Devolution of the War on Terror

Today in class, we talked about how the War on Terror has the potential to be, and so far has been, a war with an endless number of goals. We’ve already seen evidence of this—“Mission Accomplished” banners, the killing of Bin Laden—and yet the war continues. And yet when the war began, it seemed more like the goal was clear:  to prevent another attack by stopping the group that was responsible.

                In my opinion, the problem with the War on Terror is pretty simple. In the beginning, the war was based on the U.S. being reactive to 9/11; the point was, in fact, to go after the people responsible for the attacks that had already taken place. The problem occurred when the U.S. leaders and military personnel shifted their focus from being reactive to proactive.

                When a country tries to act proactively, stamping out threats as they arise, the situation quickly devolves into paranoia. As Sontag pointed out, the threat is never-ending. Because of this, the war itself cannot end with satisfying results. Or as was accurately pointed out in class, new threats can be manufactured every day.

                In just war theory, just cause is necessary for a war to be considered just. Whether or not it is just to preemptively kill citizens with suspected links to al-Qaeda is up for debate. But if the United States’ historical record is any indication, preemptive wars very well may continue. The War on Terror is comparable to Cold War containment policy, in that it appears the goal is to rid the world of all anti-U.S. terrorism, for fear that it will have a domino effect. It seems to me that if containment policy was perpetuated relatively undeterred, the War on Terror very well may continue as it has. And that is truly terrifying.

Which Movie Best Illustrates American Motives for the War on Terror: Syriana or United 93?

            As United 93 was coming to a close, and the passengers were attempting to take back control of the plane, I could not help but notice how angry I felt. I wanted revenge. We have discussed Elshtain’s comment about anger being an appropriate response roughly a year after the attacks, but here I am a decade later having that same response conjured back up. I was not expecting to have that kind of reaction, or such a strong reaction, given all that has happened since the planes went down. Do you believe that the U.S. response was emotionally driven? Or was it an economically driven attempt to seek out oil and spread American influence as Syriana might suggest? Does the fact that Iraq was chosen as the target play a role in your answer choice?

Personally, I cannot help but think that emotions played a fairly significant role in the decision to go to war, phantom or not. Something needed to be done, and it needed to be done relatively quickly to show our strength and resolve. At the same time, it is hard to ignore arguments similar to what is depicted in Syriana. But I would hate to think that such a tragic event was simply used as a catalyst to pursue economic endeavors. I can see how the likely answer would be a little bit of both, but if I had to choose I would draw U.S. motives from United 93 before Syriana, even though it may not be correct. 

United 93: Women as Sexual Objects

While I was watching United 93, right toward the beginning, something caught my attention. I remembered from the Al Qaeda Reader how one of the things that was written about the US and western ways was the use of women in media and marketing, essentially using sex to sell things. I cant  seem to find the exact lines that are written but I remember it discussing that as a reason they look down upon America. At 5:12 in the movie we see one of the terrorists walking through the airport carrying his luggage. Behind him you can see two advertisements of what looks to be magazine covers. One is of a girl in either underwear or some skimpy outfit, and the one next to it is of a girl and written next to her it reads "the bust issue". The scene continues as it moves to one of the other terrorists. As hes walking at 5:15, you can see another advertisement of some type behind him on the wall. It features two women shirtless and in their bras. Its hard to tell exactly what the ad is trying to sell, but it definitely is using women and sex appeal to do so. The final thing about this scene that caught my attention (and maybe I'm reading too far into this) is that the camera stops on the ad and the terrorist continues to walk by, as if to emphasis the ad for a moment. It's like it was saying "here, look at this, this is why we hate you". Again, maybe i'm looking too far into this 3-4 second scene but to me it felt almost as if this was filmed intentionally this way to emphasis the fact that our cultures are so drastically different. Without even saying a word, for me,  this small scene summarized that attitudes and feelings of the terrorists and the reasons they carried out their attacks.

United 93: Minor Focus on Terrorist Motives

I’d like to address the representation of the Al-Qaeda terrorists in the movie, United 93.   I found it interesting when I paid attention the way in which the terrorists were portrayed because there was little done to address their motives and such.  Although I realize that the premise of the movie is to depict the events on the actual day of September 11, 2001, I can’t help but wonder if a crucial element was left out.  Because the focus was that specific day, I understand that prior events, such as the thoughts of the terrorists and how they came to be associated with Al-Qaeda, can become less of a priority than if its goal was to truly delve deeply into the history behind the attacks.  However, as one of the only movies that took on that major task of depicting the 9/11 attacks, it would have been beneficial for the movie’s creators to realize the power that was in their hands.  Since the attacks are such a horrifying event in recent American history, many Americans would clearly be interested in seeing the movie.  Therefore, it would have been an important move for the creators to try to explain what motivated the terrorists.  Although such topics aren’t necessarily the most popular among Americans because it’s a (for lack of a better word ) touchy subject, it is important that we understand the terrorists’ side of things to, if only to gain a thorough understanding of that day.  Although I can’t speak for others, I find that some people feel that thinking about the motives means, in some way, accepting the attacks as legitimate; however, I argue that doing so only helps us to understand the attacks, not justify them in any way.  Ultimately, my point is that it would have done the movie justice if its creators had decided to incorporate more background information instead of primarily focusing on the fear and chaos of that fateful day.  While there were moments where the terrorists are looked at in a deeper light—specifically when the fourth terrorist hesitates and is clearly thinking deeply about what he’s going to do—I still feel as though the movie lacked crucial information by choosing to focus on the American side primarily.

United 93: Memories. Unity?

As I watched United 93, I remembered the day that I learned about 9/11.  I was too young to understand what the news were speaking of on the TV, however, what I learned from the visual representations at 6pm on September 11, 2001 was the simple and sad fact that people had lost their lives by planes that made their way into buildings. I remember leaving our living room and looking straight ahead from our kitchen window which faced the only airport in Armenia. It was my habit to stare at the planes at the airport fly and land all day long and be happy that maybe one day I would be lucky enough to fly somewhere in an actual plane. It was a dream for me.  On that day, (I remember it as it was yesterday; I can literally picture the sky that evening any time I think of that horrific day in my head. it was rainy and ugly and gloomy) after looking out the window at the airport ahead I was not happy. I looked ahead for a while and I cried. I did not realize what had happened but I knew I gave up on my dream. Or rather, I was dissappointed and wanted to find another dream to strive for. Today, as I watched this film I cried again. I am not American and I cannot put myself into Americans' shoes and I don't know how I would feel if I were one , but it does not stop me from feeling fear or even anger. Ever since I gave up on my dream I have been scared. When I grew older and learned more about that day, I always asked myself, "What if?". What if those passangers were lucky to take control of the plane? Or, what if our airport security was safer? What if that 4th hijacker changed his mind at the last minute? As I watched the film again, these questions were in my mind and I wanted to picture the outcome of those things! I wanted to know that there would have been some reasons for me to hold on to my dream back then.
This film, although I am not sure how accurate, still demonstrates the events of that day. I really think that by watching this America will stand united more than ever. However, I do think that it is sad to have such events to serve as reasons for unity. [And, I do find it interesting how the people in the film were united and the airline company was "United ..."! ] I do think that this film is very strong. It delivers such an important message that is essential for us, all members of the world community to follow. We need to be united and set aside our differences and hatred. Of course, there will always be people who do not agree or who choose to merge into the wrong lane, however, being united and loving each other is the only way to achieve that what is perpetual. Maybe peace? This film should become an exemplar for each and every one of us to stand together - as those passangers did; to strive for goals that we all have in common and finally, and hopefully, have a peaceful society with no holy wars or wars on terrorism, which maybe can be eliminated through brotherhood and common understanding.

On Syriana

In class, we talked a lot about how father-son/family issues connected the characters of Syriana. Although this is true, we didn’t talk very much about the characters’ moral struggles that unite them.

At the beginning of the movie, all of the characters seem like normal guys facing normal problems. They have jobs, they have families, and they have lives. But once we get deeper into the movie, the characters become more complex. Wasim loses his job. Barnes seems to be on the brink of losing his. Woodman is offered a new job, but loses a son in the process. And Bennett is facing a tough task at work.

As we continue further into the movie, the lives of these men start to develop into focus:  as their situations change, they are all facing new challenges. Wasim struggles with ways of coping with his job loss and his father’s impotence. At first he reacts with frustration, which turns to desperation. Finally, as the movie reaches its climax, he is struggling with the idea of violence. When Wasim’s friend says that the two boys will be able to help their families out after going through with the plans, he seems unsure. Barnes, whose first plan to assassinate Nassir was to put him in a car and stage a car crash, seems more compassionate toward the end of the movie. As the film draws to a close, he is desperately trying to intercept Nassir’s convoy and warn him of his imminent assassination. Woodman struggles throughout the movie with the problem of working for the man his wife perceives as killing their son. However, he also struggles with a subtler problem:  is it amoral to work for a man who is cynical of your home country? And finally, Holiday’s moral struggle is set in the corporate world. He finds it harder and harder throughout the film to keep his nose clean, as his bosses try to convince him to get involved in corporate corruption.

The director of the film had said his intent for the movie was to show how people of different backgrounds, living halfway across the world are all connected. Keeping the characters’ moral struggles and family problems in mind, he seems to have done this. But is the method of connecting the characters in more concrete ways as effective, or does it cause confusion? In other words, was it as easy to keep straight who was trying to kill whom, who was angry with whom, who had ties to what group? In my opinion, the comparisons made through characterization were more effective than those that were revealed through the plot, because the plotline was complex and difficult to follow. Any thoughts?

United 93

One of the questions I want to discuss in class is how flight 93 is represented. When President Bush addressed the nation on September 20, 2001, almost the first thing he mentions is United 93. What President Bush says is not entirely consistent with what the 9/11 Commission Report says. Neither is the film consistent with the 9/11 Report. You might want to read the relevant sections of the 9/11 Report. Below is a link to the report. Read the 15 or so pages that appear under the heading "Inside the Four Flights."

9/11 Commission Report

If the link doesn't work, here is the URL:

 http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cts=1330631798634&ved=0CDYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.911commission.gov%2Freport%2F911Report.pdf&ei=XspPT8LxO67jsQKgzJSoDg&usg=AFQjCNGd3vLjU60u4BijL17ezTRkJQshnQ