No Country for Young Men.

[Review, take 2.] Every day I think I’m going to wake up back in the desert… I must say, I went in expecting not much more than an over-the-top “message movie” schmaltzfest, or at best a harmless helping of mediocre, inert Oscar Bait like Cinderella Man or A Beautiful Mind. But Paul Haggis’ In the Valley of Elah, the first of four(!) movies I caught last Saturday, turned out to be quite a bit better than I expected. Rather, Elah is a melancholy rumination on the hidden casualties of (any) war and a somber inquiry into the heavy toll exacted on the wives, parents, and children of military men. (The families of military women will likely get their due in John Cusack’s forthcoming Grace is Gone.) The David and Goliath nonsequitur of its title notwithstanding, Elah more often brings to mind the questionable sacrifice for an unknown higher purpose in Abraham and Isaac, or the bloody fate of erstwhile brothers Cain and Abel. And, biblical parallels aside, the film showcases the best work Tommy Lee Jones has done in years. (Well, I didn’t see The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada, and have high hopes for No Country for Old Men.) And it’s probably the most engaging police procedural of the year this side of Zodiac.

“Dad?” Roused from a dream he can barely grasp the edges of, grizzled Vietnam Vet turned mechanic Hank Greenfield (Jones) is awoken one Tennessee morning by a call from faraway Fort Rudd, informing him not only that his son Mike is back from Iraq but has gone AWOL since getting back stateside. This doesn’t gibe with Hank, who’s been receiving image-laden e-mails from his second son during his tour (his first son already perished in his nation’s service), and so he packs his bags, kisses his wife (Susan Sarandon) goodbye, and drives straight through to New Mexico, looking to ascertain the score.

The sergeant on duty at Ft. Rudd (James Franco) and Mike’s returning platoon members all think he’s just shacked up with a good time woman somewhere…but Hank’s not so certain. And, just as he’s beginning to tease clues off Mike’s damaged cameraphone, a charred, mutilated, and dismembered body is discovered on the outskirts of town. Sure enough, it’s Mike, and as the ensuing homicide investigation slips into the jursidictional crack between local law enforcement (most notably represented by Charlize Theron) and the Military Police (headed by bureaucrat Jason Patric), Hank takes it on himself to bring his son’s murderer to justice. But, as Hank well knows, the dogs of war impart a moon-touched madness on those they’ve mauled, and Hank will be forced to confront some ugly truths about his son, and the man he became in Iraq, in order to get to the bottom of things.

Admittedly, the movie starts out kinda rocky (or perhaps I was just gunning for Haggis in the first reel.) Events occur early on that scream symbolic significance (you’ll know what I mean), people speak in characterization shorthand — “Someday, you’ll just have to trust somebody, Hank” — and some plot points just don’t hang together. How did Hank ever find that (symbolically-named) computer guru operating out of a van, and why does it take him so ever-loving long just to do a defrag? But, for whatever reason — my money’s mostly on Jones — Elah is a significantly subtler and more resonant film than I ever expected from the writer-director of the lamentable Crash. (Then again, a ball-peen hammer to the skull is subtler than Crash, a film which, as I noted in my review of Inside Man last year, feels like it was made by and for people who don’t get out very much.)

In any case, Tommy Lee Jones is really excellent here: Check out the scene where he has to ID his son’s body in the morgue, or note how his early military rectitude seeps away as he sinks into the slough of despond. And Jones isn’t alone. Sarandon is memorable in every short scene she’s in, Theron is surprisingly believable as an ordinary (albeit beautiful) cop, and Patric — a dependable actor who never quite made it as a lead — seems to relish the freedom of his oncoming, paunchy Val Kilmer/Alec Baldwin phase. His “on a need to know basis” character in particular could’ve been way over the top, but Patric underplays him as a guy who really just doesn’t want to do the paperwork. (There’s also a brief but solid turn by Josh Brolin, Jones’ Coen compadre, as the local sheriff.)

Elah isn’t the best movie of the year or anything. But it is most of everything you’d want out of a fall film — It’s timely, sober-minded, well-acted and well-made. And, if nothing else, it shows Haggis has the ability to reboot after Crash.

Ahmadinejad in the Lions’ Den.

So, you’ll never guess who came to campus today…It didn’t get much press or anything, but Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad kicked off his NY tour this morning by being eviscerated in public by Columbia’s president, Lee Bollinger. Normally, I’d say it’s poor form to hijack an invited speaker like that, but: the national temper is running angry, Ahmadinejad’s no angel by any means, and — most importantly — the questions Bollinger posed demand substantive answers. (Besides, a furor is what Ahmadinejad wanted anyway.)

All that being said, I still think it was a dumb political stunt (on both ends) to disinvite the Iranian president from visiting Ground Zero. A couple of points people seem to have forgotten lately: 1. Iran didn’t have anything to do with 9/11, and 2. Whatever’s going on on the Iraqi border, we’re not currently at war with them. Most importantly, why wouldn’t we want a man who’s trying to obtain nukes to see the lasting consequences of a large-scale atrocity firsthand? If the sight of that still-gaping wound in the heart of the city gave him pause for even a moment, the world would be better for it.

Outside the Law?

“The problem is that no one seems quite sure what law, if any, would apply to security firm contractors, and any potential applications are untested and would be vigorously challenged.” A murky incident involving Blackwater USA over the weekend, which resulted in the deaths of eight alleged Iraqi civilians, raises questions about the legality of private security firms working in Iraq (on whom the well-being of most American diplomats in the region depends.) “Should any Iraqis ever seek redress for the deaths of the civilians in a criminal court, they will be out of luck. Because of an order promulgated by the Coalition Provisional Authority, the now-defunct American occupation government, there appears to be almost no chance that the contractors involved would be, or could be, successfully prosecuted in any court in Iraq.” Needed or not, having privately-held American militias operating outside the bounds of the Iraqi legal system isn’t going to elicit much respect for the rule of law in the region.

Imperial Krongard?

“Since your testimony at the Committee’s hearing on July 26,2007, current and former
employees of the Office of Inspector General have contacted my staff with allegations that you
interfered with on-going investigations to protect the State Department and the White House
from political embarassment…The allegations made by these officials are not limited to a single unit or project within your office.” In a detailed and damning letter to the suspect, Henry Waxman’s House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform announces it is investigating attempts by the Dubya State Department’s Inspector General, one Howard J. Krongard, to shield the administration from political trouble. “One consistent element in these allegations is that you believe your foremost mission is to support the Bush Administration, especially with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan, rather than
act as an independent and objective check on waste, fraud, and abuse on behalf of U.S.
taxpayers.” Innocent until proven guilty, of course, but this sounds all too plausible, given what we’ve already seen from this bunch.

Good Luck Chuck.

“I said after I was elected in 1996 that 12 years in the Senate would probably be enough. It is…I will not seek a third term in the United States Senate, nor do I intend to be a candidate for any office in 2008.” Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) announces his retirement, which may just mean a return to the Senate for Bob Kerrey. (So, he’s not running…I guess the trial balloon popped.) In any event, I thought Hagel maddeningly buckled to party pressure more often than not when the heat was on, and I still hold his attempted poison-pill amendment to McCain-Feingold back in 2000 against him. But, he also possessed a definite maverick streak on the war and a penchant for speaking-truth-to-power every so often that’ll be sorely missed on his side of the aisle. So, farewell, Senator Hagel, and please give yourself at least a few weeks off before commencing the fundraising for 2012.

Morning in Baghdad: The Petraeus and Crocker Show.

Declaring that “the military objectives of the surge are in large measure being met” (an assertion which rests, of course, on how one jukes the stats and skews the benchmarks), Army General David Petraeus, Dubya’s most recent man in Iraq, tells Congress he’s recommending a drawdown of troop levels in Iraq to pre-surge levels — around 130,000 troops — by July of next year. [Transcript.] Not a huge surprise — As Fred Kaplan noted both a few weeks ago and in his quality preview of today’s testimony, the Army would run out of troops by April anyway, so this was a foregone conclusion. Also, obviously, not what you’d call a real withdrawal (although the WP story’s cited experts suggest it may be taken as the “beginning of the end” by interested parties in Iraq…and Iran.) So, in effect, Petraeus punted to next July.

For his part, US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker backed Petraeus’ “Things are Getting Better” remarks in his own testimony, and intimated that the surge had staved off a near-total collapse. He also warned the nation about the nature of our continuing commitment there: “‘There will be no single moment in which we can claim victory,’ and any turning point will be recognized only ‘in retrospect.’“

Juking the Stats in Iraq.

Are things getting better in Iraq? If so, it’ll be hard to prove with the statistics lately offered by the US military, which critics claim once again have been cherry-picked and “selectively ignore negative trends.” “In its December 2006 report, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group identified ‘significant underreporting of violence,’ noting that ‘a murder of an Iraqi is not necessarily counted as an attack’…Recent estimates by the media, outside groups and some government agencies have [also] called the military’s findings into question.“

In any case, it seems that, despite Dubya and Gen. Petraeus’s claims to the contrary, Iraqi security forces are nowhere close to being able to handle the load in Baghdad, according to a new report by a commission of retired military officers. “The report expresses concern about what it calls the massive U.S. military logistical ‘footprint’ in Iraq and its effect on perceptions and problems. ‘The unintended message conveyed is one of “permanence,” an occupying force, as it were,’ the report says. It recommends reconsideration of ‘efficiency, necessity…and cost’ and calls for ‘significant reductions, consolidations and realignments” of U.S. forces.’”

Blair, Eric (file under Orwell, George).

“This man has advanced Communist views, and several of his Indian friends say that they have often seen him at Communist meetings. He dresses in a bohemian fashion both at his office and in his leisure hours.” Big Brother was watching him: Ralph Luker of Cliopatria points the way to the recently-released UK Security Service files on George Orwell (as well as those on folk music archivist Alan Lomax and others.) “[W]hile his left-wing views attracted the Service’s attention, no action was taken against him. It is clear, however, that he continued to arouse suspicions, particularly with the police, that he might be a Communist. The file reveals that the Service took action to counter these views.”

The WMD Lie, exposed.

“On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam’s inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.” Did Dubya know for a fact that Iraq possessed no WMD prior to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq? With two CIA sources to back him up, Sidney Blumenthal says so. “‘The real tragedy is that they had a good source that they misused,’ said one of the former CIA officers. ‘The fact is there was nothing there, no threat. But Bush wanted to hear what he wanted to hear.‘”

The Vietnam-9/11 connection?

“There was another price to our withdrawal from Vietnam, and we can hear it in the words of the enemy we face in today’s struggle — those who came to our soil and killed thousands of citizens on September the 11th, 2001.” Every time he thinks he’s going to wake up back in the jungle…In a fit of self-serving revisionism, Dubya attempts to reinvent the lessons of Vietnam before the Veterans of Foreign Wars, arguing that our problems really began because we withdrew from Southeast Asia too early. (Also, apparently we lost the war because of Graham Greene’s The Quiet American.

So, on the bright side, it looks like Dubya is progressing along his high-school reading list.) As you might expect, this line of argument is not sitting well with many historians, among them the venerable Robert Dallek: “What is Bush suggesting? That we didn’t fight hard enough, stay long enough? That’s nonsense. It’s a distortion,’ he continued. ‘We’ve been in Iraq longer than we fought in World War II. It’s a disaster, and this is a political attempt to lay the blame for the disaster on his opponents. But the disaster is the consequence of going in, not getting out.‘”