Zero Dark Thirty - Standing with Riverbend

Though I understand the typical American point of view from being an American and seeing first hand the way the 9/11 attacks, and other forms of terrorist acts have shaped the perspective of Americans in regards to the war and their attitudes of distrust towards people of the Middle East, I cannot say that I fully agree with them. Reason being, is that it is not right to make the whole of a group responsible for the actions of a few, especially when those few are extremist and are using a religion of love and peace as a propaganda to kill others under false religious context. In Zero Dark Thirty, especially the ending scenes where the SEALs are searching the house for Bin Laden and killing the men and women in those homes in such a nonchalant manner, I was disturbed on a level. I understand fully the mission and of course the position the SEALs are put in as far as life or death but the way in which these people, other than the children, and a few of the women, thank God, were executed reminded me of the hate that Kate started to acquire during the latter part of the novel, Sand Queen. These scenes from the movie had me reflect on the blog postings of Riverbend, in which she was desperately and frustratingly trying to convey the level of which the Americans had stopped viewing her and the people of Iraq as human. Instead Americans, both civilian and soldiers, have dehumanized people of the Middle Eastern region as third world citizens, as enemies, and labeled them all as terrorists all the while forgetting just how advanced, civilized, and normal this region of the world was before the occupation by Americans and the resulting war. Moreover, what is necessary to understand about this situation that has affected more so the region of the Middle East and the peoples of this region through destruction and displacement is the fact that, we, Americans have plagued much of this region in pain. As much as Americans want to lobby behind these Islamaphobic views and cast the people of this region with the stereotype of all being terrorists, we forget our own stake in this war.Though we may be told through media outlets that the policy of the American government is to help rebuild and bring "civilization" to this part of the world we have done more harm in so many more ways to these people socially, economically, and politically.

Zero Dark Thirty- 'Merica

After watching Zero Dark Thirty I had mixed emotions because I see this war from 3 different sides, sides that any, if not every situation should be viewed. His, Yours, and the objective 3rd party view. Now I'm going to dedicate this blog to that of America's...hence 'Merica in the title.
Now I think the general patriotic American obsessed and at times ignorant response to the war that has plagued us for the last decade is that we are not only fighting against people (though I think many people forget that who we are in conflict are people) most Americans think we are at war with brown people who are Muslim and  live in a certain region of the world. Since the tragic event of 9/11 that has been attached to the extremist group Al Qaeda, there has been a major blow back against people who look like these attackers who killed many Americans. I myself remember being in 3rd grade and seeing our teachers turn-on the news in between sobs and call our parents to pick us up in the wake of this national emergency. Because of this indirect experience I myself felt some distrust in people who looked this way for a brief time, until my parents set me straight, because I was ignorant as to what was really going on in the world, not only America. Nevertheless, after this event in America's history its understandable to identify with the high emotion many Americans felt about Bin Laden being caught and killed for his actions and doing whatever was necessary to ensure his capture, because we looked at it as ensuring our own safety. This is why it becomes easy to understand the propaganda used in Zero Dark Thirty. But more-so I believe certain Americans have this us vs. them, Islamaphobic attitude because that is literally what they perceive this war to be. To a certain extent, especially as a person of future military personnel I have had to realize that it is killed or be killed in this field, which a lot of Americans not privy to the true factions of this war also believe.

Comparison of Maya and Kate

After watching Zero Dark 30 I found the main character Maya to be both intriguing and a memory. I say a memory because her job of working with the CIA and leading a task force is exactly what I wanted and dreamed about when  was younger and envisioning a career with the government after military service. Nevertheless, after watching the film and comparing both Maya and Kate from the novel, Sand Queen I noticed two very important and stark differences between the women. Maya is a woman I can more easily relate to. She's a woman who s not only in a male dominated field, but she's assertive, performs ten times better than the men in her field, she's a spitfire, disciplined and an all around badass that doesn't take non-sense but she is still able to have those bonds with her coworkers of both sexes. Kate on the other hand is more naive in where she's trying to find her footing in this field. Though both women joined their perspective government agencies right out of high school Kate's background somewhat stifled I feel the way as a woman, the way you're "supposed" to enter these male dominated fields. But I can be wrong. As a more assertive woman I honestly felt a little frustrated at the way Kate handled some situations in which I felt she was being timid, but then again I'm not in her shoes. These women have different personalities. Yet, tragic enough what I found in the movie to be true that no matter how much of a badass you are at your job, having a vagina will still overshadow your work. In the movie where Maya gathers all the intelligence needed in a meeting they are having with a guy I presume to be a level below the CIA director, when it was revealed that Maya was the one who acquired all the intelligence he looked shocked. And of course, it was because he couldn't believe a woman who was no more than thirty was heading such an important mission.
This just goes to show that though we are making a little little progress in accepting all groups to play on the team both the movie and the book just reaffirmed that women in many male dominated fields have a long way to go.

blog 12

     War has changed in the age of terrorism to a more systematic process of attacks from a distance.  A majority of attacks done by the US are now carried out by drones or guided missiles off of Navy vessels.  In contrast a majority of attacks done by ISIS are secretive and by the time to recognize that it is an attack it is too late because the attacks usually end in suicide bombings or attacks.  The Americans are very recognizable with there clear uniforms informing those around who they are.  In contrast the enemy ISIS easily blends itself into the civilian crowd making it near impossible to be able to point out who your enemy really is.  There is no longer trench warfare are mass assimilations of troops gathered to fight another mass.  This is a twisted step past guerrilla warfare, where morals have been grinded down to almost none leaving no clear rules of engagement because the enemy being dealt with does not follow such a code.

Blog 11

An ethical dilemma I saw brought up in Zero Dark Thirty was torture techniques.  In the opening scene you can see the conflict ion that Maya has when she is watching Dan torture a terrorist.  The way they carry themselves in this scene shows how a moral gray zone is being crossed.  As Dan, with a lot interrogation experience, goes into his routine of questioning the suspect you see how he goes from friendly and calm to aggressive and violent.  Maya watches at first in almost shock, she keeps her distance.  Then she is needed during the scene to hand Dan the water jug so he could proceed on water boarding the terror suspect.  She is hesitant in her actions not fully convinced on the methods that are being used.  So the ethical dilemma presented was torture.  In this scene torture seems acceptable because they end up getting the information they were after.  Yet, this is a movie so it can be assumed that this is how all torture scenes go and it can't be assumed that they always get the information they are after.

I don't know

This article was really helpful à http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/education/002/film/reviews/0007.html

           

            Zero Dark Thirty presents multiple ethical dilemmas with the questionable interrogation techniques and instances of torture that occur throughout the film. The first one we see is “waterboarding”, which was apparently, “one of the most heatedly debated aspects of the Bush-era War on Terror.” It was definitely painful to watch, as was the other torture techniques used by the American interrogators. In my opinion, the worst technique Dan used to get the main detainee to talk was the locking him in that tiny box. I can’t even imagine. I’m pretty claustrophobic and even 5 minutes in there would be hell.

That article brought up a lot of great questions: 

·       Should techniques such as waterboarding be classified as torture, which is illegal under U.S. and international law?

·       Are such techniques both necessary and effective, or are there other and more reliable ways to obtain information?

·       And, legal or not, are we betraying our moral values by using such techniques, whatever we decide to call them?

·       Where should we draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable interrogation? Who should have final say? 

                                                                                                                                                

The film had to throw the clip of Obama claiming, “The US will not participate in nor condone torture as a method of obtaining information,” which I believe was followed by the scene where Dan is telling Maya to watch her back for the organization that was searching the Black Sites for violent interrogations. So to answer the first question, I definitely think these techniques should be classified as torture. That’s why that organization was formed to stop these types of interrogations. For the second question- we can see how these methods were eventually effective with obtaining information, but even the interrogators were second-guessing themselves. What if the prisoners were just giving false information to avoid being tortured? Such a mind game. As far as the next two questions, I’m honestly not really sure. Eventually the film resolves in the assassination of Bin-Laden, leaving us feeling satisfied? Maybe? Should we have captured him alive? Can the interrogators live with themselves knowing they’ve done horrible things for their cause? Could we have found Bin-Laden without the use of such mentally and physically painful techniques? It’s a lot to think about.

Turner and Benedict

Sand Queen and Here, Bullet - definitely different worlds. Both Benedict and Turner do a great job on unfolding truths about the contemporary war, yet both do so in very different ways. Benedict’s writing is very concrete, and we mainly follow only two perspectives throughout the book. With Turner’s writing, we’re continually held in his powerful metaphors and in moments that juxtapose gruesome occurrences with a graceful tone and beautiful imagery. He describes oil fields as veins in God’s skull. He personifies a bullet, and dares it to kill him. Turner also does a great job of shifting perspectives, sometimes between only two lines. I’m not saying Turner is a better writer than Benedict, but Here, Bullet is definitely more challenging to dig into. I sometimes have to read the poem two or three times to fully grasp what’s going on.

            With Sand Queen, we’re given two characters – one very relatable, and the other not so much. Both stories are really important to learn about. Naema’s perspective was interesting and certainly sad, but felt almost too forced, creating some repetitive and dull sections in the book. Kate’s perspective is what really kept me reading. We’re absorbed in Kate’s thoughts and can connect with a lot of her experiences before the war. I think that’s what makes Benedict’s portrayal just as great as Turner’s- the fact that we crave to know what happens next in this shocking and disturbing book.

           I wonder how Brian Turner would portray an Iraqi prisoner throwing shit at him in his poetry?