All Things Expounded

I just watched the movie Lions for Lambs (2007).  Even though it received many mixed and negative reviews, I found that I enjoyed it.  It does lack some coherence and flow, but it is worth watching for its profiles on how different characters react to and perceive war. The dialog between the reporter and the senator was most compelling, though the dialog between the professor and the student were also pretty good. I wish there was more of a central thread which tied the dialog between the professor and the student together.

The Senator Jasper Irving (played by Tom Cruise) is a good case study in the gung-ho optimistic view of a “hawk”.  The two army recruits (Rodriguez & Finch) portray action-oriented young guys who optimistically think they can make a difference, but in many ways don’t understand the situation accurately. The professor, Stephen Malley (played by Robert Redford) portrays a view that understands war in an un-idealistic way (due to Vietnam),  but seems to have an anti-war view that has been  matured and tempered by time and experience. And then there is the journalist  (played by Meryl Streep) who is also against the war with views less tempered by time and experience. She feels conflicted by emotional and professional allegiances.

The film does question the war on terror and how it is carried out. But it doesn’t really present a clear and devastating statement in one way or another.  It carefully calls some things into question through the interplay of the various characters and their viewpoints on the war.

Here’s some further assessments of some of the individual characters:

Senator Jasper Irving: As I’ve said, he’s the gung-ho, optimistic hawk. To me, this is by far the most irritating character.  May we be saved from this sort of leader! He typifies the sort of youthful a-historical optimism that doesn’t let facts get in its way.  His refusal to appropriate risks and difficulties realistically is particularly evident. Anyone who comes with a grandiose foreign policy and refuses to give heed to or consider potential shortcomings is destined for disaster. In my estimation, this is the exact sort of character who shouldn’t be in the position he is in.  It would be much better to have an older doubting, hardened skeptic calling the shots.  Essentially, Jasper Irving has close to what might appear to be a sort of  “god complex” (though he certainly wouldn’t admit it–it appears that either he unwittingly believes he is god, or that the state he serves is god). You can see it in his certainty.  The simple recognition that whatever can go wrong will probably go wrong would go a long way in making Jasper Irving a better foreign policy planner.  He might  have good foreign policy approach in 40 years after he’s repeatedly failed and come to his senses. From a Biblical perspective, he’d probably do well to learn the lesson of Luke 14:31. If you are going to go to war, realistically look at the situation first.

Professor Stephen Malley:  I guess I could say this is the character that I could relate to the most.  He doesn’t reveal too much about his political views other than that he is not a big advocate of war, and the only other clue I can get is that he was involved in the Chicago Vietnam protests.  But, as far as I can see, he seems to have the most reasonable and tempered position of any of the major characters.  He seems to understand the dynamics of society and also feels comfortable with his place in it. And he also seems fairly flexible and understanding of people who believe differently though he does have strong opinions and emotions of his own. He seems to be quite comfortable within his own skin, and grounded in his thinking.

The Journalist, Janine Roth:  While she would seem to have similar views to the professor, she seems to be on shakier ground.  She has the sort of youthful anti-war angst. She did make some tough stands and showed some courage, but she seems to be less ethically grounded and less comfortable in what she is saying than the professor.  She’s obviously passionate and well-informed, but at the same time her critique of the war seems to be less tempered by experience. She’s gives off the aura of having bought into some platitudes, but possibly not understanding things on the level that the professor does.

I am definitely not a pacifist and believe that there is such thing as a just war, but I do have a deep sense of the problems of war in general, and I also see many deep problems in most wars in particular.  My critique of most wars I see could be easily confused with a general pacifism, but that is not the case–I am not a pacifist. I believe in a general principle of non-aggression, so I would see just war as needing to fall into the  category of self-defense. And I am leary of all premptive wars. As a matter of principle, I believe all nations should seek foreign policies of non-aggression and non-intervention.

As Lions for Lambs and other films on the topic of war hint at, most people get more than they bargain for when they sign up for a war. When you sign up, you may be signing up for a specific cause.  But you are also signing up for many other implicit things, such as:

• An agenda and military strategy that may overextend the objectives which you consent to
• Involvement in a historical context which is likely very complex, and issues which are not likely understood very well on the popular political level
• Being under the command of men who may or may not be operating in your countries best interest
• The obligation of treating as enemies people who are of unclear allegiance and unclear intention
• An obligation towards obedience and allegiances which may extend beyond what is reasonable
• An entire subculture, some of which may run contrary to what you value

I marvel at people who are able to thoughtfully volunteer for a war and sacrifice their lives for a cause that is bigger than they are, especially when their own lives and the lives of their loved ones are not in direct danger.  To me, it certainly brings up some prickly issues, and I would find it very hard to give such allegiance–even in a war that I generally approved of. The State seems to have such a bad record with wars and it is clearly very untrustworthy. How can I trust them to watch out for me on the battle field, if they are the aggressor in so many domestic issues? And it seems that there is so much that could go wrong in terms of waging the war. Even a good war isn’t necessarily entirely good, and the lines are always very blurry.

Well, there you have it, that’s an analysis of some things about Lions for Lambs.  I enjoyed it, even though it did fall into some film “faux pas”.

Now I’m going to go and pray that Tom Cruise never gets elected to the senate.