Iraq's Red Dawn
The chief antagonist, a Cuban officer, is disgusted with himself and the invasion by the conclusion of the film. In one dramatic scene, he has Patrick Swayze and his brother Charlie Sheen dead bang in the sights of his AK-47. Rather than gun them down, the officer lets them go, drops his weapon, and rubs his hands as if they have been dirtied by all the spilled blood.
I was young enough that this movie had a pretty profound effect on me. In short, it scared the hell out of me and got me all jacked up at the idea of defending my country against an invasion by commie Huns. This film came out, of course, during the Reagan administration, a time of heavy tension, a time when Ron himself told me that my generation would be the one to face the apocalypse.
Now, of course, I am old enough to see the thing for what it was. But I am casting it now in a new context that throws the whole premise into a cocked hat. These Soviet/Cuban commie invaders kept the lights on, kept the stores open, and saw themselves bringing 'freedom' to a nation held in thrall by capitalist oppressors. Why, then, did those kids fight?
In other words, this film glorifies armed resistance by patriotic fighters bent on repelling invaders. Yet in Iraq today, the kids playing the role of the resistance are vilified as terrorists and thugs. Are they not doing what those all-American kids did, to great applause, in 'Red Dawn'? We're the 'liberators' this time around, trying to get the lights on, trying to hold some sort of election. Why do they fight us?
They fight, I think, because home is home, and because invading armies are never, ever welcome. All the neo-cons in the Bush administration who thought this wwas going to be a 'cakewalk' should have probably watched 'Red Dawn' before undertaking this farce.
Caption: Iraqi children throw rocks at a U.S. Army armoured vehicle in the Shi'ite neighbourhood of Sadr City in Baghdad January 16, 2005. (Reuters)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------