Saturday, 03.29.08
Why Stop-Loss Matters
Paramount Pictures
As a work of propaganda, Stop-Loss is a brilliant success. It offers a sensitive and humane portrait of a small group of soldiers deeply damaged by their experiences fighting and killing in Iraq. Yet it also suggests their experience is typical. (For those who haven't seen the movie, you should know that some details of the plot are discussed below.)
Out of a group of five friends who return home to a small Texas town, one goes mad, beats his girlfriend, and digs an enormous hole to sleep in; another drinks himself into oblivion; and another, the heroic protagonist, savagely beats a group of street toughs. By my count, that means 60 percent of the film's vets become deranged criminals. I'm reminded of a recent story in The New York Times which noted that, as of January, 121 Afghanistan and Iraq veterans have been accused or convicted of committing murder here at home. What the story neglected to mention, as John DiIulio later observed, is that these numbers suggest that Afghanistan and Iraq veterans have a murder rate considerably lower than the rate for the broader population of white males aged 18-24. At the very least, this suggests that the crime rate in Stop-Loss is perhaps higher than is entirely fair. Granted, the town these young men call home could be full of hard-drinking louts, veterans and non-veterans alike, who love digging holes, breaking windows, starting fights, and pistol-whipping people. But of course that would make for a very different movie with a rather different political message.
When Staff Sgt. Brandon King, the aforementioned part-time vigilante, is "stop-lossed" -- forced to extend his service in Iraq -- he is filled with anger. One assumes that many of the tens of thousands of U.S. servicemembers who've been stop-lossed feel much the way, and justifiably so. President Bush has been criticized for not embracing the idea of shared sacrifice in the never-ending war on terror. While military families bear the burden of near-constant deployments and physical and emotional injuries, the rest of the country barely senses the cost of our efforts to pacify Iraq and Afghanistan. This could be a brief for a larger, better-equipped, and better-funded military coupled with more generous benefits for veterans -- an agenda embraced by many on the right and left. But that's not Peirce's message. Aimed at a broader and younger audience than earlier Iraq War polemics like Redacted and In the Valley of Elah, the movie aspires to a more affecting, powerful indictment of the war, one that paints the young Americans who choose to join the military as victims, cruelly hoodwinked by politicians with a callous disregard for their lives.
At one point, Brandon explains that he signed up to defend his country and to strike back against the terrorists who perpetrated 9/11. But he later concludes that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, further fueling his rage over being forced to participate in a senseless conflict. This is a brief aside, but it does a great deal of work in the movie. Had Brandon continued to see the war as legitimate, we'd find him less impressive, if somewhat more sympathetic: He'd be no less angry about being stop-lossed, but his anger would be rooted in fear and frustration at the unfairness of the decision. He'd lack the intensity that makes his character appealingly dangerous.
As it happens, most people who join the military don't do it to avenge the victims of 9/11, and defending the homeland is usually just one of many considerations. As Michael Massing found in an essay on the volunteer military, economic incentives loom large. Massing seems to see this as a grave injustice that stems from America's failure to embrace social democracy and free college tuition. But the military has long been an engine of economic opportunity, a provider of second chances for people brave enough to subject themselves to grave danger on behalf of a government that is wrongheaded as often as not. The lack of patriotic sermonizing on the part of young recruits suggests an admirable realism. So when Brandon's best friend, the girlfriend-beating hole-digger, decides to sign up for another tour -- he thinks the military is the right fit, he finds pride in his work, he wants to go to sniper school, but he does't want to lose his girlfriend -- he seems convincingly conflicted. Brandon, in contrast, is a saint, who ultimately makes the most saintly choice.
Peirce's film is certainly not animated by disdain for the troops. Rather, she seems to think of her subjects as overgrown children, complicated and tragic, yes, but not ready to withstand the rigors of adult decision-making. It's easy to imagine that she wants the adolescents in the audience to identify with her characters, and maybe even to think twice before accepting a military recruiter's pitch. This is a fundamentally protective instinct that is admirable in its own way.
It's worth reflecting on the fact that during the Second World War, America's conscript army was full of terrified young men, only 15 to 25 percent of whom ever fired their weapons in combat. A remarkable number were maimed, killed, or felled by disease, and a far higher number were paralyzed by sheer terror and dread while on the battlefield. Though the volunteer army seems less egalitarian, it is undoubtedly far more effective and in its own way far more humane. One wonders about the kind of film Peirce would have made about the poor grunts sent off to fight Hirohito and Hitler, most of whom were subject to physical regimens that would be understood as abuse in our own time. Would she have made a stirring film dedicated to the cause of draft resistance? Well, no. The 1940s-equivalent of MTV Films would have presumably frowned on such a project, and the decent cosmopolitans of the time were convinced that European lives, at least, were worth saving. There appears to be no similar consensus about Iraqi lives.
The Iraq film yetNathan Rabin praises Stop-Loss as the best, most sensitive Iraq war film to date. |
Backdoor draftRolling Stone raised the specter of a new draft, citing the stop-loss policy as a sign of things to come. |
Why volunteer?Michael Massing discovers, to his dismay, that military recruits in Watertown, NY think about their future plans and aspirations when deciding to join the military. |
The walking unwoundedJohn DiIulio demolishes "the wacko-vet myth." |
(20)
Whoa, whoa. We are in Iraq to save Iraqi lives? How's that been going? cf Lancet, or even Iraq Body Count.
Stop-Loss just got panned by the WSJ's Pulitzer Prize-winning movie reviewer Joe Morgenstern, who has reviewed at least one of the other anti-Iraq War movies favorably.
Stop-Loss will bomb at the box office like every other anti-Iraq War movie. There was a time when Hollywood was full of patriots and their first instinct was to support the war effort when America was at war. If today's Hollywood people were around during WWII they would have just made movies about Japanese Internment camps, German kids blown up at Dresden, etc. There is something to be said for perspective.
But if Hollywood wants to keep burning its investors money on these screeds, so be it.
the decent cosmopolitans of the time were convinced that European lives, at least, were worth saving. There appears to be no similar consensus about Iraqi lives.
I don't know much, but I know the notion that those opposed to the continued occupation of Iraq are indifferent to Iraqi lives is personally insulting and wrong. This was beneath you, and you know it.
What the reviewer does not seem to realise is that during the second world war we were fighting for freedom. Not having our freedoms eroded by lord bush and co. Ryan's character is right when he says to his co, 'fuck the president'
I served in gulf war 1 with the british SAS and then subsequently on my return resigned my commision because of what puppy dog blair was leading our country into
We were never asked to invade Iraq to save Iraqi lives. It was sold to America by liars as a way to save American lives. And staying there at the cost of the American taxpayer isn't going to save more Iraqi lives. It will cost more Iraqi AND American lives. The Atlantic appears to have drunk Neo-Con Cool-Aid, to have this kind of pro-Bush, anti-truth drivel. Why should any kid in the military that is asked to go to Iraq be proud and happy? It's an illegal occupation that never should have happened. If I were enlisted, I wouldn't go the first time they asked. Excuse me for saying so, but going to kill for a lie only takes your own soul. DON'T DO IT, no matter what they do to you. Just quit, go - AWOL, become a Conscientious Objector.
The link to John DiIulio doesn't work though I assume you mean the man who confected the infamous "superpredator" panic of the 90s.
"The 1940s-equivalent of MTV Films would have presumably frowned on such a project, and the decent cosmopolitans of the time were convinced that European lives, at least, were worth saving. There appears to be no similar consensus about Iraqi lives"
Well this is just plain disingenuous and elitist. Paramount is also involved in Stop Loss and the sneer in your prose about MTV is almost palpable.
Finally, congratulations on the politics of inversion. I realize the 'we must invade and occupy them in order to save their lives' thesis is popular as a trickle-down meme for the pro-war right, but that position is of course untenable. If Iraqi lives are so precious to the US why have over a million of them been snuffed out?
This movies name is based on a misnomer....therefore, the whole movie is bogus.
When you join the military, you sign a contract....that contract says that you agree to an eight year obligation, active and inactive.
Too bad the non-serving "patriots" in Hollywood haven't learned this.
Someday movies like this will be viewed as the anti-American tripe they are, if not, well......guess our children will ask us "what's America?"
From a 20 year active duty vetran....
"I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it!"
Stop-Loss policy is based on a measure that says the Pres can keep you as long as he deems necessary during time of war. Not just 4, not just 8 yrs, but as long as he wants. That is NOT in these kids' contract. Meanwhile, what "war" has been declared? It has been an illegal war from the start, because only Congress, not the damn Pres, has the legal right and duty to declare war. That bogus authorization was never a declaration of war. And on top of that, the so-called and ever-shifting "reasons" we've been fed have all been lies or obfuscations.
I feel so very very sorry for self-deluded pseudo-patriots who feel that love of country means shutting up, putting your head in the sand, and drinking the Bush Kool-Aid. Check your history. The true patriots love their country enough to dare to point out when the rulers/leaders are taking it astray. Remember, WWII Germans were great about "just following orders," and the Neurenburg Trials made that a crime, if you "just followed orders" to do criminal behavior.
What the dismissive woman who made this movie (and some of the dismissive boobs who have commented here) does not seem to realize is that those of us who enlisted are not children (her depiction of us as mentally deficient children tells me more about how she views those of us who wear this uniform than what her public statements tell me. You judge a person by their action--noth their words). No one made us enlist. When we enlisted, the 8 year federal service obligation was clearly spelled out (and anyone who said they were not told is full of a certain bio-product, because it is official DoD policy that incoming servicemembers be informed of that). Does stop-loss suck? Absolutely, but if you are still on contract, then guess what--you serve until stop-loss is lifted. Does the war suck? Absolutely, but what sucks more is that people who oppose the war are using us as a political football to verbalize their own grudges. From someone still serving, let me give you some news from my fellow troops---SHUT UP ABOUT US. We do not need any of you to speak for us, because at the end of the day, you are NOT speaking for us. You are speaking for whatever ideology you represent--pro or anti-military---we are just a way for you to beat your chest. The majority of you who comment on us have never lived our lives. You will NEVER know our sacrifices, yet you presume to speak for us and claim to know our minds. To be honest, most of us in right now do not like you, regardless of your ideology. We think the majority of you are wastes of spaces who serve no real purpose other than to flap your gums and pontificate on matters you know nothing about. Please do us a favor--when you have your little partisan battles, leave us out of them. We just want to be left alone.
When you swear the Oath, you swear it unconditionally. Your only obligation is to look deeply inside yourself prior to doing so, and making sure you're up to it.
Not up to it? Don't raise your hand. If you did so, it can't be revoked magically, at your whim and fancy.
It's your duty to go where you're told, fight where you're told, and win where you fight. If it means you die, then that is something that should have been dealt with beforehand. If that means you will be told, "We can't spare you now. You have to go back." Then that is what it means.
It will mean that you will go places you never would have gone. You will meet people you never would have met, and kill some of them. It means you will see things you never would have, and may well wish you hadn't. It will mean some of those people you met, will die when you wish you could have done something to help them. It will mean you will do something to help some of them. It means you're not God, and don't decide when and how others die or you die. You will determine how you live and die, but not the manner in which it happens.
AWOL? Desert? If your conscience dictates that to you, we're better off having you "serve" the remainder of your commitment in the brig. At the end you'll get your discharge, dishonorably. Then go on and quit at everything else including your life generally.
Those who use their experiences and losses as an excuse as an excuse to screw up the remainder of their lives would likely have done so anyway. Most of the people I have dealt with over the years with drug and alcohol problems would use any sort of reason or excuse to drink and use drugs. Those with "anger problems" were maladjusted and unable to cope with life from the beginning. The military didn't do that. Iraq didn't do that.
My father served in Korea, and when he came home he found a trade, got educated at it, and raised six kids and took care of his family and wife. He rarely drank excessively, and was never violent toward anyone, unless he had to be.
For veterans to be portrayed in this manner is disrespectful to them and their service. It flies in the face of reality.
Thank you to all those who serve, and served. It made it so the rest of us didn't have to do so. It made it so we don't have to have the fighting go on here in the US. We had a taste of that on 9/11, and none of us liked it. Some of us have forgotten, that day.
Notice how it has disappeared from the media? Not an accident. Notice how the foreign press showed the bodies falling from the towers? Ours didn't, "out of sensitivity". Out of not wanting to inflame the masses, more like it. The masses need to be inflamed, it's the only way they will get off their asses and actually do something, or get out of the way of those doing it.
Wich is really typical is the plot. It seems that a returning soldier only deserves some pity before being forgotten.
It's a MOVIE, intended to provoke a DIALOGUE. And that is exactly what it has done.
THE END.
To all those who assume 'fighting' is the use of arms in the military, thus making only those patriots - you have looked past the others that 'fight' for their country in other ways. Social, economic and political control are manipulating factors that are indeed worth the patriotic fight. The vessels for this type of fight are the Arts and Social Sciences. To assume that only the military fights for patriotism is somewhat egotistical - if our country was threatened from a legitimate enemy, I do not doubt thousands of "your lacking patriots" would be signing up to fight...the key here is legitimacy.
Reihan Salam's comment about saving Iraqi lives is made with the perspective of hindsight. We did not invade Iraq to save the Iraqi people - our leaders marketed the war as a retaliation to September 11th and pursuance of Osama bin Ladin - the comparison to the second world war seems out of context. If we continue to fight for the sake of 'democracy' throughout the Middle East we will end up without a democracy at home.
And...yes! This movie has provoked a dialogue. But it is not the end as that would be the end of the dialogue.......
Stop-Loss is clearly written into military contracts, despite what sally posted below. I know this because I am joining, and have read my contract. If needed, the military can hold a soldier for the duration of the war + 6 months. Would I want the have stop-loss used on me? No. But I understand that by joining the military I need to fulfill the obligations I signed up for.
Leon, It would be foolish to begin to detail the many logical fallacies and jingoistic falsehoods in your comment, but that would just waste my time. What I only want to object to is your easy association that the war we are fighting in Iraq is in any way related to the 9/11 tragedy. I know our administration has decided that we all need to believe this, but the fact is, you assume that our soldiers, who are giving their lives and serving honorably in this travesty are actually serving some purpose. No. Rather they are doing nothing other than the bidding of a bunch of elitist ivy-league half-wits whose only interest is in scratching their itch for vengeance and stoking their cowboy fantasies . Don't think for a minute that exploiting our armed services for thte sake of some sort of neo-imperialist idiocy is anything other than fulfilling our duty as citizens, who don't want to occupy Iraq for 100 years. NOT betraying the troops. I'm tired of that critique and I will not accept it anymore.
I think Reihan is firing wide of the mark here. The tragedy of the stop-loss program is that it demands even more sacrifice from those who have already given so much. At least under conditions of a draft, more Americans are asked to give of their time, their skills and, yes, their blood.
Also, conflating the military murder rate and other forms of post-traumatic violence or neurotic behavior is, well, stupid. There's no denying veterans who suffer from depression or PTSD are far more likely to commit domestic violence than the population at large. One in three veterans returns from Iraq suffering from one or the other and that number climbs to nearly half for Guardsmen and Reservists.
I assure you no recruiter is touting the stop-loss program. When I was in Afghanistan, I met many pissed off soldiers who had been drawn back to the war through stop-loss and--to a man--they pointed out those words appeared nowhere in their enlistment contracts. You can say that Peirce paints soldiers as "hoodwinked," but I think defrauded fits better.
Scoff if you want, but it is the callousness of our politics which has created this situation. During Vietnam, there was a refusal to activate large portions of the Guard and Reserve because that's where the elites were stowing their children. Post-Vietnam, the Army stuck units with vital military interest in the reserve components in order to force politicians to activate them if they wanted to go to war. Today's unwillingness to demand service is equally cowardly and driven solely by the desire of politicians to remain in power.
Reihan stacks the deck by contrasting the draft regime with the all-volunteer force. Clearly, the point of those who object to the status quo is not to evoke spurious nostalgia for conscription but to provide enough economic opportunity for all young Americans that those who choose the military option will be making this particularly serious choice without the terrible pressure they face today.
Helping Iraqis is something opponents of the war do care about, but we recognize that we cannot do so simply by citing our good intentions, or the badness of various other actors, and then applying military force. A conspicuous and addictive policy of military "caring" for Iraqis expresses our own paternalism and unacknowledged strategic goals more than it implements relevant policy mechanisms in Iraq's massively complex political environment.
wow Reihan, i think you've just created a new form of movie review. I'd love to see you apply your "reality percentages " to all films and TV shows you review. here's your first assignment - Fox's 24, then move on to John Wayne's films - they'll really stand up to scrutiny.
I hope Hollywood picks up on your message and makes all new movies fit the what "most people do" mold. Imagin how interesting those films will be!
My family is one of thoughs families going through what has become the reason for hollywood to make millions of dollars. That thing called stop loss. When are we going to wake up as a country as say enough is enough ? I think all that we can see as a country is $$$$$$ and what we can get out of others? I think that if you are a soldier like myself and my husband are and have been over seas more than you have been in the states you shouldnt be stop lossed. My husband has been over to korea and to iraqi more then he has been in the states and is now stop loss. There are more soldier like my husband that just are not getting the brake that they need to heal after going over there. And it is hurting them and there family. In my opinion I think that they need to start the draft so that peopel really appreacate the freedom that they have and we wouldnt have retarded movies going out there like this movie stop loss. I dont think that other peopel need to make a profit off of other peopels pain. I dont think that it is fair and it is unethical. And if anyone really cared about our troop they wouldnt have to go on welfair to feed there kids and they would get paid like the real hero that there children look up to. I cant say much for people that we call adults cause what I see now days is children. One more thing get them better help after they come back from the war. Cause there not okay there just saying that cause there trained that way.
If Hollwierd wants to make anti American war movies then they should take all the America hating movie stars and directors to the Middle East. Give all the terrorist a big hug and make movies with them. Hollwierd you have been out of step with America after the Vietnam war. No I am not advocating war but I’ll be damn if I am going to sell out my country for a few rounds of cheap applauses and pop corn.
Posted by Willy Brown | March 29, 2008 1:31 PM