Just a game

The video release from WikiLeaks of the US military bombing unarmed journalists in Iraq has been met with much hostility. One of the comments getting passed around commonly is how much the sequence plays like a video game. In truth, it is just like a video game.

After witnessing the debacle that is Modern Warfare 2, it is easy to understand and assume that the first Modern Warfare is a bit of an enigma. In the midst of the military celebration is a sequence that speaks against war very eloquently. I've spoke on it before, but briefly, here are the two scenes.

The first level is that of an intense firefight. The player assume control of a random Marine and struggles to gain ground, fighting against a never-ending supply of enemy combatants, tanks, and artillery. Slowly, and with constant fire all around, the player must push forward to capture various points of the map until the level concludes.

The second level is from a gunship high above the fight. The player himself cannot die. Rather, the level is lost if the player does not provide appropriate cover fire for the Marines below. In a grainy black and white monitor, the player must fire various cannons from the gunship, eliminating white dots that represent the enemy. As this goes on, the pilot of the gunship comments on the action in a dry tone, mocking the death of the soldiers.

What makes this such an interesting sequences is that the player is able to, in a loose sense, "experience" the action of the soldier on the ground with the detachment of the gunship above. War is hell, so they say, and when death is immediate and almost probable, it is more intense than cushioned hundreds of feet above a battle. It is an antiwar sequence because it shows the common detachment of war, the ease of it, by eliminating any danger.

So, when the video of the WIkLeaks "Collateral Murder" appeared, this sequence immediately jumped to mind of many people. We've seen in recent years the detachment of war. Predator Drones fly unmanned and bombing people, "enemies" and civilians, and not much fanfare is made. And while many people can make not that the video from WikiLeaks shows innocent people dying, or the military covering up the video, or the ethics behind leaking a video while we are in a current war, this is not what concerns me the most. What concerns me is this detachment. In the video, the pilots and people are laughing at the people dying below, callously dismissing the death of the innocent and children who "dare" to bring minors into the battlefield, a battlefield that didn't become one until the military opened fire. The people "over there" may be our "enemy", but they are human, they are people, we are bound by the common connection of flesh, bone, and blood, and though we may need to strike and kill to preserve our precious "way of life", we need not do so with callousness and malicious intent. To do so is to lose our humanity and undermine our very purpose as a society.

The military pushes this detachment, supports it, covets it, and uses video games, such as the official US Army sanctioned game, to recruit. When does it end and become no longer "just a video game?"

Don't support the troops

In any political climate, the phrase "support the troops" gets thrown around by both sides as a non-partisan football. Regardless of any disagreements people may have about a war, a President, or a political issue, it is important that the country "supports the troops". Yet, in movies, this isn't the case.

While watching the impressive District 9 a few weekends ago, I got to thinking about this very issue about the military in films. What struck me is that in a movie like District 9, the audience did not like the portrayed military. We're expected to cheer when the politicians get their comeuppance, but the audience also cheered when the military got theirs. Is this simply because the audience wants the hero to win more than the military? Perhaps.

But examine the role of the military in the film. Bureaucrats order the military to evict, move, and eventually hunt down aliens and one lone humanoid. These are their orders. Now, the audience is justified in hating those that ordered the military to do these things, and the audience does, but the military gets caught in the fray. When the fighting intensifies near the end of the film, and members of the military are killed, people applauded.

In our political climate, this should not be the case. These men aren't acting that far outside their orders. These military men are fighting pawns of the political kings. We can hate the kings, we can hate the war, but we aren't supposed to hate the military. In the film and real life Judgement at Nuremberg, the defendants of Nazi war crimes claimed that they were only following orders, and shouldn't be held accountable for their actions as a result. The ultimate verdict found that a defense of superior orders isn't a valid defense, and the people should have acted against orders on moral grounds.

In Vietnam, some peace advocates actively hated the military, spitting on them and shouting profanity at uniformed officers. The extent that this happens today, amidst two unpopular wars supported by less than half the country, is much less. If people don't support the war, they shouldn't support the troops. The film audience knows this.

Mortal

So, let us not be blind to our differences -- but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal.