Propaganda Cinema

Recently, the movie Lone Survivor debuted in the part of the country not on the East or West Coast.   I've been waiting to see this movie since I saw it was being made, and Karen sweetly bought me the book, which I devoured in a few short days.  To say that it's a sobering book is an understatement.  For those who have seen neither the movie nor read the book, I won't spoil it, but the title pretty much gives one the idea of what happened.

Now that the rest of the country is able to see the movie, it's doing gangbusters at the box office which, no doubt, is disquieting to some liberals.  The book takes some shots at the liberal media, which isn't surprising, since the military is overwhelmingly conservative and despises the MSM.  The largest shells are saved for the ROE's, or rules of engagement, that bind the troops' hands insofar as how they're supposed to conduct the war.  Apparently, no one remembers the outcome of Vietnam anymore.

Suffice it to say, some liberal bloggers have decided that this movie is cliché and, worse, propaganda in favor of the war.  The author himself has responded:

Dakota Meyer, the Marine recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor, has also responded to the liberal critics:

Their combined credibility makes any further commentary from me on the lunacy of labeling this movie propaganda unnecessary and duplicative.  There is a point, however, that remains.

If these movies are propaganda, what about the myriad anti-war movies made by liberal Hollywood that took President Bush to task for Iraq and Afghanistan?  What about movies like Lions for Lambs, Rendition, Jarhead, Generation Kill (admittedly, a mini-series) and other similar efforts.

In the Wikipedia entry for Lions for Lambs, it generously describes the movies this way:

With a title that alludes to incompetent leaders sending brave soldiers into the slaughter of battle, the film takes aim at the U.S. government's prosecution of the wars in the Middle East, showing three different simultaneous stories:  a senator who launches a new military strategy and details it to a journalist, two soldiers involved in said operation, and their college professor trying to engage a promising student by telling him their story.

I never read anywhere that the MSM labeled this movie as propaganda, despite the fact it clearly has an agenda of criticizing the war effort.  The same can be said for Rendition, which is described as being based on the true story of one Khalid El-Masri, who was confused with Khalid al-Masri, who was the target of CIA rendition.

Whatever one's judgment of rendition, the movie was based on a real life event.  So is Lone Survivor.  The only reason the latter is branded as propaganda and the former isn't is that the latter doesn't correspond to liberals' narratives about the war.  Despite what the author and Mr. Meyer state, these self-proclaimed omniscient critics see propaganda where there is none.  To label Lone Survivor a propaganda reel that glorifies war is demeaning to the three men who lost their lives in those mountains -- and one whose body was never recovered -- and a disservice to the author whose story lacked any venom except for that he holds for the MSM and the ROE's.

As for glorifying war...perhaps critics should read the book.  I haven't seen the movie yet, but at one stage, Luttrell watches the Taliban shooting repeatedly in the faces, at point blank range, of his down comrades. This may or may not have been depicted, however obliquely, in the movie.  But by what measure does that scene glorify war?  If there was a movie about an American serviceman committing a war crime, they would hail it for its truthfulness.  Why should a real life story be twisted to fit the message liberals want to propagate?

I was going to see this movie come hell or high water.  That liberal idiots have seen fit to try to tarnish its value makes me want to see it repeatedly.  The sacrifices made by Michael Murphy, Danny Dietz and Matt Axelson deserve more reverance than this.  They should not have their memories used as a political football. The book is about heroism and sacrifice.  If anything should be glorified, it should be that.  Instead, liberal hacks refuse to acknowledge their actions for what they are.  To paraphrase Rahm Emanuel, who infamously stated never let a good crisis go to waste, liberals never waste an opportunity to create a good crisis.  Theres is no glorification in this movie, no propaganda.  It's the heartfelt story of the one surviving member of a mission that went horribly wrong because the team was handcuffed by idiotic ROE's written by desk-bound attorneys in Washington who had no practical experience in the field.  If anything, the SEALs exemplified the best of the military by not wasting the people who, ultimately -- it's expected -- turned in their position to the Taliban.

Sooner or later, the double standard employed by the liberal MSM is going to catch up with them.  I just hope I'm alive to witness it.

Shame on the liberal MSM for denigrating the sacrifices of Michael Murphy, Danny Dietz and Matt Axelson.

(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles