Collateral Damage

The post-9/11 action/terrorism movie is now a genre all of its own. If this movie is interesting at all, it's through the prism of September 11, a day that changed culture as much as it did politics. Our perceptions of Black Hawk Down, Behind Enemy Lines, and now, Arnold Schwarzenegger's Collateral Damage are shaped - nearly haunted - by the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks and the subsequent military operations in Afghanistan. Some movies - Black Hawk Down - are greatly enhanced by 9/11. Because it was true and well done, it hits us between the eyes. But for poor aging action-pioneer Schwarzenegger, whose movie was postponed for three months by his nervous studio, the opposite is true. This movie comes from another time, not enlivened by reality but diminished by it. Spoilage warning: plot discussed, not ending.

The plot is vintage Arnold. He plays firefighter Gordon Brewer, who is drawn into international terrorism when his wife and son are blown up in a bombing carried out by Claudio ("The Wolf") Perrini. In pre-9/11 movies, the U.S. is nearly as evil as the terrorists, as the perennial bumbling evil C.I.A./NSA secret agents do absolutely anything at all costs by any means to get their way -- just like the terrorists. At the moment, that plot line seems a dubious one. When Brewer figures out that the ever politically squishy U.S. government isn't going to catch the Wolf (to avoid ruffling the feathers of the Columbian government), he decides to do it himself, tracking the Wolf through Panama to the dense jungles of Columbia, where he spends as much time dodging evil U.S. agents as he does hiding from evil Columbian guerrillas.

The movie is full of the now vintage Schwarzeneggerian repertoire of narrow-eyed stares and clunky one liners and explosion after explosion. And let's face it, Arnold is no action adventure spring chicken. His face is lined, his visage distinctly middle-aged. We see him in relatively few action sequences, and he is undoubtedly keeping platoons of stunt men working, judging from the credits.

Watching the film, you can't help but identify with the helplessness of a man who sees his family blown to bits for no particular reason by murderous fanatics who use high-blown rhetoric to justify their butchery. I suppose there are lots of people who wish they could get their hands on Osama Bin Laden's throat.

What makes Black Hawk Down so jarring and effective a film is that it's about a real story. U.S. soldiers really did find themselves in a horrific shoot-out in Somalia, and really did behave heroically under awful pressure. These same soldiers are now crawling around the hills of Afghanistan, their cause clear and powerful. That movie is thus a terrific salute to ordinary people who have to take a deep measure of themselves in extraordinary situations.

But Schwarzenegger's clunky ham-handedness is diminished, not enhanced by reality. The movie is too long, the ending loopy. What was once an entertaining Hollywood cartoon figure now just seems a dinosaur, his sensibility outdated and irrelevant. Schwarzenegger has made some first-rate action stuff. His Terminator series was great (he's making another). He ought to ride off into the sunset while he still has his dignity and pride, and acknowledge that while he had a great ride, the reality of the world has finally overtaken him.

Comments

arnold didnt direct or write this movie

[voudras]

he's just in it - making a buck.

this article at salon.com sheds some like on arnolds perspective, and his relationship to the movie.

im no huge arnold fan - but katz shouldnt dump on arnold for being *in* a movie

whats the directors name katz? who did the casting? did you know harrison ford was supposed to play the part?

Re:Black Hawk Down

[BobSoros]

uhm, back up a second .. are you implying that Blackhawk Down was based on fictional events ? Thats what its sure sounds like, if not you seem to be making the suggestion the events were grossly exaggerated. Well Smiley Ben, why dont you send an email or two to the soldiers (yes they are available) that were involved in that political debacle. There were two interviews with the soldiers before the movie was made and the contents of the movie clearly reflect what they gave witness to.

hollywood vs the truth

[syusuf]

According to the myth, the Somalia operation of 1993 was a humanitarian mission, and a shining example of New World Order morality and altruism. In fact, US and UN troops waged an undeclared war against an Islamic African populace that was hostile to foreign interests.

Also contrary to the legend, the 1993 Somalia raid was not a "Clinton foreign policy bungle." In fact, the incoming Clinton administration inherited an operation that was already in full swing -- planned and begun by outgoing President George Herbert Walker Bush, spearheaded by deputy national security adviser Jonathan Howe (who remained in charge of the UN operation after Clinton took office), and approved by Colin Powell, then head of the Joint Chiefs.

The operation had nothing to do with humanitarianism or Africa-love on the part of Bush or Clinton. Several US oil companies, including Conoco, Amoco, Chevron and Phillips were positioned to exploit Somalia's rich oil reserves. The companies had secured billion-dollar concessions to explore and drill large portions of the Somali countryside during the reign of pro-US President Mohamed Siad Barre. (In fact, Conoco's Mogadishu office housed the US embassy and military headquarters.) A "secure" Somalia also provided the West with strategic location on the coast of Arabian Sea.

UN military became necessary when Barre was overthrown by warlord Mohammed Farrah Aidid, suddenly rendering Somalia inhospitable to US corporate interests.

Although the pretext for the mission was to safeguard food shipments, and stop the "evil Aidid" from stealing the food, the true UN goal was to remove Aidid from the political equation, and form a pro-Western coalition government out of the nation's warring clans. The US operation was met with "surprisingly fierce resistance" -- surprising to US officials who underestimated Somalian resolve, and even more surprising to US troops who were victims and pawns of UN policy makers.

The highly documented series by Mark Bowden of the Philadelphia Inquirer on which the film is based , focuses on the participants, and the "untenable" situation in which troops were placed. But even Bowden's gung-ho account makes no bones about provocative American attacks that ultimately led to the decisive defeat in Mogadishu.

Bowden writes: "Task Force Ranger was not in Mogadishu to feed the hungry. Over six weeks, from late August to Oct. 3, it conducted six missions, raiding locations where either Aidid or his lieutenants were believed to be meeting. The mission that resulted in the Battle of Mogadishu came less than three months after a surprise missile attack by U.S. helicopters (acting on behalf of the UN) on a meeting of Aidid clansmen. Prompted by a Somalian ambush on June 5 that killed more than 20 Pakistani soldiers, the missile attack killed 50 to 70 clan elders and intellectuals, many of them moderates seeking to reach a peaceful settlement with the United Nations. After that July 12 helicopter attack, Aidid's clan was officially at war with America -- a fact many Americans never realized."

Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Somalis were killed in the course of US incursions that took place over three months. In his book The New Military Humanism, Noam Chomsky cites other under-reported facts. "In October 1993, criminal incompetence by the US military led to the slaughter of 1,000 Somalis by American firepower." Chomsky writes. "The official estimate was 6-10,000 Somali casualties in the summer of 1993 alone, two-thirds women and children. Marine Lt. Gen. Anthony Zinni, who commanded the operation, informed the press that 'I'm not counting bodies . . . I'm not interested.' Specific war crimes of US forces included direct military attacks on a hospital and on civilian gatherings. Other Western armies were implicated in serious crimes as well. Some of these were revealed at an official Canadian inquiry, not duplicated by the US or other governments."

Bowden's more forgiving account does not contradict Chomsky's in this regard:

"Official U.S. estimates of Somalian casualties at the time numbered 350 dead and 500 injured. Somalian clan leaders made claims of more than 1,000 deaths. The United Nations placed the number of dead at ``between 300 to 500.'' Doctors and intellectuals in Mogadishu not aligned with the feuding clans say that 500 dead is probably accurate.

The attack on Mogadishu was particularly vicious. Quoting Bowden: "The Task Force Ranger commander, Maj. Gen. William F. Garrison, testifying before the Senate, said that if his men had put any more ammunition into the city 'we would have sunk it.' Most soldiers interviewed said that through most of the fight they fired on crowds and eventually at anyone and anything they saw."

After 18 US Special Forces soldiers were killed in the final Mogadishu firefight, which included the downing of a US helicopter, television screens filled with the scene of a dead US soldier being dragged through the streets by jubilant Somalis. Clinton immediately called off the operation. US forces left Somalia in disgrace. Some 19,000 UN troops remained for a short period, but eventually left in futility.

The Somalia defeat elicited howls of protest and rage from the military brass, congressional hawks, and right-wing provocateurs itching for an excuse to declare political war on the "liberal" Clinton administration.

The "Somalia syndrome" would dog Clinton throughout his presidency, and mar every military mission during his tenure.

Today, as right-wing extremist George W. Bush occupies the White House, surrounded by his father's operatives, and many of the architects of the original raid, military fanaticism is all the rage. A global war "without end" has just begun.

What a perfect opportunity to "clean up" the past.

Re:hollywood vs the truth

[Anonymous Coward]

Also contrary to the legend, the 1993 Somalia raid was not a "Clinton foreign policy bungle."

Yes it was. Bush (Sr.) sent in troops for a limited humanitarian mission (feeding people, a mission that was actually achieved). It was Clinton, acting with UN support, who changed the nature and scope of the role to "nation building".

Although the pretext for the mission was to safeguard food shipments, and stop the "evil Aidid" from stealing the food

I'm amazed at how short peoples' memories are with respect to Clinton. When US troops were first deployed under Bush, there was MASS STARVATION in Somalia. The actions of the Bush administration stopped that. It was only after that "success" (and a change in the office of President), that the United Nations approved a resolution shifting the mission from feeding the hungry to "nation building". Clinton was warned that it wouldn't work (by Colin Powell and others) but he refused to heed their warnings.

"In October 1993, criminal incompetence by the US military led to the slaughter of 1,000 Somalis by American firepower." Chomsky writes

And this was after the change in focus mandated by Clinton. If there were "corporate interests" involved (as Chomsky claims, and he may be correct), then they were cronies of Clinton, not the Bush administration.

Re:Second time more criminal

[BarefootClown]

Ummm...given that you've already blown some key facts (i.e. the date of the surrender v. the date we dropped the bombs, etc.), I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at this, but Hiroshima was the first city we nuked, on August 6th. We bombed Nagasaki on the 9th.

Incidentally, just so you know the rest of the story, here you go:

1. We dropped tens of thousands of leaflets on Tokyo warning that we had a new weapon of incredible destructive power, and would use it if Japan did not surrender. This was several days before August 6th (though I don't recall the exact date). We gave them fair warning.
   
2. August 6th: we nuke Hiroshima, using a uranium-235 device known as "Little Boy." The bomb hits very close to the target (within 500 feet, if memory serves--extremely good, for the time).
   
3. August 7 and 8: we drop tens of thousands of leaflets on the Japanese, reminding them of the bomb we just dropped (which, by the way, decimated a large portion of your city, with one bomb, and you couldn't stop it), and that we would do it again if they didn't surrender. We called Emperor Hirohito and asked for a surrender, warning him personally that we'd drop another one if he didn't surrender. He didn't. The fact that he didn't surrender after an actual use, on his people, is probably pretty good evidence that he would not have surrendered to a mere demonstration.
   
4. August 9th: we drop a plutonium-239 implosion-type device, known as "Fat Man," on Nagasaki. This bomb misses the target by over half a mile, but still obliterates the primary target--a pleasant side effect of having that much power is that you don't necessarily need the accuracy afforded by modern Precision Guided Munitions (PGM), though it is still nice to have.
   
5. We drop more leaflets, and call Hirohito again for a surrender. This time, he decides it might just be a good idea.
   

Before we dropped the first one, military strategists, generals, advisors, and the President (Harry Truman, in case you didn't know) gathered for many long discussions, to look at all of the available options. One option examined was a full-scale invasion of the Japanese homeland; it was ruled out, in favor of the bomb, because the enemy casualties were expected to be similar between the two options, and the American casualties would have been tremendous--remember, this was a culture that believed firmly in the nobility of suicide attacks (see also: Kamikaze), death before dishonor (and failing to fight to the death was considered dishonorable), etc. I'm not bashing that concept--to be completely honest, I see a lot of nobility in their attitude. The point is, they would not have yielded reasonably, so strong measures were required. When all options were considered, nuclear weapons were the least costly in terms of human life, based on all available intelligence. Incidentally, the Manhattan Project was started not by Truman, but by FDR, who tried mightily to keep us out of the war for as long as he could--he was not a war hawk.

To answer the charges you make in your reply:

1. Had to, in the sense I just discussed. Best option of a sorry lot--unfortunately, war is like that sometimes.
   
2. Just wanted to test it again? We conducted dozens upon dozens of tests of nuclear weapons, in our desert, on islands, underground, and possibly even upper-atmosphere. We didn't need Hiroshima as a testing grounds. Did we study the effects? Hell, yes! But we still study the effects of simple 500lb "dumb bombs," looking for ways to improve them, and seeing their effects against different types of targets, so we can optimize for different types of targets. Not availing ourselves of a research opportunity would just be foolish.
   
3. Your example of mugging is a complete non-sequitor. A better example would be "I had to shoot him twice because he hadn't succeeded in not continuing to attack me by the time I was done shooting him the first time." This was not a random mugging of an uninvolved individual--this was an attempt to end a war, a war which was started by the other side (perhaps you remember a little sneak attack on Pearl Harbor), a war which was likely to drag on for some time, with many more lives lost, if it wasn't ended decisively.
   

Hope this little recollection of the facts helps clear things up a little.