They don't make war films like they used to

YOU KNOW WHAT military recruiters are--the men and women who go to high schools and colleges and tell young people about their opportunities to serve their country in the military. Well, now there also are counter-recruiters who go to these schools and tell young people why they should not serve their country in the military. I had one of them on my radio show along with a college freshman--and she asked him a crucial question, one he could not answer intelligently: "What would the world be like without the American military?" He said it would be a "beautiful place." Of course, this only would be true if a world enslaved under Nazism or communism or Islamo-fascism could be called beautiful.

These counter-recruiters, by the way, have received such strong support from teachers unions in the Los Angeles Unified School District that it has been mandated that they be given equal access with military recruiters in those high schools. How have we come to such a pass? One of the important underlying factors is that the popular culture fundamentally has changed in the way it portrays the military and its mission.

Consider two movies released a few months back: "The Jacket" and "The Pacifier." The former began by showing American troops committing atrocities during the first Persian Gulf War and goes from there. What is fascinating is that it is one of the very few films that even make reference to that war at all. Remember, when the U.S. was involved in that conflict, it was not controversial like the recent war in Iraq. There was a huge worldwide coalition and the American public supported it more than any conflict since World War II, according to pollsters. Nevertheless, I can count on the fingers of one hand the movies that have made any reference to it at all. There was "The Manchurian Candidate" in the summer of 2004, in which there is an evil conspiracy involving brainwashing and torturing on the part of American businessmen; before that there was "Courage Under Fire" with Meg Ryan and Denzel Washington, which was about a friendly-fire incident, military cover-ups, and the mistreatment of a brave young female officer: and then there was "Three Kings," starring George Clooney, which also is about the corruption of the U.S. military and America's betrayal of its allies. So, here is an incredibly popular war and Hollywood hardly touches it. Moreover, Tinseltown's moviemakers never treat it in any sort of favorable light. Why?

In "The Pacifier," starring Vin Diesel, the plot revolves around a Navy SEAL who is assigned to rescue a top-secret government scientist from terrorists. It is pretty silly, but here is the interesting thing: At the conclusion of the opening sequence, which is quite thrilling, it turns out that the terrorists who have kidnapped this government scientist are ... Serbian! How many Americans do you know who go to sleep at night worrying about an attack on our homeland from Serbian terrorists?

Here we are with our country engaged in what author Norman Podhoretz rightly has called World War IV (World War Ill being the Cold War), with Americans serving not just in Iraq and Afghanistan, but 'all over the world, trying to keep us safe here in the U.S. Our enemies do, after all, have a name: They are Islamic fascists and they aim at our annihilation. Yet, Hollywood, if it notices the war on terrorism at all, gives us Serbian terrorists. This bizarre behavior, by the way, extends back before Sept. 11. Do you remember "Sum of All Fears," a film based on a Tom Clancy novel? In the book, there are Islamic terrorists and it largely is realistic. In the movie version, the Islamic terrorists have been transformed into German neo-Nazis and it is completely unrealistic.

What is going on here? Wouldn't you think, given the universal American concern about the monstrous and evil people who attacked this country on Sept. 11, 2001, that this is an issue with which Hollywood would grapple? During WWII, there were countless movies dealing with the war--and no, the German Nazis were not portrayed as Uruguayans or Fiji Islanders. The truth of the matter is, war movies have changed in a fundamental way and, I would submit, a dangerous way for the health of our culture and the strength of our Republic.

Three elements always were present in classic war movies--films like the John Wayne version of "The Alamo," or "The Longest Day," or "A Bridge Too Far" or "Sergeant York." First, there was great affection for, and indeed glorification of, the American fighting man, who was portrayed as one of us--as representative of the best of what this country is. Second, there was obvious sympathy for the U.S. cause. Third, the wars being dramatized were portrayed as having significant meaning.

Every once in a while, we still will get a war film of this type. "Saving Private Ryan" is an example--even though there is the line where the Tom Hanks character says, "If we can bring Private Ryan back to his mother, then this whole god-awful war will have meant something." Obviously, World War II would have meant something even if Private Ryan had been lost. Another example is "Glory," a great Civil War picture about a famous African-American regiment made up partly of former slaves, and its doomed but gallant assault on Ft. Wagner in South Carolina. Then there is Mel Gibson's "We Were Soldiers," the single finest film ever made about Vietnam. Such traditional war films, however, are the rare exception nowadays.