‘Green Zone’ Brings to Cinematic Life All the Left’s Desperate Lies About Iraq

by Leigh Scott

In the comments to Big Hollywood’s recent post about the box office catastrophe that is “The Green Zone,” one frequent poster, and noted leftist, gave us a “teachable moment.”

In a nutshell, this poster said that the antithesis to “The Green Zone,” and diatribes of that ilk, would be some dim witted, cheer leading, Michael Bay style action movie where the Arabs are sneering villains and the American G.I.’s are square jawed pretty boys out to save the world.

green_zone_movie_poster_matt_damon_01

Where does one begin?

His post reinforces the primary myth that drives all debate in our country. The central conceit is that leftist ideology is “complex,” “educated,” “nuanced” etc. Conservative and libertarian ideology is “simplistic,” “black and white,” and often times driven by superstitious religious beliefs and not “hard facts and science.” To suppose that the “conservative” version of “The Green Zone” is a movie like 1986’s “Delta Force” misses the point…big time.

As a quick side note, Menahem Golan’s “Delta Force” kicks ass. I recommend it highly.

What is silly about this narrative, especially in the discussion of “The Green Zone” is that it not only knocks conservative ideas, principals, and factual evidence down a few pegs, but it elevates leftist ideas far beyond their merit.

“The Green Zone” is based on a leftist fantasy. The film’s plot is rooted in a conspiracy theory that is no more factual or logical than 9/11 Trutherism. The fact that publications like the New York Times, major news networks, and supposedly respected leftist bloggers reinforce and repeat this fantasy does not make it true. The fact that leftist film critics have embraced this film as “speaking truth to power” is laughable and should discredit these individuals rather than give credence to the film’s plot and supposed revelations.

To embrace the ideas behind “The Green Zone” is to indulge in simplistic, blinded, poorly informed, and historically detached information. There is nothing “educated,” “nuanced” or “complex” about the idea that the United States government lied to the world to depose Saddam Hussein in an effort to steal Iraq’s natural resources. To believe that requires a lack of intellect and critical thinking, not an elevated amount of intelligence.

All conspiracy theories tend to fall apart when you analyze the facts and examine the motivations. Toss in the fact that it is difficult to keep even a few people quiet about things, and the possibility of grand conspiracies becomes even more remote.

Most “factual” accounts of the theory behind “The Green Zone” start their time lines after 9/11. Bush wanted to invade Iraq. It was a foregone conclusion they say. Regardless of the evidence, the administration wanted to invade Iraq and would do whatever they could to manipulate the facts to support their plans. Of course, this would mean that Bush had many accomplices, and that the plan began far before 9/11. In fact, the plan would have to begin before Bush even took office or was elected. Throughout the 1990s there are tons of interviews, articles, news reports, etc. that addressed Iraq’s WMD program. Rove, Cheney and Bush would have had to recruit a bunch of other politicians and world leaders to lay the ground work for their nefarious plot. People like Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and John Kerry must have subscribed to the plot years before the invasion, for all of them believed that Saddam was packing heat and that he posed a threat to the world.

The WMD story predates Bush and is a global narrative, not one cooked up in Dick Cheney’s secret bunker.

Of course, Saddam himself could have put an end to the speculation by complying with the weapons inspections that were a provision of the peace agreement he entered into after the first Gulf War.

The biggest ally in the Bush/Rove/Cheney/Simon Barsinistar plot, it seems, was Saddam Hussein!

What about the motivations? Again, examining the facts reveals less about the dark hearts of the Bushies and more about the ignorance of the educated and enlightened left.

Matt-Damon-in-Green-Zone-001

Letfists don’t understand money. This is a well documented fact and a fact that they seem to reinforce daily. Read any Paul Krugman op-ed and you will see what I mean. With that in mind, how much money would Bush and Co. make off the war? Who makes the money? And how much money would individuals make compared to the money that these individuals already have? Sure $500 million sounds like a lot to the average person, but is that worth the risk for a multi-billionaire? And these supposed oil, war, and reconstruction “profits” are all being paid to publicly held companies. Those profits are offset by costs, and then those dividends are divided amongst shareholders. So, a billion dollars paid to a company results in a few hundred million in “profit” that then is reduced to millions when it filters back to the executives and high level shareholders. Is that enough motivation to risk the consequences should one person start singing like a canary? Besides, no one who subscribes to this mythology has ever provided a distinct money trail, choosing instead to offer nebulous anecdotes about oil companies, Haliburton, and other generic Texas residents who’s net worth is over a million bucks.

Indeed, if you understand money and government, you can devise numerous other, better schemes to make a ton of cash. After 9/11, Bush could have used oil resources as a signature issue. Bankrupt the terrorists and their Middle Eastern enablers. The Republican controlled Congress could have acted in the same underhanded manner as the current Congress to force drastic changes in environmental and oil policy. Bush could have forced drilling in Alaska, coastal California and other places, awarding no bid contracts to both construction and oil companies to develop the new sites. Couple that with some protectionist trade rules through executive orders that barred oil imports form specific countries or groups (like Opec) and within five to ten years the “Rethuglicans” and their evil cronies could have remade the world oil market and had more money than they could ever hope to siphon from Iraq.

This oft repeated conspiracy simply doesn’t add up. I can find more circumstantial evidence and better motivations behind the theory that Elvis is alive and living in Ohio than I can the drivel that masquerades as the plot for “The Green Zone.”

Those who believe these stories are not “smarter” or more “complex” than the rubes, like myself, who understand history and economics. Quite the opposite. Like Obama’s speeches, these narratives are juvenile, emotional, and partisan rants wrapped in big words and condescending tones. You can add as much faux sincerity and shaky cam as you want; it doesn’t change the fact that at it’s core “The Green Zone” is a sophomoric, under thought, and ignorant story.

As for the conservative Iraq movie, I would focus on individuals. Complex narratives start with the journey of a character, not convoluted plots. I personally know three Iraq war veterans and their stories of heroism, danger, tragedy and triumph could fill ten screenplays.

And not a single one of them would be about America as a villain. That’s just stupid.


Email this to a friend | Print | Share on Facebook | | Bookmark and Share

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted Mar 18th 2010 at 5:03 am in Featured Story, Film, Politics | 146 Comments