I've been meaning to post on this subject for a while now, but time had not afforded me the opportunity to do so. Today, I was finally able to sneak in some time.
In Turkish Movie, Americans Kill Innocents
Feb 3, 7:47 AM (ET)
By BENJAMIN HARVEY
ISTANBUL, Turkey (AP) - In the most expensive Turkish movie ever made, American soldiers in Iraq crash a wedding and pump a little boy full of lead in front of his mother.
They kill dozens of innocent people with random machine gun fire, shoot the groom in the head, and drag those left alive to Abu Ghraib prison - where a Jewish doctor cuts out their organs, which he sells to rich people in New York, London and Tel Aviv.
The movie, which reportedly cost some $10 million, is the latest in a new genre of popular culture that demonizes the United States. It comes on the heels of a novel called "Metal Storm" about a war between Turkey and the U.S., which has been a best seller for months.
One recent opinion poll revealed the depth of the hostility in Turkey toward Americans: 53 percent of Turks who responded to the 2005 Pew Global Attitudes survey associated Americans with the word "rude"; 70 percent with "violent"; 68 percent with "greedy"; and 57 percent with "immoral."
U.S. soldiers have become hate figures in Muslim countries around the world after the unpopular war in Iraq. But here in Turkey, a personal grudge fuels the resentment.
"Valley of the Wolves Iraq" opens with a true story: On July 4, 2003, in Sulaymaniyah, northern Iraq, troops from the U.S. Army's 173rd Airborne Brigade raided and ransacked a Turkish special forces office, threw hoods over the heads of 11 Turkish special forces officers, and held them in custody for more than two days.
The Americans said they had been looking for Iraqi insurgents and unwittingly rounded up the Turks because they were not in uniform. Still, the incident damaged Turkish-U.S. relations and hurt Turkish national pride. Turks traditionally idolize their soldiers; most enthusiastically send their sons off for mandatory military service.
In the movie, one of the Turkish special forces officers commits suicide to save his honor. His farewell letter reaches Polat Alemdar, an elite Turkish intelligence officer who travels to northern Iraq with a small group of men to avenge the humiliation.
There they find a rogue group of U.S. soldiers led by officer Sam William Marshall - played by Zane. In the bloodfest that ensues, the small band of Turks bonds with the people of Iraq and eventually ends American atrocities there, killing Zane and his men in the final scene.
"There isn't going to be a war over this," said Nefise Karatay, a Turkish model lounging on a sofa after the premiere. "Everyone knows that Americans have a good side. That's not what this is about."
One's initial reaction upon seeing this article is to get depressed over the news or perhaps to question whether we can still consider Turkey a reliable ally in the war on terror. Not having seen the movie myself, I can only base my analysis on what is reported in the media. The NY Times, had an article on this movie recently, and it provides plenty for us to chew on. For example, the Times tells us that animosity toward America has grown dramatically since our invasion of Iraq (okay, no surprise there). What is surprising however is how much that animosity has been exacerbated by a little reported incident here in the US, but which in Turkey was a very big deal. The movie, the report states, is partially based on this event. In 2003 American forces took into custody a group of Turkish special forces who were operating in Iraq, and according to American troops, where out of uniform and hence were mistaken for insurgents. This incident hurt Turkish national pride, because the military is a widely respected institution in the country and soldiers are idolized. The incident constituted for Turks a deep humiliation, and although the US attempted to explain the mistake, the incident damaged Turkish-American relations severely. Added to this indignity, we are told, the revelations of torture at Abu Ghraib cemented in the mind of many a sense that America was now a rogue in the world. This incident also features prominently in the movie, to the point where after crashing a wedding party and killing people at will, including children, the surviving prisoners are taken to Abu Ghraib, where a jewish doctor removes their organs to sell them overseas. Even more recent revelations about "rendition" and torture of suspected members of Al Qaeda in secret prisons, not to mention the ever unpopular detention centers, such as Guantanamo Bay have fueled the fire begun by Abu Ghraib, to the point where the US is seen to have lost its way, to be no longer Dirty Harry (as Tom Barnett portrays us) but rather Annakin Skywalker, taken in by the dark side; ruthless and evil.
Furthermore, Turkey and Turks generally feel some measure of dissappointment or mistrust at the fact that after invading Iraq, the US allowed the PKK, the Kurdish separatist group, to operate almost unencumbered in Northern Iraq, despite being labeled by us and the Europeans as a terrorist organization. This is especially important, given the fact that as recently as this past month Turkey engaged some PKK fighters in battle killing five in Southeast Turkey. that we have failed to prevent the the PKK from operating in Iraqi territory or crossing back into Turkey, due to fears of inciting the relatively peaceful Kurdish north against us, Turks feel that we are not being good allies, and might actually be doing what we accuse Syria and Iran of doing to Us; harboring and abetting a terrorist organization. Given all these issues, and how badly reflected on the US, the tone of the movie makes a little more sense. After all, we have been pressing Syria to do more to curve terrorist infiltration into Iraq, meanwhile (from Turkey's standpoint), we turn a blind eye to a terrorist organization that threatens the Turkish state.
There are also some troubling signs in Turkey, the times report notes. For example, anti-semitism we are told, is on the rise in the country. The portrayal of the evil Jewish doctor plays into all the anti-semitic stereotypes common inthe Muslim world. Further, the NY Times reports that Hitler's Mein Kampf has of late become a best seller, along with a novel, called Metal Storm, which pits Turkey and the US in a war against one another. These developments are troubling, because Turkey is unquestionably one of the most progressive, and Western oriented Muslim countries, and yet, even there the disease of anti-semitism and the ever popular anti-Americanism are on the rise to worrying levels.
That said, let us deconstruct the movie a bit by examining some of the details more fully. The Times tells us that the main bad guy in the movie is an American commander named Sam William Marshall, and further tells us that he is a sociopath who claims to be doing God's will. If we were to analyze this from a Turkish perspective, the name (as the Times suggest) evokes its identification with Uncle Sam, so that part is explained. The next part, however requires us to think a little more (not much) to get to what they are getting at. The religious soldier probably alludes to the perception of the US, in Europe and elsewhere as having turned to the extreme religious right (President Bush after all declared the beginning of this conflict at the National Cathedral to the beat of "The Battle Hymn of the Republic)", and echoes Osama's charges of the conflict between Islam and Christendom.
Next we turn to Abu Ghraib, and we can easily see how this fits into the manner in which the US is being portrayed in the movie and perceived throughout the world. AS Tom Barnett points out, the Dirty Harry personna will work for a while (at least in the US) "until the photos from Abu Ghraib are posted on the Web, and you have to explain to your kids why that sort of stuff is OK when the bad guys are really, really bad." The same applies with our allies, and even the fence sitters. How, can the US justify what we witnessed at Abu Ghraib, or face up to the allegations regarding similar treatment at various other detention facilities and secret prisons, when we are supposed to be the good guys? So far, we have failed to justify it to the world, or even to our own population. As I've stated before, part of the problem comes from our failure to make the detainee problem, the world's problem. In other words, we have taken on the task alone, and have designed a program that is secretive, and is perceived as contrary to everything we have stood for; the ideals we projected unto the world system we created following WWII, through the negotiation of the Geneva conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war. Since this is an acknowledged long war we need to create a better system, one that brings aboard the major pillars of the current globalization as Barnett has stated. Our failure to this so far, however, has evoked in many countries (allies, particularly) a feeling that Dirty Harry is not only out of control, but is turning more and more to the Dark side in his blind pursuit for justice, destroying the very institutions and compacts that have made the world (from their standpoint) a better place that it used to be; in effect, throwing out the baby with the water, as the expression goes. That is why earlier I said that we were viewed in a very Annakin Skywalker sort of way, where not only are we just trying to save our wive, but in doing so we are reneging on everything we hold dear, eventually abandoning our initial purpose and becoming that which we had sworn to fight; Darth Vader. Whether we acknowledge it or not, the fear is there and the longer we continue to ignore it, and brush it off as just "those darn lefties" more and more the image will become engrained in the minds of many throughout the world, reducing as it grows the measure of soft power that we can use to win the struggle against radical islamism. What do I mean by that? Let me clarify. I do not mean that we need to play nice with the Osamas or Zarqawis or the world, them we kill. What we must do, however, is drain the swamp, or in other words, remove or address the problems which allowed these monsters to exist and thrive in the first place. That is, bin Laden's words would ring a lot more hollow if we finally resolved the Palestinian crisis and Palestine became a thriving state next to its Israeli neighbor. The message would make less sense, if we stopped supporting the dictatorships in the region and pushed harder for reform. Yes, we have been doing these, but have been reticent ever since Islamist parties began to do well in the elections in Egypt, Palestine, Iraq, Lebanon and even Kuwait and Jordan. The process is going to be slow, but it has to continue moving forward.
Getting back to the movie, the Times tells us something which says alot about the current situation. The paper reports that in the movie, commander Marshall is a rogue army officer, meaning not a regular American soldier, he is an anomaly, so is his unit. The movie is focusing on one unit, and its leader not claiming that the entire US army is acting in this manner. This sentiment, echoes to a certain extent what President Bush said of the atrocities at Abu Ghraib, they were carried out by a group of soldiers, the incident was an aberration that would be corrected, and did not represent the values of the American people; it seems that at least a small part of our argument got through. As Mr. Karatay points out above "Everyone knows that Americans have a good side. That's not what this is about." It might be small consolation to us, but that tells us that although disappointed, shocked and angry as Turks are with American actions, and perceived injustices, they can still identify these as just one side of the American package, an aberration to a certain extent, something that leaves us some leeway to restore our reputation and recover the legitimacy we have lost over these incidents.
Yes, it is not only we who have to work at this relationship with Turkey, so do Turks. After all it is they who are still trying to join the European Union and are seeking a security council seat. This post, however, since it is addressing their portrayal of the US will leave that to others better qualified to talk about the steps Turkey needs to take.
In the end, and keeping in mind what we saw during the recent cartoon protests, the best thing that we can do, is to let Turks express themselves artistically and encourage this sort of expression (hopefully it won't anti-american, but will turn more introspective) to demonstrate that despite its portrayal of us, in the end it amounts to just that an artistic interpretation well within the bounds of free speech. We lead by example, as much as we lead through strength. In addition, as this clip from the Daily Show reminds us, we also have to look at our artistic portrayal of Turks, and Arabs (note I didn't just say muslims, this is to point to the many movies portraying them as secular socialist or communist evildoers) as hijackers, terrorists, and evil kingpins in transnational criminal organizations.
Read More...
Snippet only...
