeus), Scheur was the CIA agent in charge of the Al-Qaeda unit there, and Bacevich is a retired Army Colonel who is now an International Relations prof at Boston who also lost a son to the war in Iraq. Interesting interplay between some pretty knowledgeable folks I think.
That is sad. I think so many think if you don't talk about the wars, they will eventually go away. And if you don't think about it, then the men and women of the armed forces will just continue to 'soldier' on. Sad. I personally liked the movie Brothers. It was a bit more on the extreme/dramatic side, but if you pay attention and look past some of the hollywood in the movie, it has some pretty powerful points to it.
Post a Comment