Unclear and Present Danger - Courage Under Fire

Episode Date: June 13, 2024

For this week’s episode of Unclear and Present Danger, Jamelle and John watched Courage Under Fire, a 1996 war drama directed by Edward Zwick and starring Denzel Washington and Meg Ryan, as well as Lou Diamond Phillips, Matt Damon, Michael Moriarty and Bronson Pinchot.In Courage Under Fire, Denzel Washington plays Lieutenant Colonel Nathaniel Serling, an army tank commander who accidentally fires on and destroys one of his own tanks during a nighttime battle in the closing days of the Persian Gulf War, killing his best friend in the process. The Army covers up the details and assigns Serling to a desk job, where he is tasked with investigating and determining whether a solider should receive the award for which they were recommended.He is assigned the case of Captain Karen Walden, the commander of a Medevac Huey helicopter sent to rescue the crew of a Black Hawk helicopter. She was killed in the line of duty, saving both the lives of her crew and those of the downed helicopter. The Army, and the White House, wants to give her the Medal of Honor.As Serling interviews the men involved in the incident, he notices inconsistencies in the testimonies of Walden’s crew. Some praise her strongly, others say she was a coward. Still others testify to events that cannot be confirmed. Under pressure from both the White House and his commanding officer to authorize the award — and struggling with PTSD from his experiences on the battlefield — Serling resolves to discover the truth of the matter, even if it costs him his career.The tagline for Courage Under Fire was “In wartime, the first casualty is always truth.”You can find Courage Under Fire to rent or buy on demand at Amazon and iTunes.Episodes come out roughly every two weeks, and we’ll see you then with an episode on Star Trek: First Contact, the second film starring the cast of Star Trek: The Next Generation. Here is a brief plot summary:The Borg, a relentless race of cyborgs, are on a direct course for Earth. Violating orders to stay away from the battle, Captain Picard and the crew of the newly-commissioned USS Enterprise E pursue the Borg back in time to prevent the invaders from changing Federation history and assimilating the galaxy.Star Trek: First Contact is available to rent or buy on demand and it is available for streaming on HBO Max and Paramount+.And don’t forget our Patreon, where we watch the films of the Cold War and try to unpack them as political and historical documents! For $5 a month, you get two bonus episodes every month as well as access to the entire back catalog — we’re almost two years deep at this point. Sign up at patreon.com/unclearpod. The latest episode of our Patreon podcast is on First Blood, the first film in the Rambo franchise starring Sylvester Stallone.Connor Lynch produced this episode. Artwork by Rachel Eck.Contact us!

Patella, find me a target. I think I got one, sir. Do you or do you not have a target? It's hard to make out, sir. Fire! Sir! Petella, is that one of our tanks? A man with questions about his own conduct.

Losing a man, like your friend Boylar, I've been there. must now defend the courage of another. The White House has heard that we're considering the Medal of Honor for this chopper pilot who saved a bunch of guys on the Down Blackhawk. Naturally, they want it for Veterans Day. Naturally. It's a woman.

You didn't know? This is Captain Karen Walden. She's the first woman in history to be nominated for a Medal of Honor for combat. I don't know if it was Captain Walden, sir, but that Huey. Saved our lives. What happened out there, Saga? You don't want to know what happened out there, sir. Yes, I do.

What happened next isn't important. It's what happened at night. We stay with Brady. I wouldn't risk your life. I won't risk his. She sure as hell saved the lives of those guys on the Black Hawk. The captain was hurt pretty bad. Look, I didn't want her out there in the first place.

In his search for answers. What is it, tell me, son. Fire. The only thing more powerful than the facts he might find. No surrender. Is the truth he can't escape. Fire! He was like a brother to me.

Now, it doesn't matter whether she gets this award or not. It doesn't matter whether I'm on this inquiry. It doesn't matter whether I'm in this army or not. I'm going to find out the truth. I guarantee you that. Welcome to Unclear and present danger, a podcast about the political and military thrillers of the 1990s and what they say about the politics of that decade. My name is Jamal Bowie. I'm a columnist for the New York Times opinion section.

And I'm John Gans. I write the substack newsletter Unpopular Front. and I am the author of the book, When the Clock Broke, Conmen, Conspiracists, and How America Cracked Up in the Early 1990s, which is coming about in exactly one week of our recording. So probably just a little bit after you're going to listen to this on June 18th. John and I were recently in Nashville, Tennessee at the American Political History Conference. We talked about the book, great reception amongst the academics and historians. Yeah, it was really nice. And I expect a nice perception among the reading public.

From your mouth to God's ears, Jamal. For this week's episode of the podcast, we watched Courage Under Fire, a 1996 war drama directed by Edward Zwick. I think that's how you say his last name. Yeah. And starring Denzel Washington and Meg Ryan, as well as Lou Diamond Phillips, Matt Damon, Mike Moriarty and Bronson Pinchot. The film was shot by the great Roger Deacons, with a score by James Horner.

Encouraged under fire, Dendell Washington plays the lieutenant colonel Nathaniel Serling, an army tank commander who accidentally fires on and destroys one of his own tanks during a nighttime battle in the closing days of the Persian Gulf War, killing his best friend in the process. The army covers up the details, gives Serling a medal, and assigns him to a death job, for he is tasked with investigating and determining whether soldiers should receive the awards for which they were recommended. He is assigned the case of Captain Karen Walden, the commander of a medevac, Huey helicopter, sent to rescue the crew of a Black Hawk helicopter, a Black Hawk that was shot down, but not that movie. She was killed in the line of duty, saving both the lives of her crew,

and those of the downed helicopter, the army, and the White House wants to give her the Medal of Honor and make her the first woman to receive the Medal of Honor in combat, as a result of combat. As Serling interviews the men involved in the incident, he notices inconsistencies in the testimonies of Walden's crew. Some praise her strongly, others say she was a coward, so others testify to events that cannot be confirmed.

Under pressure from both the White House and his commanding officer to authorize the award and struggling himself with PTSD from his experiences in the battlefield, Sterling resolves to discover the truth of the matter, even if it costs him his career. The tagline for Courage Under Fire was, in wartime, the first casualty is always truth. I think this is a very good tagline for this movie. You can find Courage Under Fire to rent or buy on demand on Amazon and iTunes. Encouraged Underfire was released on July 12, 1996. So let's check out the New York Times for that day.

Well, there's a big picture of your friend in mine, Prime Minister Benjamin Nittanyahu at the New York Stock Exchange. He spent his day promoting his views for Mide East peace, which dismayed Palestinians back home. I'll read the piece. Returning with new stature to an intimately familiar venue, Prime Minister Benjamin Nittenyahu of Israel switched his oratorial skill and boyish charm to full volume yesterday as he urged New York City's Jewish population to embrace his approach to peace in the Middle East and to invigorating the Israeli economy. In a polyrhythmic opening day of a three-day visit, his first is prime minister to New York, the loquacious Mr. Netanyahu spoke in ballrooms, packed with Jewish leaders, met with politicians

and lunch with businessmen on Wall Street, all in a tightly choreographed effort to find common ground and mitigate the differences among a population he feels as important to his success. He sounded many of the same themes that he evoked during his two days in Washington, but to a decidedly different and divided audience, including many who are deeply skeptical, if not hostile, toward his ideology, seeking to calm the apprehensions of many New York Jews, Mr. Nintanjahou, 46, spent an hour fielding questions from a gathering of 400 people sponsored by the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. He reiterated his emphasis on Israeli security and his devotion to privatizing the economy.

Pressed on his hardline views on achieving peace in the Middle East, it is reciprocity. We keep commitments. You keep commitments. We insist the deal be kept on both sides. And once again, he declared Jerusalem has to remain undivided with one government, not two, On the matter of Palestinian aspirations, he said, I'm going to say the Palestinians, you run your own affairs. We're not interested in running your lives so long as Israelis gained security. On another issue of great concern to non-Orthodox Jews, his intimations that he would roll back gains made by conservative and reform movements in Israel, Minister Netanyahu, it was emphatic.

We'd said we'd preserve the status quo. We stand our ground. We'll keep the status quo. So, yeah, Nittin Yahoo just comes to power for the first time. Nittin Yahoo is the son. I think it's important to understand who he is. Nittin Yahoo is a representative of a movement within Zionism called revisionist Zionism. And basically, that is a hyper-nationalistic strain of Zionism that believes in greater Israel.

That is a Jewish state from the river to the sea, protected by the so-called iron wall. of bayonets and rifles. His father, Ben Zayon, Netanyahu, was a historian and secretary to Zev Jabotinsky, the founder of revisionist Zionism. Just to give you a flavor of revisionist Zionism, Zev Jabotinsky had lots of nice things to say about Mussolini. They viewed that kind of nationalism as something worth emulating. So there is some this party and movement had already come to power in Israel. Nittanyahu is not the first representative of it. It had already come to power by this in 1970s.

But, you know, parts of the more liberal at that time establishment in American Zionism were, you know, a little bit wary of Nittenyahu's hardcore designs. And the other thing to mention about Benjamin Netanyahu is that he becomes prime minister in the wake of the assassination of Itzhak Rabin, who was killed by a right-wing extremist in Israel. Many people believe, I think, fairly, that the rhetoric that Nittin Yahoo employed in his campaign contributed to the climate that would ultimately lead to the the assassination of Rabin. Rabin, of course, was leading a peace initiative. So to someone like me, Netanyahu bears some responsibility for Rabin's assassination, and he definitely bears all the responsibility of the destruction of the effort to create peace

in the Middle East. But, yeah, Netanyahu was not welcome with open arms at that time. he became as you know now he's being invited to congress i think some people have more ambivalent or negative feelings about him but uh you know he he's he's been around for a very long time um and been a successful politician in a certain sense of the word and another sense he's been a total disaster for the world and for Israel and of course for Palestine um let's see what else we got uh senior bosnia and serbs faced new warrants. The United States War crimes tribunal issued international arrest warrants

that the Bosnian serves political leader Radovan Karadzic and their military chief general Rodko Mladic, both charged with genocide in the four-year Bosnian war. The warrants oblige United Nations members to arrest the men if they enter their countries. But so far, Western countries have not been willing to have their peacekeepers in Bosnia to seek out the two leaders. For the first time, the tribunal also called for an investigation to determine whether President Slobodan Milosevic of Serbia shares responsibility for war crimes in Serbia. Kind of funny that this is right beneath the Benjamin Nittanyahu picture, because now this same body is considering or is actually has laid war crimes charges against Benjamin Nittanyahu.

I think that the trials of Milotich and Karadzich and Milosevic are considered to be a real success of this institution, which has, you know, had trouble attaining the kind of reach and legitimacy that it require, and obviously Israel's defiance of it and frankly the United States' defiance of it because we don't want it to be. be turned against American soldiers or politicians for possibly committing war crimes has been a challenge to this institution. But now it's being brought to bear against Israel. Okay, this is of interest to me and maybe to readers of my book. Perot declares he will seek his party's presidential nod. Ross Perot declared today that he would seek the presidential nomination of the Reform Party, a move that immediately grasped what for months had essentially been a two-man race for the White House and deepened anxiety among Republicans. In a network television appearance, Mr. Perrault called himself uniquely qualified to be the nominee of the party, which he founded.

I think this is fair. And he said that he had finally entered the race because of the American people want me to do this. His entry drew encouragement from the White House, but an expression of disappointment from Dobol, the apparent Republican nominee. I just want to point one on one thing. It's become, because of some study, it's become sort of the wisdom that actually Perot helped the Republicans more than they helped Clinton. that is clearly not how they saw it at the time. I mean, Republicans really thought that Perrault was siphoning off their votes, and Clinton was like, yeah, hell yeah, get him out there. So I don't, I kind of am a believer in the older story. I know that there's some good social science research about this, but I'm a believer in

the older story, considering that so many of Perot's voters in 1992 considered themselves either registered Republicans or considered themselves conservative, or considered themselves conservative, or were in, you know, white independents from the Midwest who were really Republicans. I mean, my view has always been, and my understanding, rather, is that pro more or less true equally from both candidates. So it's not that it's not that he helped Clinton win or distinctly dissident Bush, but that when you break down pro voters, but you're getting, A, is a bunch of people

who might not have voted in any case. Right? Like you got to remember that those sorts of candidates attract low propensity voters you may not necessarily come out if they're not on the ballot. But then also it was sort of an equal draw from both Bush and Clinton. And so even if you take Perrault out that this argument goes, Clinton still probably wins the election. Yeah. Yeah. I think that's right. I think that's right. That sounds more. That sounds reasonable. Okay. kind of model of what a third party candidate is in our era, and I believe laid the groundwork for Trump in a number of different ways, which you can find out in my book in about a week. So yeah, let's see what else do we got here. Anything else look interesting to you? Let's look. I want to say one last thing about Perrault, and that is I think Perot, in addition to being a model for third party candidates in this era is kind of almost definitive

evidence that like you can't like third party presidential runs are kind of inherently quixotic when you look so ross perot is probably the single most successful third party candidate in kind of recent american history you have to go back to george wallace to find someone who makes anything like similar headway. I believe in the 1992 presidential election, he gets about, what is it, 18, 19% of the vote. Let me check this.

It's close to 20, yeah. Yeah. I wrote the book on it, and I'm just content to say 20. Because it makes it sound like a bigger deal, maybe, but I think it was, yeah, 18.5% of the vote. Oh, yeah, okay. So, yeah, nearly 20%.

And then in 97, Okay, he gets 8.4%. So a dramatic drop thing. Yeah, which is not tiny, but it's not, is a big drop. The, so pro is 18.9 in, in 92 is not really exceeded. If he go back, or back 68. So it's higher than George Wallace is 13.5% in 64. And I think the next highest total for a third part,

candidate is all the way back in 1912. Okay, so Robert LaFaulette gets 16.6% in 1924, which is pretty high. But you got to go to 1912 when Teddy Roosevelt, who effectively is like the other, the other major party candidate gets 27.4%. And he's a massively, obviously, popular and figure in the country. Right, right. Former president, hugely popular. But so Perrault gets 18.9% doesn't want a single state. And kind of, you know, his effect on American politics is obviously important going long term. But it's not like the kind of thing or the either the Republican or Democratic Party is like, well, how do we get these Perot voters other than maybe kind of like, you know, the balanced budget movement thing is maybe response to Perot. But I just, I don't know, I think it's a demonstration of how third party candidates in presidential. just don't, you know, don't have that big of an impact in terms of the elections themselves and the immediate, the immediate aftermath.

Well, I do think that, I don't know, because I do think that part of the Republican Revolution of 1994, I mean, Newt Gingrich was already kind of tapping into this sort of angry populism, But I do believe that they tapped into some of the energy of Perroism, and they realized that they had to reincorporate that, you know, because H.W. was a very establishment figure. And then the Gingrichian appeal was very anti-establishmentarian. And I believe that was a recognition that was made clear by the importance of Perot. Did it affect the part? policies? Well, no, except that, but he was very worried about budgets, balanced budgets and the deficit, but a lot of people were, I think that Perrault, the flavor of Perot did influence Republican politics in the 90s, not the next presidential election much, but definitely the midterms. Yeah. Yeah. I don't have really anything I want to look at. I guess there's this

Dole says NWCP invitation with leaders bid to set me up, which is very funny. I feel like this happens a lot with Republican nominees going to the NWCP. Actually, Perrault thought it was a setup too, like, because he started telling kind of racist

stories and then people got upset and he's like he grumbled that it was a setup. It doesn't seem like a setup when you can just like not say crazy things in front of the NWACCP. But this happened with Romney in 2012, if you remember, he went and said, you know, if you want handouts, just vote for Obama. And he was like, it was a setup. It's like, no guy, no guy.

I think you, I think this was a you problem. Let's talk into the movie. Courage under fire, as we discussed up in the intro, it is a movie whose main plot is about this investigation into Captain Carrey. and Walton's book by McRyan her recommendation for the Medal of Honor. The movie

sort of alternates between Denzel investigating this talking to all of the people involved kind of uncovering what really happens and then also

his own kind of struggle with his experiences and the kind of which spends a lot of time with his wife, his family life, his own struggles.

Part of that plot is him kind of talking with this Washington Post reporter about the actual events that happened in this friendly fire incident. And the movie kind of converges at the end with Denzel finding some personal piece for his experiences, but also providing the truth of the matter to his army

superiors with the guards to Karen Walden. The truth as we discover is that Meg Ryan's character did, in fact, save this black Hawk, this Black Hawk crew did in fact take steps to protect her own crew. But one of her crew members played by Lou Diamond Phillips is basically scared and ends up shooting her. And she is injured. She provides covering fires. They escape to the rescue. And he, Lou Diamond Phillips, tells the rescue team that she has died. She hasn't. And the U.S. Army then fire bombs, the area, which likely is the thing that kills her. And so, uh, he, when this, you know, when Denzo Washington pieces this all together through his investigation, he, he determines

that, you know, she did deserve the middle of honor. Ludov and Phillips character, and maybe like, I mean, this movie's pretty realistic and sedate for the most part, not sedate, but it's sort of like, it's, it's a realistic movie. But the scene where Ludab and Phillips character, uh, drives his car into a train, um, and commits suicide. Uh, that's, that's like the one bit of, uh, yeah, this is a Hollywood movie, um, element of the film, uh, and what else? And Matt Damon is one of the soldiers who is super young, Matt Damon, super young. He lost apparently a ton of weight, uh, for the role, so much so that apparently he had been recommended to Spielberg for saving Private Ryan and Spielberg was like, this, this kid's too

skinny. Um, and it was only after he gained the weight back that Spielberg is like, okay, you can, you can be my movie. So yeah, what do you think? You know what? It's a really interesting. I saw this movie. I saw this movie when I was young. I actually may have seen this in the movie in the theaters. I was into war movies. I was into the military. I think I may have seen this with my dad. This was not exactly what I was expecting because I kind of was expecting this to be kind of tanks and things blowing up. And not this kind of procedural almost courtroom drama that it was. I don't think that I had a very clear picture of the movie when I was young about I knew there was kind of a twist in the movie I knew that this friendly fire incident which was in it which was based there was a bunch of friendly fire incidents in the Gulf War this I don't know for certain but is this the first Gulf War movie I don't know I'm not sure because it's a very small genre but I have I have some thought I have have maybe some thoughts about how to think about about what Gulf War movies say no there there's one from 90 there's like a direct basically directed to video one um very early on it's like 91 92 but this might be the first Hollywood one yeah um this is the first Hollywood movie about Vietnam I mean about no excuse me the Gulf War and it's not a movie primarily

about, well, it's called courage under fire, but it is not, say, an Audi Murphy movie, which is about, you know, just going from battle to battle. It's really a movie about the way the war is digested back home and the traumas of it and the way it's kind of dealt with in the political and bureaucratic spheres, which is very interesting. And it has, it has. It has. two aspects. It has Denzel Washington's Meg Ryan's part of the story is almost like a

Vietnam movie, right? You know, it's got an officer getting fragged. It's got a Huey. You know, and they're holding off. It's kind of like also goes back to Cowboys and Indians. They're holding off a much larger

group and, you know, they get napalmed in the end. You know, it has all these tropes of a Vietnam movie. And the Denzel part of the movie is something a little different. I mean, it does have a bit of the, it does have a bit of a things about a Vietnam movie in the sense that he's extremely, uh, he's having kind of a trauma experience a little bit maybe like you could say the characters in the Deer Hunter or an Apocalypse Now, but he's also dealing with something fundamentally dishonest that the government did. There's something underhanded about the war. And the movie is

based on the uncovering of lies and redemption comes through the truth. And I think that, you know, he's able to, he apologizes, there's a certain amount of truth to the experience to what they portray because there wasn't, look, the amount of combat casualties in the war were really low. Not many American soldiers died. We really dominated the Iraqi forces. It was not a because of the of the technological superiority of the United States Army and Air Force and Marines over Saddam's forces, it was not a war that had particularly memorable episodes of Marshall Valor. And this movie is kind of makes one up. The more realistic part of the movie is that he was given a medal. I mean, what he did was actually in the end

after his error was actually, you know, worthy of a metal, as it turns out. But there were friendly fire incidents. And the government under, you know, the Department of Defense under Dick Cheney was not particularly what dragged its feet in the investigations of those. So this is a country, the country, I mean, everyone says, okay, the Gulf War ended the Vietnam syndrome. it made a straightforward victory. We could feel good about ourselves.

But this movie portrays a much more troubled response to the Gulf War. Also, there's a soldier who's very ill, presumably Gulf War syndrome, which has always been kind of a mystery, may have had something to do with uranium, you know, encased munitions, which were used a lot in the war. it presents the aftermath of the Gulf War as on its soldiers as being as being not such a triumphant thing but a difficult thing I think all wars are in that sense it might be realistic but I do believe it needs to create a story it creates a story of valor of martial valor that's much more complicated than the one that we might get in a in a in a world war

two movie for example or even a couple years later with saving private Ryan right um we're good and evil are really straightforward um although walden does represent just good old-fashioned american you know um soldiering you know being brave looking out for her men um it's interesting too As my last thought on this, the kind of American nationalism that appears in this movie is not, is multiracial and feminist, one could say. I mean, Meg Ryan is a real hero. Denzel Washington is a, you know, a high-ranking officer. And it presents them as kind of these extremely patriotic and dedicated. figures. This was, I think, not so much, I mean, I think this was the kind of Republican

hopes, you know, in the wake of the military of Colin Powell, of the military as being both conservative institution and one that was integrative and reflected America as a pluralistic at society where lots of different kinds of people could make a contribution. There is a sense in the movie that Meg Ryan's heroism is being partly deprecated because she's a woman. So there is a aspect in the movie where the military is a kind of meritocracy under which these sorts of distinctions don't matter so much and the truth will come out because that's like what matters is courage under fire. Anyway, those are my thoughts about the movie. Yeah. Yeah. The Gulf War, the person in Gulf War occupies, I think, this interesting place

in American memory these days. It's to some extent overshadowed by the Iraq War, which I guess is interchangeably called the Second Gulf War. It's overshadowed by the Iraq War, the Iraq War being this, you know, catastrophe, this mistake of a war that cost many American lives, a lot of American wealth, and certainly countless Iraqi lives. In addition to destabilizing the region, the Iraq War, blooms large enough that we kind of don't think about the Gulf War, but prior to the Iraq War, the Gulf War was the most recent, you know, major American War. And it did exist in memory as this great geopolitical triumph.

As you say, sort of America's back from its Vietnam, post-Fietnam, reticence to get involved in armed conflicts. And what is interesting about this movie is this extent to which it is trying to play both sides, if you will. It is trying to show and kind of honor, I suppose, the heroics, heroism of. American soldiers by, as you say, basically like making up a scenario in which these soldiers are pinned down by enemy soldiers. But also, it's like taking very seriously, I think the post-Vietnam recognition that war, regardless of how successful it is, is a painful,

difficult experience for everyone who goes through it. And I think that's what just is striking about this movie, that it isn't, it is triumphant about the Gulf War in this story of individual heroism. But it is like very, it's very, what's where I'm looking for? It is very much cautious and sort of willing to take seriously the impact of war on ordinary soldiers. and the difficulty with which soldiers may have kind of readjusting to their lives.

It's a very, it's a movie that's, I wouldn't quite say hostile, but like the, you know, military leadership does not come in, does not, does not look good in this movie. Military leadership appears, you know, cynical and, you know, mostly concerned with, you know, it's public image and public relations and not so much the lives and livelihoods. of the people who actually experienced the war. It certainly has that very 1990s like skepticism of politicians.

The White House is mostly represented it by, I think someone who might be the chief of staff. Right. There's like that political operative. Right. Yeah. Who is just portrayed as like a real terrible guy who again does not actually care about any of this and just wants to not

a political win for his boss. And the president here is specific. It is George H.W. Bush. It's not like a It's not like a real war fictional president situation. They just, they have a really terrible H.W. voice actor. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

You don't see his face. You don't see his face, but he does a voice a voice impression. It is not good. But I know exactly. You know exactly who they're trying to do. Right, right, right. But that's what struck me about this movie. It's just like it's, it is

Treating the Gulf War, in some sense, not, not, treating the Gulf War, both as a symbol of which Americans should be proud, but also is a real thing that real people experienced and had difficult, difficult experiences in it. And I think Denzel plays that so extraordinarily well. This is what I was taken with in the movie. I think Denzel gives like a genuinely terrific performance as someone who simply, cannot come to terms with what he did and what he experienced, cannot talk to his wife about it, cannot talk really to anyone about it, and is, you know, struggling with alcoholism and with, you know, despair and, um, and all of that. And it's, it's, I think it's like quite a powerful performance. And although we do have these, you know, we have many Vietnam War movies,

I think this depiction, you weren't getting this kind of depiction of PTSD in the late 60s or early 70s, not quite not yet. And I think that this performance owes a lot to movies like Apocalypse Now and Platoon and Casualties of War, born on the 4th of July, sort of like the the big ones of the post-Vietnam moment trying to grapple with what happened there. That's what got me and I'm trying.

After I saw it, I was trying. I watched this on a flight back from the UK so I then had plenty of time again. I'm like marinate on it after finishing it. And I was trying to think of I was trying to think of

any kind of other recognition of this reality in American pop culture in the 90s. But then as you sort of suggested, the go for isn't really a major subject of American films. There's basically one, yeah, three kings. It's the other big one in the 90s. And that comes a couple years later. We get a couple in the 2000s, I think, as sort of a attempt to, to think about the Iraq war

in the lens of the previous war in Iraq. So the Hurt Locker takes place during the Iraq War. So Jarhead takes place during the Gulf War. Right. Jarhead takes place during the Gulf War. But those are also kinds of cynical movies about it in a way. Three Kings is a, well, they ultimately do the right thing,

but it shows them as not, the characters is not particularly, you know, Patriot. They do something humanitarian and good in the end, but it's not particularly the military endeavor not particularly believing in it. Jarhead obviously is a very, you know, jaundiced view of the Marines, life in the Marines. This movie, although I do agree with you that it has a kind of complicated, dramatic

depiction of PTSD and also, you know, shows the military in a dark way or in a, in a ambivalent or negative way. I think that this movie is suffused with the kind of modeling and uncomplicated patriotism ultimately that we see coming back a little later in the decade with the World War II movies where, you know, ultimately what wins out in this movie is duty and the truth. and how is that that's sort of re

the rituals at the end of the movie like he goes to Arlington, he gives his medal to his friend the correct medal goes to the right person it's sort of the suggestion that like well American system it's liberal but it's also I think it was conservative until

a little while ago perhaps I just thought this movie was was such a I had this not exactly nostalgia but watching this movie I got a vision of American patriotism and nationalism that I

hadn't seen depicted or felt for a long time which was extremely strong in the 1990s and was in a way both strengthened and weakened by the war on terror I think

that the virtuous depiction of the military and American patriotism that happens in this movie was something that led us to the war on terror, but ultimately the war on terror led to a lot of disillusionment with. I think it would be very difficult to make a courage under fire today about the Iraq War, I think that those movies are more, well, Zero Dark 30, but that movie's in a much more somber and realistic in a, in a, I wouldn't say cynical is the right word, but Zero Dark 30 is like, is about, first of all, it's about intelligence operatives. It's not about soldiers, right? Right.

And it's about the necessity of doing dirty. things. And the Hurt Locker is almost not nihilistic, but the guy is not particularly interested in the mission. He views it as his almost his own existential path, you know, to do this extremely dangerous job. He's not really well integrated into a larger sense of, I mean, he's interested in helping people on some level, but I mean, he's very, in a strange way, kind of self-interested.

interested. So this movie, I just was like, wow, I have not felt this way in a really long time, but this America used to be, it used to be really suffused with this kind of patriotism. And the nationalism that's replaced it is not quite the same thing. And liberals are very nostalgic and sad about the passing of this kind of patriotism. Where did we see it? Well, The last time I remember seeing it depicted and it was almost like it was being buried itself was John McCain's funeral, right? Another thing was the Vindman, you know, the Ukraine stuff where you had this soldier who was doing his duty against the corrupt politicians.

How much did that really resonate with the public? It's not really clear. I mean, lots of liberals really liked it. got excited about it, these upstanding soldiers doing their duty, Millie, some of the things he said about Trump and did about Trump, these have some appeal, but mostly to older people who kind of grew up in this world. And I have to admit, because I grew up with movies like this, it does have some lingering appeal to me, even though I'm highly critical. I can be highly critical of intellectually of what the role that security state plays in an American

life and and it's anti-democratic and dangerous parts of it. But my emotional response to it is still defined by this kind of positive, I won't call it liberal patriotism, but it's a colorblind, you know, gender, you know, blind patriotism, which is not which they would label now as woke, but which was just understood as kind of American, I remember being that way, and not being particularly ideological in one way or the other, not particularly partisan. And I think that this is really faded, and what's replaced it is a liberal seeking out for that kind of patriotism, and then this nationalism, which I would argue has a much different tone and you know remember the they try to do this people don't remember

that that with the gold star families during the remember during the first yeah people don't talk about this much anymore um and how trump attacked the families of them and you know this is a national and that was a little bit like the swift boat stuff this is a nationalism which is not a patriotism um right there there is yeah in this in the kind of, okay, the patriotism that we're talking about has room for, you know, kind of with a broad conservatism and a broad liberalism, like it's not partisan or particularly ideological, it has room for both. It is certainly, it has this vision of the nation as as the melting pot still, one where people of all kind of racial and ethnic backgrounds can

be a part of the American project. The nationalism, you know, as we have both written a lot about, is not that at all. The nationalism is a very exclusive vision of who counts as an American and thus whose valor ought to be respected. It has, you know, we saw after January 6th, like real effort to try to delegitimize the military as as un-American, essentially for opposing Trump, right? The military, it's, it's un-American for having a commitment to the Constitution over the leader or over this like imagined American people. And as a result, rather, as a result of that kind of, that being on a basis for its

vision, this nationalism, um, uh, has. has no, like, yeah, you couldn't make a movie like Courage Under Fire from the, from the perspective of that kind of nationalism, or the movie you would make would be just like a straightforward propaganda film. It would be only the Meg Ryan parts of Courage Under Fire without, without notably the multiracial crew, right? Like, there would be no Hispanic man or black man or anyone else of color on the chopper. yeah it's weird to me it's weird because you know i have a couple thoughts about it you said this sort of you know kind of multi-racialism in military movies is very old it goes back to

world war two movies i mean blacks were not always um included but they were there were multi-ethnic platoon movies and what i find very strange is that you know we're we're being told all the time that ethnic inclusiveness in the military is something woke and new. And I just think that that's so crazy to undergo this ideological progress where I'm just like, no, dude, this is conservative. It's old. Like this effort to use the military as it. The military is like this institution that brings together.

It's like it's conservative in some ways, obviously. And it's liberal in some ways, obviously. It's supposed to be, you know, like weirdly a kind of mediating institution between different kinds of Americans where they all, you know, you know, swear to defend the Constitution and follow orders and follow that, you know, like it was one institution that's nonpolitical, but actually really reflects different parts of American political traditions. but yeah it's so in the in the in the past few years this movie which i don't think is particularly left wing or liberal were made today it might be labeled woke just because denzil washington is the protagonist you know like yeah there's been this and to me there wouldn't they wouldn't have dared you know they would have said they would have said, well, you know, he is a soldier. You have to give it up. You know, like the nationalistic

attack on patriotism, whether or not it's overtly racial or it's about attacking ideological enemies has accelerated so much. And I think it's done like, you know, this is not something that a person on the left ought not to be nostalgic or say much. nice things about this older kind of civic form of patriotism in American life. But I really think it's done a lot of damage to it. I don't think like it's very difficult to assert it in the face of this constant attack without itself being perceived as something partisan. And I think that that's what's been accomplished is it's made in the political era we're in is basically there are very few understandings of what it means to be an American.

that are not swept up in a partisan struggle, you know? I think that's right. And this movie would not have been, except maybe on the very far right, which tells you something, and maybe on the very far left, who had probably some interesting criticisms about its militarism, this movie would not have been understood

as like an overtly partisan or ideological movie, right? It would been like, yeah, you know, realistic depiction of the military. So I do believe that that's shifted a lot. And I think that it's very hard to talk about the kind of American patriotism. I mean, I'm sure, you know, I think my dad has it to a certain degree. I'm sure that your parents, you know, have, have views on this that are different from, you know, what's out there in the world today or being pushed out there the role today, but I do think that there is a new, obviously we know the nationalism of Trump

and the contemporary GOP is very different from this kind of patriotism. But I think this kind of patriotism, people are very cynical about it. I mean, with some good reason, it has led America in bad places too. But I do think we might miss it when it's gone. Yeah, that's kind of my perspective, like, stipulating all the, all the critiques you want to make of it, there is, the military, the American military has been from the, from the, this country's beginning, from the, from the revolutionary war to the present, this like powerful vehicle for national unity, for, you know, creating, um, helping shape who belongs to the national polity, helping shape sort of the meaning of what it means to be an American, right?

Like, it's not like an accident, the coincidence that George Washington was the first president and was like widely, you know, the commander-in-chief of the Continental Army was widely considered to be the only guy who would plausibly be the first president. It's not, it's not, you know, there's the very famous. Frederick Douglass entreaty to Lincoln to allow blacks to enlist in the Union Army to fight under the theory, not just that they deserve to as American citizens, but that this would prove that they belong, that they belong in the country on equal terms. W.B. Du Bois, during the First World War, urges Black Americans to support the war effort

on this very basis. And the Second World War is, you know, on the domestic front involves a huge struggle on part of Black Americans to be, to fully participate in the war effort on exactly these grounds, exactly these grounds of our participation proves and demonstrates our commitment to the country, our commitment to the nation. So this, you know, the American military has played this important. in part. Obviously, after the Second World War and after the integration of the military under Truman, the U.S. military has also proven to be this remarkable, for all of the fact, for as much

as there was and remained racism within the armed services, it has also been this remarkable vehicle for integration and social mobility amongst racial minorities. Regular listeners will know that my parents, both my parents, served in the military. I'm like a military brat and their mobility as kids who grew up in kind of the tail end of the gym core south and in turn like my mobility as a as a guy who had like a comfortable middle class you know upbringing thanks to the thanks to the Department of Defense owes itself to you know military integration to all these things uh so that the military as as this force of integration of social cohesion, of kind of like constructing a vision of the nation that is

multi-ethmic and multicultural and religiously diverse and yet still united under the Constitution has been very powerful. I think very important, a very important part of again, maintaining national unity of a sort. And I think you're right to say that we will miss it when it's gone. I think you're right to note the explicit attack on it very much on the basis of this idea that the country is not multiracial or multi-ethic or rather it is, but the people who aren't white and aren't angled Protestant don't deserve to exist on equal plane with everyone else. I think that is the source of the attack. I'm reminded I saw this TikTok. Some Trump administration official ended up becoming like a TikTok.

right-wing influencer type and he had this video where he was like you know, why is it that we don't talk about the fact that 90% of combat casualties are white men. Now this is totally false. This is like the opposite of true. Yeah, I thought there was disproportionate black, I mean, certainly in Vietnam

there were disproportionate black combat casualties. No, collectively, and basically in every American war since the Second World War, disproportionately black Americans are the ones who are dying on the front lines but it was interesting to me that he made that he made a video sort of like asserting this kind of point

trying to make this claim and trying to make the claim that A, one group of Americans are like more committed to the nation than others and B, you know, the corollary is that like everyone else is not that their sacrifices don't count in the same way

that's yeah that's i've i've i've heard this before and it's an extension of an idea you hear among on the kind of paleo conservative right about jacksonian americans right which is that there is a certain kind of american nationalist core of um you know scott's irish appellation folk um who do the fighting in the united states but then um are um kind of look down on by everybody else right i'm you talk this and sam francis also talks about this when he talks about like oh the people who are doing fight america's wars are shat on by the establishment so there's like there's an attempt to create a kind of like there's a vulkish uh american civilizational core that's how holds up the military um and

is doing the real, real fighting, and they're the real Americans, when in fact, the military is quite diverse. Right. And it's more actually a reflection of the country as it actually is. I mean, there are lots of people who are, you know, on the bottom end of the socioeconomic scale of the military, but it's not this like, you know, this white body going out and fighting for ungrateful minorities and liberals, you know. it's it's not that uh there's an attempt to kind of shape the picture of the military in that

direction but it's not that that being said you know the military is also i mean is also a site for people who later become right-wing extremists you know so yes yeah i think actually often from their disillusion with what the what the military ends up being you know i i the entire time we've been talking so two things first i just pulled up some quick demographics of the U.S. military from the center on community and foreign relations. And basically, if the U.S. age 18 to 64, if the general population is about like 75% white, 70 around that, this is in 2018, it's probably changed a bit. But in 2018, 75% white, about 13% black, you know, 7% Asian, you know, the

enlisted core of the U.S. military is considerably less white than the country at large, like by 10 percentage points or so, and considerably more black, like, you know, 20%. And then so on, you know, basically among all minority groups, it's like the proportion of my minority groups is larger in the U.S. military than it is in the country at large. The other thing is that the entire time you've been talking, I've been thinking about Timothy McVeigh. Yeah, yeah. A Gulf War veteran.

Golf 4 veteran who, if I remember Kathleen Ballou's book correctly, was disillusioned by his experience in the military, in part because of its diversity. Yeah. He wasn't expecting it. Yeah. And also, I mean, for different reasons, I mean, Ruby Ridge, I mean, Randy Reaver. I mean, I just wrote a whole fucking book about this. I can't remember the people are in it.

Randy Weaver, you know, of the Ruby Ridge incident and became a white supremacist. You know, he was in the special forces. Also, for slightly different reasons, I don't know if it was racial at that time, but found his experience in the military to be disillusioning with his idealized picture of America. But, you know, I'm not sure that contributed to it. I wanted to make one other note. This is kind of a little of a recurring note. when we tackle these sorts of movies and that is i i remain fascinated by the

the depictions of black domesticity in these sorts of movies um uh denzel in this movie his wife is black although i don't think he's ever been in a movie or his what was why his partner has not been um black or at least Hispanic and i think he's ever had a white partner in a film yes like four kids it's like a ton of kids uh and they live in like an neighborhood in like a nice middle class house. I mean, I think to the extent that it's from ideological work, it's like trying to reinforce the idea that, right, like, you know, black Americans, black service members are like normal Americans who are part of like the American tapestry. Like these, this isn't, they aren't pathological. Although I'll note 96, this is like

the height of like blacks are pathological discourse in political life, right? Bell curve, you know, welfare reform, all these things. So it's an interesting contrast to have with what the conversation looks like in the general politics. But, yeah, I know, I don't know. I need to, like, sit down and really, like, think through this and, like, theorize about it because it is such a recurring aspect of films that feature black military protagonists, that they are always portrayed.

And nothing that's not, like, true to life or anything. I mean, again, I'm speaking for myself, speaking. for like the people I grew up around like this is this this this rings true to me um uh but it is in terms of popular depictions of black American family life quite unusual um to to see uh this kind of vision but it is a recurring like Hollywood really doesn't be making like a deliberate attempt to show black Americans in this light, and I find that interesting. I think there was a kind of, there was a kind of subtle racism among Republicans that they were comfortable with blacks in the military because it was an ordering force, and it did the

integrative work that they thought that should happen and the disciplining work that they thought should happen. And there's a much more extreme racism, which is uncomfortable with blacks in the military because it doesn't really want black people, you know, either in any kind of of positions of authority and definitely not armed, you know? So I think like that's a good way to think about Republican racism or right-wing racism is like there's a there's a paternalistic and condescending racism which has its problems but then there is an extreme and exclusionary racism where yeah like you know obviously like Colin Powell was was a extraordinary person but his role in Republican politics, you cannot separate it from a certain kind of tokenism, right?

And being like, oh, look, you know, we got a black guy and isn't he really fine, upstanding man, you know, like, there's that. And that's the kind of, that's the kind of thing I was familiar with for very, I mean, I knew the other stuff and it bubbles up. I was familiar with, but then you were like, oh, they're never, they're going, because they need to play those politics and the military is such a huge honoring the military is such a huge part of like the the the the things that they feel that they need to do as conservatives they're not going to attack black soldiers they're not going to attack you know people of color who have laid down their lives for the country and then you're like oh no they actually will um i think that that's that i do think like it's really weird

because in some ways the country has become so much more sensitive to racism and the countries has become such a more diverse place. And in certain ways, racism that I would, I find shocking has reasserted itself in public life. It's both, you know? Yeah. Like, because I grew up in a much, in certain ways,

things were probably discussed less than they should be. And this was part of the whole racial reckoning we talk about, um, where insidious and subtle forms of racism weren't addressed. On the other hand, from my perception, in public life, at least, certain forms of racism that I'm surprised to see reassert themselves

are back in a big way. No, I agree completely. I'm often remarking to my wife whenever I see, you know, some instance of someone young, especially just expressing the most gutter racism. I find it, like, genuinely shocking. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, like, it's strange, but they got it from the Internet, you know?

Or they got it from their parents. I mean, I think the thing I have a hard time wrapping my head around is that they get it from their parents and there are still people actively and explicitly teaching racism to their kids, demonstrating it, modeling it, and so on and so forth. And some of those people are our age, right? Like if you see a video or read a news report of like a 15 or 16 year old being like super racist, there's like a decent chance that their parents are like millennial. who are who themselves have been acculturated in a culture of racism and even even I mean the thing that I also find very troubling is the extent to which even people who would not just not you would not say they had like you know racist views are basically okay with racism as like an expression of belief right like you know my friend says racial slurs but like they're just that's just how they are. Yeah, yeah. That's very American. That's like the dark side of American political and ideological taunts.

They're like, well, I know all sorts of different kinds of people, you know? They're like, well, there are certain things that are like a little beyond the pale, you know? But you hear that a lot with being like, well, I got some friends who are black and I have some friends who are racist. I think you probably hear that in the South quite a bit. Yeah, and it's like, I don't know if those two are opposites, first of all. Um, uh, yeah, anyway, uh, do we have any, we're running, we're running on time. No. Last thoughts on the movie.

No, no, it's interesting movie to think about and, and worth watching. Yeah, I agree. Um, it's, it's, it's worth watching. It's, I feel like it's very forgotten, uh, in the canon of, of Denzo Washington films, but it's, it is a great performance on his part. Um, at a time when he is, he's like, he's like a star, but he's, he's, he's a star, but he's not yet a megastar. Right.

So you can find him doing interesting things and sort of like in parts that he may not tackle 10 years, 10 years later. Yeah. And he also makes this movie what it is. I mean, like, this movie would not work with any other actor. Like, he carries the movie. But, you know, he's one of the great stars. So it makes sense.

That is our show. If you're not a subscriber, please, subscribe. We're available on iTunes, Spotify, and Google Podcasts. Google Podcasts. Google Podcasts that exists anymore? I don't know. We're available on iTunes, Spotify. And if it still exists, Google Podcasts, and wherever else podcasts are found. If you subscribe, please leave a rating and a review so people can find the show. And you can reach out to us on social media or via email at unclear and present feedback at fastmail.com. For this week and feedback, we have an email from Joe titled Trump as Perrault from the perspective of a 12-year-old.

Here's the email. At the start of the chain of reaction episode, you tease some of John's book and talked a bit about the section, about Perot and the obvious parallels to Trump. This reminded me that during the 2016 election, back when people were still having debates about the merits of Trump's, quote, business acumen, I dug out a persuasive writing assignment for my seventh grade English class in November 1992. Parenthetical, yes, of course, I have a question.

all my school assignments starting in fifth grade in 1990 all the way to grad school filed neatly in iCloud this is insane to me reading in early 2016 one could simply replace perot with trump and have the entirety of the original republican case for trump and if that sounds a week i would just point out that yeah that's because it's the exact same argument a preteen boy in rural north carolina had in the 1990s for another stunt candidate albeit one who didn't actually have a shot at winning um and then he attaches what he calls all three paragraphs of persuasive writing. So I'm going to read this attachment. If I were to be voting on November 3rd, I would be casting my ballot for Ross Perot. I think he is the best candidate for the job for

these two main reasons. He is independent and he is a very successful businessman. Because Ross Perot is an independent candidate, he won't owe anybody money if he becomes president. The Republicans and the Democrats get money from groups of people in business, and when they get into the presidency, they owe people money. Because Perot is independent, he is not getting money from people so he doesn't owe anybody anything. Perot is a very successful businessman and started a business with only a few thousand dollars and turned it into one of the biggest companies in America. If Perot can do that to a company in a few years, think about what he will do to the nation.

Also, Perot will be dealing person and person with the poor people with the nation. He knows the needs of people more than Bush or Clinton do. I think I have given you two thorough reasons for why Perot to be president. I hope you will take these reasons in the consideration while voting. Okay. First of all, I think it's a very loosely written thing for a 12-year-old. But also, he's right. I wouldn't say this isn't necessarily what Republicans were saying about Trump. Some did. But this is like word for word what I heard from like at like Trump rallies. Yeah. This is what independence who were who were fed up with the two-party system, but we're interested in Trump were saying. It's exactly this anti-systemic. And also he's not corrupt because he's outside of the system of special. special interests, right? That's like a classic argument for Republic by plebiscite. You know, like the parliamentary system is just this, all these like self-interested groups,

you know, just striving for their own interests and cracking corrupt bargains. We need an independent single voice that can mediate between all these things and embody the national interest, right? Right, right. So, and Trump plays that up, and Perrault plays it up for sure, played it up for sure. Yeah, it's very difficult, I think, to persuade people of the idea that there's actually no such thing as a single national interest. There's no such thing as like a single national people. And that like the reason why, you know, even in the best, even if you could somehow ban all private spending from elections and keep all money out of politics, you're still going to be left with the fact that, you know, different groups of people have different.

interests, they act on those things collectively, and you have to hash that out somehow. It's sort of like fundamental, it's like a fundamental part of democracy. But no one wants to hear that. Yeah, no, I know. And people get very impatient with it. And there are good and bad parts of there's good and bad parts of the pluralism. You know, people have to, you know, take the good with the bad. Like, right.

I think, you know, lobbying groups, which are problematic and are, you know, that's the way that the public interest gets mediated is through, is through articulation in that way. And I think that the kind of idea of an unmeat, I'm trying to think this through because I have to write about it. I think the view of like an unmediated national interest is a little of fascist in its. I agree. I agree. Yeah. And that's like that was that's basically the fascist. We know, we don't have this tradition in the United States because we don't have a parliament. So it's a little bit hard to translate this for Americans. But the tradition of right wing populist anti-parliamentarianism is like something that's a kind of minor key in all of this. And I think is like leads is a essentially fascist idea.

Thank you, Joe, for the email. This is great. If other people have schoolwork from when they were children, Yeah, bring us your schoolwork, send us your drawings. That speaks to, you know, modern day things. Please let us know. I ought to try to find, when I was in high school, I wrote an op-ed for the school paper.

I ought to find some of that stuff. I need to find the first thing I ever wrote was published, which was about fascism, funnily enough, been on the beat for a long time, and Hindutfa. Okay. Yeah, I got to find that. Mine was, it was against the Iraq war.

This would have been like February of 20, of 2003. and I remember I wrote like an op-ed for this cool paper that was like the Iraq Wars a bad idea and one of my friends' dads who was like buddies with Don Rumsfeld apparently told his kid that I was full of shit so I my first comment as well that's why I mean he felt the need to comment on it was is a compliment to you I believe I mean and you know what listeners we've pretty much been the same since we were teenagers so you can hear now. Yep.

Not too different. Okay. Thank you, Joe. Episodes come out roughly every two weeks, and so we will see you then with an episode on Star Trek First Contact,

the second film starring the cast of Star Trek Next Generation. People will forget that there was one film before this starring the TNG cast and that's Star Trek Generations. It kind of is the transition movie

from the TOS cast to the TNG cast. But this is the first one where it's just the TNG cast. And it is like my favorite Star Trek movie. Here's a brief plot summary. The Borg, a relentless race of cyborgs who are on a direct course for Earth, violating orders to stay away from the battle. Captain Picard and the crew of the newly commissioned U.S.'s Enterprise E.

pursue the Borg back in time to prevent the invaders from changing Federation history and assimilating the galaxy. Star Trek First Contact is available to rent or buy on demand. and I think it is available for streaming on HBO Max and Paramount Plus. Also, do not forget our Patreon where we watch the films of the Cold War and try to unpack them as political and historical documents. For $5 a month, you get two bonus episodes every month as well as access to the entire back catalog, and we're almost two years deep at this point.

You can sign up at patreon.com slash unclear pod. The latest episode of our Patreon podcast is on First Blood, the first film in the Rambo franchise starring Sylvester Stallone, And our next episode is going to be First Blood Part 2 and then we'll do Rambo 3. So we're going to do all the 80s Cold War Ramboes on the Patreon. That is it for us for John Gans. I'm Jamal Foui and we will see you next time. I'm going to be able to be.