1) War is complicated. And so, even with the best of intentions (or at least not atrociously dishonourable intentions), bad things happen. So I understand how IHL gets broken even by (mostly) upstanding world citizens: the rules sound straight forward and obvious, but applying them to real-world situations is tricky. When is it correct to bazooka a fortified compound? What are the ramifications of self-exploding cattle? Further, military action is situationally complex-- lots is going on and little is clear at any one time, but you have to decide and act in the meantime. (This is why I no longer work in catering, except in war there's no recouperation period while the bride and groom give toasts)
2) Why are more reporters not used for target practice? Lord have mercy, they're an irritating bunch, inventing things to be excited about and calling it "news." Seriously, who thinks it necessary that reporters be "embedded" with troops in the field? They're dead weight and a security risk, giving out important information as to troop movements and such. One lesson from the Gulf War was that Saddam Hussein was watching CNN too. "Loose lips sink ships"-- it's not just a WW2 slogan.
(Saddam watching CNN goes something like this:
Embedded reporter: "Good morning Chet. I'm reporting with Coalition troops about 2km north of Axmaxaxaxaxax, in the eastern province. We're staying in the green tents and have cleverly hidden our gate between some scruby hills.... oh ****, there's a SCUD missle coming our way!! How did they know!?!?!?!?!?! "
*static*)
(I also feel this way about reporters and "news" programs domestically-- the media is creating an economic mess as we speak now, by creating panic over a stock market hiccup. Maybe countries in poorer stages of devlopment have it right in limiting panic-inducing reporting on the economy. Just a thought.)
3) At the very end, I almost got all teary about how George Clooney was like an Oscar Schindler in the desert, leading his people away from the wicked, murderous regime. *sniff* (Oh right. I don't cry at movies. But if I did... um... no. still, no.)
Moving on. Here's my list of things I believe are or may be violations of IHL.
- Not aiding a wounded enemy soldier but taking a photo instead.
- Screaming and yelling at POWs in English. Ok, so POW camp is not the Hilton and one doesn't need to be polite to them, but trying to communicate with them in their own language might help calm them down and make them do what you want. It might not be a violation of IHL but it's frustrating and counter-productive, and could lead to (more serious) violations.
- plotting to steal plundered gold and goods that may have been the subject of reparations agreements (granted, the plot of the movie, but that doesn't make it right!)
- Not repatriating/properly and respectfully disposing of the dead
- destroying livestock (though I think the cow stepped on something and went boom)
- breaking into houses to look for treasure. I don't think there are 4th amendment protections in IHL but it makes the locals hate you
- Iraqi soldiers taking provisions from children and civilians
- Iraq set the Kuwaiti oil wells on fire as they retreated. Some people might consider this an environmental crime--- the oil still pollutes the environment 15 years later. (I remember watching the burning wells on TV after the liberation)
- The American 4-some entering Iraq without authorization. I'm sure there's some kind of procedure for that.
- Iraqi torture of prisoners/civilians (Shiite rebels?)
- the Iraqis' fondness for looting from Kuwait
- Arbitrary killing of civilians by Iraqis
- Perhaps the use of tear gas, though that depends on who is asked
- The Iraqis want to shoot Marky Mark when they capture him
- the Americans for aiding an insurgency?
- Electrotorture of Marky Mark
- the Iraqi interrogator of Marky Mark torturing him in revenge for the war damage?
- Forcing Marky Mark to swallow oil
- pretending to be a head of state in order to take a compound
- the near refoulement of refugees at Iranian border, until George saves the day and Marky Mark.
Enjoy!
7 comments:
I think it's very important that we all refer to him as Marky Mark as much as possible...just to keep him grounded in his roots, you know?
So I imagine that all the soldier who could have spoken Arabic to the POWs were kicked out of the military because they were gay. That seems to be the way it goes in our armed services.
I am going to comment all academic like to your post eventually, but two things first:
1. Please check your title of your bl0g. Did you transpose two words or am I missing out on a funny?
2. "The other soldier guy who's in every war movie" ... is he a "Hey it's that guy!" guy? (http://www.fametracker.com/hey_its_that_guy/)
I'm a horrendous nerd. *sulks in corner.*
Personally, I think putting Marky Mark in a movie, period, is a human rights violation of some magnitude. But I guess when you have more serious violations - such as the proliferation of Jessica Alba and Orlando Bloom movies - you have to pick your battles.
Anyway. You brought up something that I was iffy on myself, which is the use of teargas. Is that illegal? Poisonous gas is, but since teargas is only meant to temporarily disable, and not permanently injure, someone, does it count? Police all around the world use it, presumably legally. I mean, Zyklon B causes you to vomit up your own lungs (I think that's the one...), so tear gas seems rather paltry in comparison.
I'm going to have to stand up for Marky Mark on this one! He is a fine, fine actor! Check out Boogie Nights. His mock attempt to sing/record that song is one of the best moments of cinema ever. "You've got the touch! You're a winner!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3C9Bng7NPPY
I hope what ever the emergency was at home, everything is OK.
Glad to see thaht yo saw many of the "obvious" discrepancies that I saw in the movie. The movie itself was a violation of human rights. Expecting people to pay to see it was a violation in its own right. Perhaps thats why it didn't make it?
As far as you observations its interstingwhat you say about jounalists. Jounalists provide a secondary stop gap measure to ensure that our government does not go to excess and walk all over our freedoms, (much as has been done in the past few years). I agree that it is surprizing that many more are not used for target practice, however try reading the stories from WWII or even Viet Nam and yo will see that they were used many times to seek out military positions. Getting away from my point, hooray for the people who make a valiant effort in protecting some of our remaining civil rights!
JKL
Jim - I think I agree with you here. While I see Poox's (hee!) point that the journalist depicted in the film was a particular breed of irritating shrew, the fact remains that embedded journalists do serve a purpose.
I was one of those people who stayed awake all night watching CNN when the tanks were roaring across the desert into Iraq when the US invasion first started in 2003. I remember laying in bed at 4am, watching Martin Savage's video phone report while he was on one of those armored tanks. I was completely horrified. But I also couldn't look away. His reporting during those first days are still some of the most interesting journalism I've ever seen. (Second only to Ashleigh Banfield's coverage of Sept 11th on MSNBC... Oh how I love that woman...)
My long, meandering point is that there are some embedded journalists who do take their reporting seriously and do make an effort to be both professional and a part of the background.
Ok, I looked it up. It seems that mustard gas is the one that, in sufficient concentrations, makes you vomit your own lungs. I just heard about it in a Twentieth Century World History class in undergrad, and the mean part of me that should probably be struck by lightning found that amusing. Because I'm a bad person. Right.
Post a Comment