The Price of Military Tech Assistance In Movies 212
derekmead writes "Last week at Camp David, President Obama met up with fellow NATO leaders to discuss the road ahead in Afghanistan. Although no one there used the language of defeat, the implicit message was clear: the war has gone nowhere in the past few years and it's time to start packing up. Meanwhile, what raked in $25.5 million at the box office? Battleship. And who provided director Peter Berg with the war technology that beats the aliens? The U.S. military. He's not the only one: the past few years have seen an explosion of high-profile cooperation between the armed forces and the movie industry. If the most powerful armed force in history isn't winning in reality, it certainly is on the big screen. And like so many problematic aspects of late capitalism, the military-Hollywood complex has a grimly understandable logic."
Illegal???? (Score:0, Interesting)
Matthew Alford, film researcher and author of Reel Power: Hollywood Cinema and American Supremacy, is even harsher in his critique. “The Pentagon has a manual. Basically, it will only provide full cooperation to propaganda pieces,” he said in an interview.
Is this against the law?
Economics of modern war (Score:5, Interesting)
The USA spends close to a million dollars per soldier per year. The enemy has to spend maybe 5% of that per "enemy combatant" at most. Probably a lot less. To field a force that would be numerically equal to our forces would cost them maybe $50 million. They'd need a lot more than that to defeat us in battles, because our side is better armed. But this is not about battles. There have been very few battles. In this kind of war, the resistance avoids direct confrontations and chooses to strike where and when its forces can do the most damage to the stronger side -- or just make them look ineffective. Most of the American forces are busy trying to protect every place where the enemy might strike. It's extremely inefficient. So the Taliban only needs a small fraction of our forces to keep the Americans busy -- and going broke.
Basically, this kind of war is not winnable in a traditional sense. The resistance can carry on with a small number of soldiers and on a shoestring budget almost indefinitely.
That's not to say that guerilla forces can't be defeated. They can be, if the populace cooperates with the central government to deny them aid, deny them new soldiers and help ferret them out -- and if the resistance doesn't have cooperative govenrments across the border.
That's not the situation in Afghanistan, so it's highly questionable whether we can win at any cost.
Who wound NOT promote themselves? (Score:3, Interesting)
To me it's silly to stray anywhere away from the very basic fact - any organization will be happy to contribute resources to efforts that make it look good.
Call it propaganda if you like, but it's really not that - it's common sense. True propaganda comes if the organization builds its own media (which the military does to some extent but they did not make Batlleship).
Re:Abbot and Costello? (Score:4, Interesting)
Skipping over the editorializing in the summary, I would like to point out that the Military using Hollywood for promotion is not a recent occurence.
It dates back to the very beginning of motion ptctures:
[in 1899] the limitations of film equipment prevented the filming of actual battles, so Edison offered reenactments of the fighting made for the most part in New Jersey using National Guard troops. Film reenactments such as "Shooting Captured Insurgents " showed Spanish soldiers killing Cuban prisoners, while "U.S. Infantry Supported by Rough Riders at El Caney" and "Skirmish of Rough Riders" offered patriotic glimpses of the popular Rough Riders fighting.
The War in Cuba [loc.gov]
Re:jump: Afghanistan - Battleship? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is bullshit. In real drone strikes, there is no guarantee that only "terrorists" are the victims. All the press reporting in the US takes the military at their word, and casualties are never identified as "collateral damage", i.e. innocent bystanders.
It's a real war, and there are always non-combatants who are killed and injured. Pretending this never happens may be good to keep support up at home, but it is a damned lie. Honesty is a better policy in the long run.
One of the reasons that Pakistan is not letting NATO resupply convoys go through it's territory is because of the toll taken by drone strikes. It is a huge issue with the Pakistan population. By not admitting to any civilian casualties in the US press, there can be no meaningful debate about how our policy is effecting US standing in the Middle East.
Personally, I think that the Pakistan government is not worth spit as an ally, and they are directly supporting our enemies. We would be better off if we cut most military aid because of their backstabbing behavior. Even so, the practical, ethical and political effects of our use of drones should be much more publicly debated, rather then being swept under the rub by what is effectively military propaganda.
Re:What An Awful Summary (Score:4, Interesting)
Yet with the editors running more and more fearmongering bullshit and stupid flamebait (it used to be at least decent flamebait with some substance) the audience too has shifted from a good mix of differing opinions to paranoid libertarians and fanboys pretending to be shills. When interesting links stop appearing completely I too will be gone.
You're aware of the problem and by articulating your view in a thoughtful way, you are participating in the solution. That's why I come here.
In a way, I disagree with the pessimism you show. Yet I am not in conflict with you. I just don't feel that way myself but I see how someone could. It's other than bickering because I don't need you to be wrong.
That's also why I come here. That's what will make me look elsewhere if it should relocate. Too many places are too polar and unreasonable.
Re:Illegal???? (Score:0, Interesting)
When your government can choose to treat people who support it differently than those who don't, then you live in a tyranny.
If you make a propaganda film, the US government will give use taxpayer money to help you. If you make a film that tries to be truthful and doesn't shy away from showing the ugly side of war, the US government won't spend a dollar to help you even though you pay your taxes just as well.
I understand why the government doesn't want to fund something that criticizes it. It's a logical stance for the government to take. However, that doesn't mean the government should be allowed to take that stance.
The money and time that the government spends to support art should be carefully supervised by an independent body. The government should be expected to spend such money fairly and not to discriminate against artists based on whether they support or oppose government decisions and policy.
I would go as far as to say this is an attack on free speech. Tax money is here for the public to benefit, it's not for the exclusive use of the Private Fan Club of Government Supporters. Here, you have the government not simply taking sides on a topic, but actually supporting one side against the other.
Maybe if we were talking about the government refusing to support movies that spread lies about the military or the war it would be acceptable. But here, a movie that portrays the truth will be denied government help when other movies get it. The guy even admits to it - he says he's biased and pretty much says that the only movies that stand a chance at getting government help are basically propaganda films.
I don't know about you, but this reminds me of Nazi Germany where criticism of the government was suppressed. Of course the Nazis went much further than simply denying help to opponents: they actually jailed and executed dissenters, which is far far worse. But the principle is the same: the government treating people differently and unequally based on their political opinions.
Again: you support the war and make a propaganda movie: you get a lot of help ,much of it funded from taxes.
You make a movie that tries to be truthful and depict the bad things in war and the military: no help for you.
Re:Illegal???? (Score:4, Interesting)
As François Truffaut said, "there is no such thing as an anti-war movie because it will invariably look exciting up on screen."
Re:jump: Afghanistan - Battleship? (Score:5, Interesting)
Your facts are not in order.
Pakistan is blockading NATO due to an air strike that kill two dozen Pakistani soldiers at a border outpost. The Pakistanis reportedly made the unfortunate "mistake" of firing at US and Afghan commandos [wsj.com] which they sometimes do when they forget which side they are supporting. Pakistan is demanding an apology for the incident, and is also using it as an excuse to try to jack up the transit fee from $200 to $5,000 per truck. [philly.com]
The overwhelming majority of non-combatants being killed in Afghanistan are being killed by road-side bombs placed by . . . guess who. . . the Taliban. The Taliban also visit murder and massacre on the various tribes and villages. Unlike NATO, the Taliban deliberately targets innocent non-combatants.
As to drone strikes . . .
Pakistan Says Drone Strikes Have Been Effective [voanews.com]
Here's why: (Score:4, Interesting)
Against the law? If anything it should be the law. Why should the military spend its time and money on projects which aren't relevant to recruitment or combat/training?
Because it's not "military money". It's "tax payer's money".
From a purely military perspective, you want severe propaganda, and censorship. You want information to be restricted. To the people at home, you give positive information about the military. And to those abroad (potential enemies), you show some muscle. Some Shock and Awe. That will give the best results from a purely military perspective.
However, the military still listens to the government (doesn't it?). And the government is interested in an open and free society (isn't it?). So, from that perspective, it would be necessary to have some opposition (right?). So, why not give that opposition some financial backing too?
Bin Laden obviously a Slashdot regular; (Score:4, Interesting)
(xi) You have destroyed nature with your industrial waste and gases more than any other nation in history. Despite this, you refuse to sign the Kyoto agreement so that you can secure the profit of your greedy companies and*industries.
(x) Your law is the law of the rich and wealthy people, who hold sway in their political parties, and fund their election campaigns with their gifts. Behind them stand the Jews, who control your policies, media and economy.
(xi) That which you are singled out for in the history of mankind, is that you have used your force to destroy mankind more than any other nation in history; not to defend principles and values, but to hasten to secure your interests and profits. You who dropped a nuclear bomb on Japan, even though Japan was ready to negotiate an end to the war. How many acts of oppression, tyranny and injustice have you carried out, O callers to freedom?
(xii) Let us not forget one of your major characteristics: your duality in both manners and values; your hypocrisy in manners and principles. All*manners, principles and values have two scales: one for you and one for the others.
(a)The freedom and democracy that you call to is for yourselves and for white race only; as for the rest of the world, you impose upon them your monstrous, destructive policies and Governments, which you call the 'American friends'. Yet you prevent them from establishing democracies. When the Islamic party in Algeria wanted to practice democracy and they won the election, you unleashed your agents in the Algerian army onto them, and to attack them with tanks and guns, to imprison them and torture them - a new lesson from the 'American book of democracy'!!!
(b)Your policy on prohibiting and forcibly removing weapons of mass destruction to ensure world peace: it only applies to those countries which you do not permit to possess such weapons. As for the countries you consent to, such as Israel, then they are allowed to keep and use such weapons to defend their security. Anyone else who you suspect might be manufacturing or keeping these kinds of weapons, you call them criminals and you take military action against them.
(c)You are the last ones to respect the resolutions and policies of International Law, yet you claim to want to selectively punish anyone else who does the same. Israel has for more than 50 years been pushing UN resolutions and rules against the wall with the full support of America.
(d)As for the war criminals which you censure and form criminal courts for - you shamelessly ask that your own are granted immunity!! However, history will not forget the war crimes that you committed against the Muslims and the rest of the world; those you have killed in Japan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Lebanon and Iraq will remain a shame that you will never be able to escape. It will suffice to remind you of your latest war crimes in Afghanistan, in which densely populated innocent civilian villages were destroyed, bombs were dropped on mosques causing the roof of the mosque to come crashing down on the heads of the Muslims praying inside. You are the ones who broke the agreement with the Mujahideen when they left Qunduz, bombing them in Jangi fort, and killing more than 1,000 of your prisoners through suffocation and thirst. Allah alone knows how many people have died by torture at the hands of you and your agents. Your planes remain in the Afghan skies, looking for anyone remotely suspicious.
(e)You have claimed to be the vanguards of Human Rights, and your Ministry of Foreign affairs issues annual reports containing statistics of those countries that violate any Human Rights. However, all these things vanished when the Mujahideen hit you, and you then implemented the methods of the same documented governments that you used to curse. In America, you captured thousands the Muslims and Arabs, took them into custody with neither reason, court trial, nor even disclosing their names. You issued newer, harsher laws.
What happens in Guatanamo is a historical embarrassm
Re:jump: Afghanistan - Battleship? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:jump: Afghanistan - Battleship? (Score:5, Interesting)
All the press reporting in the US takes the military at their word, and casualties are never identified as "collateral damage", i.e. innocent bystanders.
That's becuase in the real world, people like you don't understand the definition of "collateral damage" nor do they seem to understand that war is hell; and certainly not fair.
If you are within a certain proximity of someone you are legally considered a sympathiser and therefore, a legitimate kill. A massive number of legitimate kills are later claimed to be "innocent civilians." In all of these conflicts, where possible, they leave the bodies by take all the weapons. They then claim "innocent civilians" were murdered and small minded idiots everywhere believe them. Now then, that is not say to innocent people don't die. A lot of innocent people have died and will continue to die in any and all future conflicts. They have died in every war known to mankind. But this is also why the military's numbers never match everyone else's numbers. The truth is, the truth is somewhere in between.
I can't tell you how many documentaries I've watched or how many armed forces I've spoken too who all tell the same stories. Someone starts shooting at them. They take out the enemy - frequently with optics; thusly confirming it was a combatant. When they arrive their weapons are gone and all the locals insist they were "innocent civilians" who never harmed anyone. The military's count is correct. Then bleeding heart idiots come in and interview people and find the bodies had no weapons. They declare the military murdered people. Their count is incorrect and woefully over-inflated; even if they have good intentions.
Bigger problems come from the use of bombs. All too frequently, there actually are "innocent civilians", who were forced under threat of murder to stay with the bad guys. They are there in case they are attacked, such that THEY can murder them and claim the military is murdering "innocent civilians". Of course, should a bomb be dropped, or if they are attacked, "innocent civilians" are killed. The problem is, the military dropped the bomb, but they didn't kill them. Also, when attacked, frequently the "innocent civilians" are actually killed by scum - or they are forced to pick up weapons and are killed by the military.
The deal is, its never anywhere as cut and dry as so many ignorant, bleeding heart suckers like to depict. The fact is, the "innocent civilians" counts are factually, way, way, way over blown. Secondly, that number does not clearly indicate who actually killed them or what the situation was. The fact is, once they pick up a weapon or become part of their entourage, they are no longer "innocent" - legally. And all this ignores the fact that in many cases, the "innocent civilian" deaths are frequently lower than before the top fell. Which means, according to a lot of these agencies, "innocent civilians" deaths are okay so long as the US military is not involved.
Long story short, while we know the military's count is too low, its far, far, far more accurate than most accounts of "innocent civilian"" deaths - by far. The truth is, the actual numbers are somewhere in between - and likely closer to the military's than you think.