Telling Truths That Can't Be Said, by Anthony Arnove
(Note: Just a plug and an FYI . . . "War, Inc." is being released on DVD July 1, 2008 . . . . Betsy)
Column: Anthony Arnove
Telling Truths That Can't Be Said
A look at John Cusack's satire War, Inc., and why we desperately need more commentary like it today.
May 20, 2008
IN THE Orwellian world of U.S. politics, often, it takes artists to say the truth that otherwise can't be said--or heard.
Stanley Kubrick brought home the reality of militarism and the madness of U.S. nuclear doctrine in Dr. Strangelove as no nonfiction work of the time could. Sidney Lumet's Network did the same for the corporate takeover of our culture.
Today, John Cusack's War, Inc. fires a similar shot across the bow of our tortured political discourse.
War, Inc. is a Swiftian allegory of the world not as it might be in some possible future, but as it is today, with a performance from Ben Kingsley as memorable as Peter Sellers in Dr. Strangelove. (It also features a deconstruction by Hilary Duff of her own fame and our twisted, sexist culture that has to be seen to be believed.)
The film is scathing, farsighted, bold and truer than nonfiction. Cusack and the stellar cast of War, Inc. don't blink. War, Inc. takes inside the world of war profiteers, war makers, embedded journalists, mercenaries, entertainment moguls and "disaster capitalists" (as Naomi Klein has called them) who form the interlinking military-industrial-media-entertainment-political complex.
Set in fictional Turaqistan, the film tells us more about Iraq--and U.S. politics--today than anything on offer from the establishment media, with its 24/7 barrage of abuse of our intelligence.
Without the complicity of the corporate media, as even many journalists will now acknowledge, the invasion of Iraq could never have happened. But few have commented on the fact that the occupation could not have continued for so long--with the prospect of lasting for years to come--without the media's continued subservience to power.
The people who got it so wrong on Iraq are the "experts" we hear from constantly, while those who predicted the disaster of this occupation--and those who worked to prevent it--are rarely, if ever, heard. And now, we hear from the same politicians and pundits who led us into Iraq why we cannot leave.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
IN OUR Orwellian media landscape, every word of political discourse has two meanings: its actual meaning and its political meaning.
Take, for example, the simple word "withdrawal." If you asked any person on the street what it would mean to "withdraw" from Iraq--something that a significant majority of the country wants to take place immediate--they would likely say "removing all military personal from Iraq." Ask a follow-up question, and they'd likely agree that this would also mean removing all mercenaries and military bases, as well.
But read any article in the New York Times or listen to National Public Radio, and "withdrawal" means something entirely different: redeployment of some U.S. troops from our overstretched military, while keeping tens of thousands in Iraq, alongside perhaps an even greater number of mercenaries, as well as the largest embassy of any government in the world, and military bases, at least until the year 2013, and probably well beyond (not to mention likely escalating the air war against Iraq, while keeping tens of thousands of troops nearby in position to re-invade).
Continued . . .