Expecting to learn something about war from Generation Kill or from any other series/film/novel is sort of equivalent to expecting to learn about rocket science by watching Wile E. Coyote and The Roadrunner. I have watched most parts of the first episode in installments over a few days but not continuously through. The cutesy kills.

The SLATE review article's author makes a big deal about the small details, like Skittles. Such is the stuff of art and literature at all times. The slant of her hat, her piercing one-eyed stare from below it‘s brim and the way that the light from the street lamps shining through the gently swaying leaves of the sweet smelling Magnolia trees bathed the sidewalk cafe in mottled shadows, yadda, yadda, yadda. Let's be clear. War is not pretty. People tend to avoid it for good reason. Making war pretty enough to get the masses to watch it on TV means that you must essentially give up on faithfully replicating the brutal experience, an impossibility to do in any event. And give it some pizzazz too, you know, character development and all that jazz.

War is not just another slice-of-life experience. It tends to be thoroughly atypical in many dimensions simultaneously which makes it's only points of reference internal to the experience of war itself. In other words it gets a little bit crazy when viewed from an external, normal frame of reference. When one goes home again and things are normal there is no way to translate the war experience into non-war terms. There simply are not enough common reference points upon which to draw for you to align the two different experiences in ways which are even vaguely accurate. The parallels to gang wars which the reviewer suggests that the producer's have brought with them from their work on The Wire are perhaps as close as one could aspire to in such an effort. They are still woefully inadequate to the task however.

Crime within a society has a certain business-as-usual flavor (rare bizarre incidents excepted). That is why there are so many police shows, it is just too easy make another new one. War on the other hand defies all boundaries. It is the complete absence of normal law and order, hence the absurdity of trying to define 'war crimes' as if there were a proper way to conduct day-to-day war operations as we do with the goods and services of the civilian economy. Indeed I find the mix-up stems entirely from the way that so many people view war as being just 'business by other means' and not the last resort of a sovereign nation at severe risk of it's own dissolution.

Everyone who has ever used petroleum products (and that pretty much means everyone) have been collectively guilty of causing the several oil-related conflicts of modern times. Most people feel that they can in good conscience just pass the blame for such wars off onto the heads and shoulders of the elected officials (their elected officials) and the soldiers (their soldiers) while maintaining an aloof innocence themselves. Whatever gets you through the night sugar plum. If you desire to not feel guilty about the inevitable consequences of the lifestyle which you live, go ahead.

Those who have been to war know the truth, and it can't be made into a mini-series. To know war you must wage war.

As a combat veteran I agree! Most of these "apologists and green peacers" out there are the biggest hypocrites of them all! They point fingers of blame at everybody else for the world's problems as they drive around in their Volvos & BMWs talking on their cellphones or muddling about in their berkonstock sandals in their high-class home.

Not stopping to think that 99.9% of the products they get & have is by way of fuel-guzzling ships, planes, trains, and trucks. They are like that cow "rosy o-donald / whatever" wanting to take away everybody's weapons while she has armed security protecting her hypocritical self. But hey; they are of the "in crowd" and know everything!

Just watched Part 2 of Generation Kill straight through and it gets better because of the combat sequences but it still has the limitations stated above. Curiously at the ends of both Part 1 and Part 2 when the credits roll there are some pretty realistic soundtracks of radio traffic.

In Part 1 it sounded like a perimeter guard that is keeping an eye on possible unfriendlies and the quiet time between the transmissions reminds you that much of actual combat is 'hurry up and wait' time until hell breaks loose. Part 2 had a couple of pretty realistic calls for fire with an artillery battery and close air support. They were just the first parts of the missions though and you don't hear anything about the effects upon the targets which was a feature of the Part 2 episode when the 'Godfather' comments about the good 'danger close' artillery effects on the town before they enter into it.

The end soundtracks almost sounded like actual radio transcripts. Plus by being only radio traffic without video there were no issues about whether things looked right or not, they just had to sound like real SOP (standing operating procedure). My combat specialty was forward artillery observer so even though the SOP was slightly different it was very familiar stuff. Way better than the singing parts.

First, I must complimen you on your brilliant insight into the war experience. For all of the dismissive derision you heap upon the inadequacy of literature to convey that experience, you used the tool very well to debunk you own argument.

Esp, the bit about the points of reference being internal to the experience and about how war is the complete absence of law and order. Very well put - and, I might say, gives one a conceptual handle with which to imagine the experience without having had it.

That said, I was rather put off by your closing remarks which were echoed by redleopard in the first response. How is that because Americans consume petroleum products, they are automatically complicit in unjustifed and unjustifiable middle east wars? That is so profoundly obtuse I don't know where to begin. As a citizen dissenting from the madness of invading a country that neither threatened or attacked us, I am part of the problem because my car seat has some petroleum by products in it? That seems to suggest that war with oil producing middle eastern countries is a "given," that it is a straightforward proposition that if we need and use oil, then it is certainly necessary to invade and plunder any sovereign nation who might possess it.

While this world view confirms an administration beholden to and perhaps owned outright by the special interests of the oil and arms industry, that does not mean it is inevietalbe and logical or at all ethical. It is, in fact, unconstitutional, unamerican and imperial predatory corporate facism at it's worst. Those of us who opposed this unneccessary and unjustifiable invastion and occupation did what we could to dissent from the administration and corporate media stampede for war. In that respect.

You want to broadbrush the entire population of the country as responsible for the war because we buy things that use petroleum? That is absurd. Until there is an accountability made by those who forced this catastrophic mass murder, then whitewash arguments such as this one do more to sanitize and excuse the horror and injustice of this war than any hollywoodized mini-series.

I agree, Love. It isn't quite right to let a stereotypical impression of a group of people fuel one's argument. There are liberal assholes who are hypocrites, but there are conservative assholes who are just as bad in that respect. I am just a liberal, but a liberal who "gets" the importance of free-market capitalism, and how it can only work when it is justly (and timely) applied. Instead of "defending" our one-trick economy by plundering oil (or, to be fair to our strategy, changing foreign govts so that we can more effectively negotiate for our oil prices....the same way an armed assaulter negotiates with a cashier), we should have elected a "real" conservative leadership that would hold free-market capitalism a little higher in theri ideals (up there near our national reputation). We should have let petroleum be priced out our reach, and then let our innovative people find new ways of sating those energy and plastic needs. We've been wholly short-sighted in all of this.

lovethebomb:

...You want to broadbrush the entire population of the country as responsible for the war because we buy things that use petroleum? That is absurd. Until there is an accountability made by those who forced this catastrophic mass murder, then whitewash arguments such as this one do more to sanitize and excuse the horror and injustice of this war than any hollywoodized mini-series.

I am not claiming to know better than you do but I do have the belief that if America had continued to develop an effective energy policy with a robust effort to continue the pursuit of alternative energy sources as was begun under President Carter that we may well have averted the need for recent history's oil related conflicts. Energy policy is a complex subject and there may have been good reasons why we took the approach that we did.

It is also quite possible that had oil not be key to determining the loci of recent conflicts that ideology or something else would have been substituted and equivalent levels of hostilities may have occurred elsewhere. Who knows? I would have liked to at least seen how an earlier commitment to alternative energy sources would have turned out (back in college around 1981 I signed up for an alternative energy technology tract which was cancelled due to government funding cuts).

My own life was negatively affected by serving in both wars in Iraq, that much is certain. And yes, even if you just drove to the mall, when America went to war so did every American citizen, happily or not.

wmccomninel,

I didn't like the war from the get-go, but since I haven't perfected my time-machine to go back and prevent it.....

Well, thanks for going, and glad you made it home.

"We should have let petroleum be priced out our reach, and then let our innovative people find new ways of sating those energy and plastic needs."

I think you have your wish, because that is exactly what is happening now, in spite of "defending" our one-trick economy by plundering oil". Except that when its price truly gets out of reach, half the population will be dead from starvation (need oil to grow, transport and distibute food, don'cha know?)

I agree completely that "We've been wholly short-sighted in all of this." We are over thirty years removed from what should have been our wake-up call, and now I fear it is too late. Hang on to your hats, its going to be a scary, scary ride.

This is such a fascinating issue because it makes me wonder if we really do undervalue the experience of combat in a President. If what you, and the reviewer, are saying is true, then wouldn't it be insane to ever elect a President who hadn't served, simply because he wouldn't have a realistic view of the capabilities of the military? I'm warming towards Obama lately (and incidentally hate military people who tell me that if I haven't served, I shouldn't have an opinion) but I'm starting to think that his lack of any military experience may be a bigger problem than people are willing to acknowledge.

I'd disagree with that, Jenniferwhatnot. Just because a president has no combat or military experience, doesn't mean they'll make a bad wartime president. Lincoln and FDR were arguably our two greatest wartime presidents, and neither had significant military experience.

Now I agree military experience can be an asset to a president, but it is not determinative of who will make a good one.

Most of these "apologists and green peacers" ...

...exist only in your mind.

"I think you have your wish, because that is exactly what is happening now, in spite of "defending" our one-trick economy by plundering oil". Except that when its price truly gets out of reach, half the population will be dead from starvation (need oil to grow, transport and distibute food, don'cha know?)" I think 1/2 is a lofty and unscientific number. Europe has been charging its citizens more than DOUBLE what we pay now for more than a decade. They found a way to cope - perhaps reapportioning federal funds AWAY from military and TOWARDS education, research, and crazy services like health care would be a place to start. And, from a selfish standpoint, if we were going to gain anything from this war - where are those gains now? Unless you own a no bid security firm, you aren't gaining anyhing.

KHpol; Well, you did say "out of reach", which implies that not only will I not be able to put gas in the car, I won't have a job to drive to. Out of reach means farmer Brown can't afford fertilizer(lots of natural gas inputs there), let alone diesel for his tractor, or his combine to harvest the crop he couldn't afford to plant. Or did you simply mean, keep the price high enough to cause pain/force change? Those are two different things entirely. The latter is upon us, the former is right around the corner.

In any event, hard times are upon us, google peak oil, if you don't believe it. Google food prices, look at the effects they are having right now, in some of the underdeveloped countries. We are well and truly in deep shit.

wmccomninel:

I do have the belief that if America had continued to develop an effective energy policy with a robust effort to continue the pursuit of alternative energy sources as was begun under President Carter that we may well have averted the need for recent history's oil related conflicts. Energy policy is a complex subject and there may have been good reasons why we took the approach that we did.

It is also quite possible that had oil not be key to determining the loci of recent conflicts that ideology or something else would have been substituted and equivalent levels of hostilities may have occurred elsewhere. Who knows? I would have liked to at least seen how an earlier commitment to alternative energy sources would have turned out (back in college around 1981 I signed up for an alternative energy technology tract which was cancelled due to government funding cuts).

My own life was negatively affected by serving in both wars in Iraq, that much is certain. And yes, even if you just drove to the mall, when America went to war so did every American citizen, happily or not.

I agree with most of what you wrote, esp the part about Carter. Not many Americans remember that one of the first acts of Ronnie deregulation was to order the solar panels Carter installed on the white house be ripped out. This was a good metaphor for the energy "policy" of the next 28 years.

It isn't really that complicated after all. If the congress and succeededing president had taken Carter's lead to invest in and develop alternative renewable energy, we would not be in this mess. It was obvious back then, in 1977, when I was a wee tyke that we needed to switch from fossil fuels. And I was only 14. But we know that big money always wins right? That is the American way. Our political process is merely legalized bribery. Else why would lobbyists exist? We can also rightly surmize what took place during Cheney's infamous "energy" summit w/ the major heads of the oil industry in Feb, 2001 where maps of the Iraq oil fields were handed out.

I can admit that it made sense from an inhuman heartless corporate profit driven perspective to contain the oil feilds in Iraq. It can now be acknowledged that surpression and control of the oil flow was much more important than it's eventual rape. News alert : the oil cos never wanted the price of oil to go down. That is whay my clueless right wing friends always say to me : well, if we invaded Iraq for oil, why hasn't the price of oil gone down? I hope I don't need to explain this to readers of Slate.

However, I am also a beliver in Karma, or God's justice, if you will. Nothing good will come of this murderous invasion. Even if US oil cos benefit, the American public certainly will not and our reputation and national standing has never been lower, esp since we dishonored ourselves by sanctioning torture. I miss the days of Vietnam war in the 70's when American citizens could see the bloody soliders and wounded vets crying in pain and all the dead bodies. That is the reality of war. Now we can't even see flag draped coffins. Don't worry, just as in Orwell's 1984, we will all eventually love Big Brother. He just happens to be us.

They found a way to cope - perhaps reapportioning federal funds AWAY from military and TOWARDS education, research, and crazy services like health care would be a place to start.

Yeah, and they were able to do that because WE were there to protect them. THEY didn't need to build up their military because THEY used OURS. Maybe we should have left them to the Soviets instead, like FDR and Churchill did to Eastern Europe.

They have what they have (which is going down the tubes by the way especially with a birth rate that means that they are like a dying breed; they don't have enough youth to go to work in order to keep the system going) because of the US, whether they would like to admit that or not.

So, let's cut back on the military again (didn't Clinton do that and weren't we attacked in 1993, and then in the Middle East and then the USS Cole) and see what happens. Let's make the Air Force hold bake sales and see what happens.

Yeah, sounds like a GREAT idea.

The fact is that WORLD PEACE happens when EVERYONE wants it. As long as there is a threat, no matter how small you think it is (and it's probably bigger than you think), there needs to remain a force to counter that threat. And it needs to be significant enough to make the other guy think twice before acting.

But make no mistake - I agree with all of you that we had our chance to rid ourselves of the dependency on foreign oil and try new things. But talk to the environmentalists who didn't want more refineries, who don't want us to drill, who complain even about wind farms (*cough* Kennedy *cough*), who won't consider nuclear energy (the French do it, for God's sake!).

I'm happy to discuss all kinds of alternative energy and weigh the pros and cons, including not being dependent on foreign oil from thugs who want our civilization destroyed, but not with absurd people with absurd ideas that really involve the Western World living like the Third World and having to smile about it.

We can't go BACK and make wishful thinking comments. We need leadership that's going to move us FORWARD. I don't think either candidate has given me the confidence that they will do that. It sounds like the same old drivel to me.

******************************­**

As to the miniseries being discussed, I haven't watched it (and probably won't), but I agree that no film could really capture the reality of it. My husband is about to serve his second tour (in a Civil Affairs unit). No one knows but him and others who have been there. And yes, he did say that he wondered how we ever won a war and that it must have been because the other guys sucked worse than we did. And he may just have it right.