In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

4 the Case agaInst War Anthony Swofford, a corporal in the U.S. Marines during the Persian Gulf War in 1990–1991, famously wrote that there is no such thing as an antiwar film. He argued, “Filmic images of death and carnage are pornography for the military man.”1 Despite this admonishment, several filmmakers have attempted films that paint war as devastating, dehumanizing, wasteful, and absurd. This chapter is not limited to antiwar films alone; it examines the horrendous effects of war as well. In doing so, the chapter seeks to explain the reasons behind antiwar films and films that illustrate the effects of war. There are several reasons and methods to avoid war; however, this does not mean that any or all of these efforts will be successful. In fact, war holds a certain fascination for many; war permeates our popular culture and inspires research, discussion, and even reenactment. This poses an interesting and vexing question: If war is, indeed, so terrible, why does it happen? While the realist perspective of international relations theory predicts war as an inescapable result of human greed, selfishness and, ultimately, insecurity, the pluralist (or liberal) perspective is slightly more hopeful—but only slightly more. Instead of believing that war will be overcome,the pluralist perspective contends that people have an opportunity to cooperate. When people (and states) cooperate, benefits accrue. Thus pluralism argues that cooperation can greatly reduce the chance of war. There is a caveat; there are many barriers to cooperation. In world politics different ideologies, turbulent histories, poor communications, different approaches to economics, and differences in race, ethnicity, and religion, among other factors, can inhibit cooperation among actors. For pluralists, in order to prevent conflict and war, one must understand and overcome these barriers to cooperation. Despite some arguments to the contrary, many would argue that the effects of war are so devastating that if people understood the impact of war 53 54 Conflict and Cooperation in World Politics they would avoid it at all costs. War has multiple impacts, mental and physical , on those who are combatants, those caught in the fighting, and society at large. Film provides an opportunity for those who have not experienced combat to get a sense of what it is like. By using a narrative structure not bound by space or time, film allows the viewer to see multiple impacts of the effect of combat on individuals over time. While the individual who experiences the effects of war might be able to relay the experiences and emotions of war, few have the ability to contextualize those experiences and emotions. Films, both narratives and documentaries, try to encapsulate more than just individual stories and provide a meaningful context to war. Those who make and endorse the idea that wars should be opposed try to present an accurate depiction of the effects of war to generate sentiment. It was mentioned in the previous chapter that in the Anglo-American world the Second World War (1939–1945) was seen as evidence that sometimes a war has to be fought; alternatively, the First World War (1914–1918) is usually depicted in film as the epitome of the senselessness of war. Millions of young men from across Europe (and around the world) were killed and maimed because of outdated military tactics in the face of new, efficiently lethal combat technology. The exact reason(s) for the war seemed lost on those who were fighting it. After the war was over, most people thought it was completely preventable in retrospect.2 What appeared to many as senseless slaughter resulted in an antiwar sentiment in European and American popular culture. Similarly, the American involvement in Vietnam (1963–1975) prompted many antiwar messages, including the film and television series M*A*S*H (1970, 1972–1983), which helped to introduce antiwar messages into the mainstream of American culture during the 1970s.3 Of course, some of the oldest pieces of literature are concerned with the dramatics of war, although not many of them are antiwar but instead usually narratives that emphasize the heroics of war. One of the few surviving plays penned by the famous classic Greek playwright Aristophanes, Lysistrata, is a classic of the antiwar genre. The lead character, a woman named Lysistrata, organizes the women of Greece to withhold sex from their husbands until the men of Greece end the Peloponnesian Wars. Lysistrata argues that war is a concern of women because it affects their lives in many ways (including denying...

Share