Conversations / Live Q&A

Yes, I think we are. We are seeing an intensification of the Military-Entertainment Complex, both in tactics and in reach. See here for two recent examples.

First, I encourage you to check out the history you refer to about the Vietnam War and the alleged demonization of our troops. A fantastic book called "The Spitting Image" explored how this myth was created - and how it was, indeed, a myth.

Second, I agree with you about the deification of our military. The men and women in the armed forces are very important public servants, just like police officers, firefighters and teachers (to name a few). But there is a danger when society and popular culture starts suggesting that military service is the single most important act of public service - especially when that suggestion comes at a time that other public servants are being so viciously denigrated. The underlying message then becomes that militarism is our most important national ethos.

This is a rationale I often hear.  Essentially, the Pentagon and its apologists would have us believe that military officials have every right to use publicly owned hardware as a means of suffusing our pop culture with militarist propaganda. As the argument goes, it’s in the Pentagon’s institutional prerogative to defend its image, mission and "product." And this line of logic might work if the Pentagon was a private corporation. But (all jokes about Halliburton and private security contractors aside) the Defense Department is not a private corporation.

Indeed, as taboo as it might be to say it out loud, as much and often as you will get called an unpatriotic traitor for even mentioning it, it remains an indisputable fact that all those military planes and tanks and warships are funded by your and my taxpayer dollars. That makes them not the private assets of some military spinmeister - it makes them all of our property. Thus, when the government decides to grant and deny the public access to that property on the basis of a citizen’s particular political/ideological bent, it is inherently abridging that citizen’s First Amendment rights.

Journalist David Robb, author of "Operation Hollywood," explained this very real First Amendment issue succinctly in a previous interview with Mother Jones:

”The First Amendment doesn’t just give people the right to free speech; fundamentally, it prevents the government from favoring one form of speech over another. There’s a great 1995 Supreme Court case called Rosenberger v. University of Virginia that says, “Discrimination against speech because of its message is presumed to be unconstitutional. It is axiomatic that the government may not regulate speech based on the substantive content of the message it conveys. In the realm of private speech or expression, government regulation may not favor one speaker over another.” And yet that’s what (The Pentagon) is doing every day.”

The way to really understand why this is so unacceptable is to consider comparable examples. Imagine if, say, the Obama administration didn’t let a reporter from Fox News attend a White House press briefing. Or imagine if, say, the Bush administration didn’t let a reporter from MSNBC be part of the press pool on Air Force One. In both cases, the outrage would be obvious, and those being persecuted would rightly insist that the government has no right to grant or deny access to public property on the basis of a citizen’s particular political principles.

This isn’t to say the Pentagon can’t or shouldn’t be involved in filmmaking. But it is to echo what New York University’s J. Hoberman told the Boston Globe in 2004: "If the Pentagon wants to go into business of leasing to the movies it should be open to whomever wants to lease and can afford to. It's our Army. If you can afford the rates you should be able to rent" regardless of your political ideology or partisan affiliation.

It's a good question, because these questions do need to be raised. I believe the Military-Entertainment Complex has escaped scrutiny because there's an incentive for both sides to keep it quiet. The Pentagon doesn't want to advertise how it uses taxpayer money to tilt the media/entertainment world  in favor of militaristic propaganda. And the media/entertainment world which is financially benefiting from that subsidy doesn't want the subsidy to end.

I think the bin Laden film/Obama administration collaboration has more to do with the Pentagon wanting to boost recruitment numbers than it does with any one single election (though I will also agree that  the White House probably is more than happy to facilitate the cooperation).

In order to get access to military hardware for the purposes of photographing it, filmmakers must get Pentagon approval of their films. That approval includes approval of the script's message/story/content. Because that approval means a huge taxpayer subsidy, Hollywood has told its screenwriters to basically get the approval of the Pentagon or forget about making whatever movie you want to make. Naturally, that pressures screenwriters to produce more pro-war, pro-militarist movies.

I certainly think that it has become politically easier to initiate wars after America ended the draft. With fewer Americans facing the blood and guts consequences of war, politicians have made war seem like just a glorified video game - something that others on TV fight, but that don't have any real consequences for most Americans.

This development, though, explains why the Military-Entertainment Complex started intensifying when it did. In the post-draft 1980s, the military needed a much more aggressive recruiting strategy because it no longer could rely on conscription. One of the most effective recruiting strategies, as Top Gun proved, is propaganda shrouded as entertainment products.

There certainly have been some anti-war movies. But as I said in the article, for every one of these, there are dozens of pro-war, pro-militarist movies. The key here is to understand what that means. Just because a movie doesn't talk about a specific war, doesn't mean it's not pro-war or pro-militarist. The Transformers, for instance, is aggressively pro-militarist, but it's a science fiction movie.

So this is my point - while there are a smattering of anti-war/anti-militarist movies, when you think of all the films that glorify militarism and war in GENERAL (as opposed to in specific with regard to specific wars), the numbers are overpowering.

As I show in my book "Back to Our Future," the military has been intimately involved in the video game industry from its inception. Indeed, the first video games were developed in government science labs. Today, the connection is more overt - first-person shooter games like America's Army are underwritten directly by the military. Additionally, the military has pioneered Army Experience Centers - ie. huge military-themed arcade facilities in shopping malls - as a method of recruitment.

In a country that so worships militarism and the Pentagon establishment, I see it the other way - I see asking questions of this establishment not as something "wussy" or "liberal," but as an act of courage by any citizen, regardless of their political affiliation.

That's a very good point - but it's symbiotic. As I show in the article, it is precisely when Americans start souring on war and questioning militarism in general that the Military-Entertainment Complex intensifies its efforts to sell war and militarism, both for the purpose of maintaining recruitment levels and for the purpose of protecting the Pentagon's institutional prerogatives (budgets, etc.).

Anti-war movies certainly have made an impact - but typically, anti-war movies are not aimed at children, whereas most pro-war/pro-militarist movies are. For every "Full Metal Jacket" that is clearly an adult, war-questioning film, there are films like Transformers or Top Gun or X-Men aimed at teenagers and designed to sanitize war as something wholly fun and exciting and safe.

Top Gun may not glorify war, but it certainly glorifies the life of a Naval aviator. This is why recruitment surged right after the film's release.

That's a fascinating question, and one Hollywood is probably going to have to figure out. What I can say is that I have no doubt that filmmakers and Pentagon spinmeisters will come up with innovative new ways to pretend that war is fun and safe and that militarism should never be questioned.

There are simple ways to make sure military hardware is available to anyone who meets certain standards. But according to the Supreme Court, those standards cannot take into account a citizen's political ideology/partisan affiliation. Read the last part of this article to understand what I mean.

Either military hardware is publicly available to filmmakers or it isn't. It shouldn't be available only to filmmakers or reporters who the Pentagon agrees with.

I'm not so sure we can make the conclusion you are making. Less pilots crashing makes piloting look safer than it may be - which serves the Pentagon's goal of helping boost recruitment.

Yes, it is more pervasive. My piece tried to look only at movies. But the Military-Entertainment Complex has its hands in everything from television, to video games to toys as well.

I couldn't agree more. Either public property is available for rent by any citizen regardless of political ideology/affiliation, or it is not available to anyone. As the Supreme Court has ruled, the government cannot financially preference one form of speech over another.

Actually, this view has been wholly refuted by the conservative-leaning Supreme Court. Journalist David Robb, author of "Operation Hollywood," explained this very real First Amendment issue succinctly in a previous interview with Mother Jones:

”The First Amendment doesn’t just give people the right to free speech; fundamentally, it prevents the government from favoring one form of speech over another. There’s a great 1995 Supreme Court case called Rosenberger v. University of Virginia that says, “Discrimination against speech because of its message is presumed to be unconstitutional. It is axiomatic that the government may not regulate speech based on the substantive content of the message it conveys. In the realm of private speech or expression, government regulation may not favor one speaker over another.” And yet that’s what (The Pentagon) is doing every day.”

Check the opinions in the case. It's quite clear. Angry substance-free platitudes about public property allegedly being the private domain of a government agency run explicitly counter to the basic notions of the First Amendment. That may be inconvenient to the Pentagon and its apologists like you, but it's the law.

It is difficult to question the Pentagon and militarism in America, precisely because we are taught in every sphere that to question militarism is to allegedly hate America. A big purveyor of that message is pop culture.

Ostensibly, that's what the Pentagon's film office is supposed to be for. It was never supposed to become a censorship operation - it was supposed to be there to offer technical assistance so that details like that were portrayed accurately. Unfortunately, the people working in the Pentagon film office have taken that mission and expanded it to censorship.

The Pentagon is very explicit in how it selects films:

Strub described the approval process to Variety in 1994: “The main criteria we use is . . . how could the proposed production benefit the military . . . could it help in recruiting [and] is it in sync with present policy?”

Robert Anderson, the Navy’s Hollywood point person, put it even more clearly to PBS in 2006: “If you want full cooperation from the Navy, we have a considerable amount of power, because it’s our ships, it’s our cooperation, and until the script is in a form that we can approve, then the production doesn’t go forward.”

Put a list of Pentagon-approved films up against films the Pentagon rejected and you'll see what this means in practice.

Again, I cite the Supreme Court, which has rejected your substance-free argument. The SCOTUS has said that the government cannot financially preference one form of private speech over another, which is what taxpayer-subsidies for pro-war films do.

Yes, I do see a difference. The 1980s began glorifying not just war, but militarism. Those are two different (but related) concepts. Militarism IMHO is the whole ideology that says society should be organized around worshiping the military and military action. In the 1980s, pop culture began selling this. As opposed to selling the idea that war is something awful that we begrudgingly endure, it begam selling the idea that war is awesome and that militarism is our proud national ethos.

I'm absolutely serious. Public property should either be available for rent to any citizen who can afford to rent it, or it shouldn't be availble to anyone. The idea that it's safe national security-wise to rent a tank to a pro-war filmmaker but unsane to rent the same exact tank to an anti-war filmmaker is preposterous.

If something is too sensitive to be public for national security's sake, then it's too sensitive for everyone - not just for those who oppose war.

Because the government is not a private company. I own it, and you own it. As I wrote today at Salon.com:

No doubt, the Pentagon and its apologists would have us believe that military officials have every right to use publicly owned hardware as a means of suffusing our pop culture with militarist propaganda. As the argument goes, it’s in the Pentagon’s institutional prerogative to defend its image, mission and "product." And this line of logic might work if the Pentagon was a private corporation. But (all jokes about Halliburton and private security contractors aside) the Defense Department is not a private corporation.

Indeed, as taboo as it might be to say it out loud, as much and often as you will get called an unpatriotic traitor for even mentioning it, it remains an indisputable fact that all those military planes and tanks and warships are funded by your and my taxpayer dollars. That makes them not the private assets of some military spinmeister - it makes them all of our property. Thus, when the government decides to grant and deny the public access to that property on the basis of a citizen’s particular political/ideological bent, it is inherently abridging that citizen’s First Amendment rights.

The way to really understand why this is so unacceptable is to consider comparable examples. Imagine if, say, the Obama administration didn’t let a reporter from Fox News attend a White House press briefing. Or imagine if, say, the Bush administration didn’t let a reporter from MSNBC be part of the press pool on Air Force One. In both cases, the outrage would be obvious, and those being persecuted would rightly insist that the government has no right to grant or deny access to public property on the basis of a citizen’s particular political principles.

This isn’t to say the Pentagon can’t or shouldn’t be involved in filmmaking. But it is to echo what New York University’s J. Hoberman told the Boston Globe in 2004: "If the Pentagon wants to go into business of leasing to the movies it should be open to whomever wants to lease and can afford to. It's our Army. If you can afford the rates you should be able to rent" regardless of your political ideology or partisan affiliation.

This is exactly my point - if a filmmaker wanted to make a film raising those critical questions, and requiring footage of non-sensitive Pentagon hardware, the Pentagon would probably bar access to that hardware, thus making the film almost impossible to make.

I'm all for showing teenagers news reports and footage that actually show what being a soldier and what war is really like. This is why I'm concerned about the Military-Entertainment Complex - it forwards a fantastical and sanitized image that pretends war is something different than it is.

Incidentally, this is why I also think more news outlets in America should show real images of what war is really like - even if those images are frightening and visceral. The more we see what war is ACTUALLY like, the harder it will be to pretend that war is just a safe video game.

That's because screenplays that want to show that face the obstacle of Pentagon disapproval. And when the Pentagon disapproves of a screenplay that needs access to non-sensitive military hardware (scenes of bases, scenes of tanks, etc.) it often means the studio kills the project.