Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
I confess I am on the fence about DeLappe's actions. On the one hand, as a gamer I'm not surprised to hear that other players are missing the point of his protest, since many of them probably just regard the game as a free FPS and ignore the Army's propaganda. I'd be annoyed if someone logged onto a game based on a fictional conflict and started complaining about violence in gaming. But of course, DeLappe isn't talking about a fictional conflict. I'm so disgusted by the Army's creation of the game that I heartily applaud any attempt to subvert it. (I'd love to see Salon do a more in-depth study of "America's Army" itself. Shades of Ender's Game indeed.)
I love first person shooters and other video games, but I never play games based on real military conflicts. I'm happy to engage in fantasy violence against zombies, space aliens, and fictional futuristic, totalitarian regimes. When I play Half-Life 2 or Tomb Raider, I enjoy solving puzzles, making the animations do interesting things, and blowing stuff up. I confess to enjoying the catharsis of imaginary violence, especially after a stressful day. I don't think it's any different than enjoying The Sopranos or a Stephen King novel.
Yet, as I said, I can't bring myself to play any game based on a real military conflict. For example, Call of Duty is supposed to be a terrific series, but I find it to be in poor taste to spend my afternoon playing at a war that killed 50 million people in real life. Of course by my own logic, I suppose it's not any different than the hundreds of movies set during WWII, but somehow I get squeamish imagining myself killing real people in a real war.
For the sake of demographics, I am a 40 year-old woman (really!) and a university history professor. Perhaps it's my background in history that makes it so difficult for me to enjoy those particular games.
CPTMitch, I found your name to be ironic when you asked,
"Where were the people of conscience at Haditha or Abu Gharaib? Where were the people who would stand up for human dignity in the worst of circumstances?"
Perhaps you never heard of Christian Peacemaker Teams, commonly abreviated CPT. CPT's goal is to place pacifist protestors in crisis situations worldwide to witness for peace where the wars are happening. Their view is that if soldiers are willing to risk their lives for what they believe than where is the moral authority of the pacifists if they are not willing to do the same. To quote from the CPT web page, "CPT initiated a long-term presence in Iraq in October 2002, six months before the beginning of the U.S. led invasion in March of 2003. The primary focus of the team for eighteen months following the invasion was documenting and focusing attention on the issue of detainee abuses and basic legal and human rights being denied them." One focus from the beginning was the Abu Gharaib prison. They didn't just stand around and protest though. They interceded on behalf of Iraqis trying to gain access to relatives in Abu Gharaib and they documented stories of abuse long before we all heard about Abu Gharaib.
In November of 2005, four CPT members were kidnapped by Iraqi extremists. They were from several different countries with one American. On March 10, 2006 that American, Tom Fox, was found killed, apparently tortured to death. The others were released shortly after. So yes, the people of conscience were at Abu Gharaib. You're not going to hear about them on Fox News though. CPT are still in Iraq and CPT are still in many other countries where wars are taking place. Check them out, www.cpt.org.
Andy
In response to the history professor/gamer. Yes, it is annoying - that is the nature of protest. I am sure the owners of the tea dumped in Boston harbor were annoyed. I am sure the white diners at the lunch counter during the civil rights protests were annoyed. I am sure the soldiers getting daisies placed in their rifle barrels at the Pentagon during the Vietnam war protests were annoyed. While it is easy to say what I am doing just makes people angry or moreso - it is perhaps over time that real change may occur.
As for gaming - I too came to such work through an interest in fantasy oriented games, many of the same you mention in your comments. I never thought I would see the day when real contemporary conflicts would be featured as a computer game. The thought of re-enacting the Vietnam war seems wholly in bad taste. (I re-enacted the first of three presidential debates between Kerry and Bush in Battlfield Vietnam in 2004). Depicting what for all intents and purposes are the Iraq or Afghanistan conflicts in AA is rather astounding when you really think about it.
I must confess that I enjoy WWII simulation games - taking imagined vengeance against virtual Nazis fulfills some sort of retributive desire (having Jewish relatives suffer throught the war has something to do with this I am sure).
One curious aspect of AA is the odd fact that you are always playing as an American soldier while to your opponent on the other team, you appear as an unnamed combatant with the appearance of a middle eastern militia member or terrorist! You can draw your own conclusions from this! Very strange.
talk2me
Since others responded to my writing...
In regards to the posting of Kevin0211
I agree with you.
I don't believe we as a nation were asked to sacrifice enough for this war. Only our volunteers and the family and employers connected to them, where asked to make any real or material sacrifice. Many of my colleagues lost their businesses and livelihoods when called to service.
We were offered a war and a tax cut simultaneously. Please show me anywhere in history where this happened successfully. We are trying to have guns and butter.
I believe we should have a draft not because we need more soldiers, but we need our military to reflect our diversity. If there is ever an article about it, I might share more of my thoughts on that.
As an officer I can tell you 9 out of 10 of my colleagues are conservative and Republican. The research may show it to be slightly less than that, but in my experience, I am a "token lefty" in the organization (and frankly I am more a moderate, but in contrast to others I am well to the left). On many occasions I have been sitting around a table with many other officers discussing issues where I was the only one representing a left leaning or progressive point of view. The people at my level, move on to become the senior leadership that advises the civilian leadership. How diverse do you think the voices at the top are?
Kevin strikes the most key point of all when he notes it is the civilian leadership that sends the military to war. A nation needs a military that wants to fight, when you unleash the dogs of war, you want those dogs to hunt. It is those holding the leash that bear the responsibility.
In regards to bsalyers...
Sir, with respect, it is you that is naive. You note it well when you point out your lack of association with the military. Those who continute to claim that the military is an institution that asks its members to "follow orders without question" are setting up a strawman for their own purposes. In the midsts of the heat of battle, yes, it is important to act rapidly and quickly, with no time for discussion, but that is a fraction of the whole picture. Strategy and planning are an extensive process with numerous questions being asked at every level.
Not every recruit stays a recruit, of that pool, many go on to positions of leadership. If you were in the military you would know that at higher levels, the personality and individual viewpoints becomes a greater part of the picture. This is why diversity is important, so that all voices are included in the organization and filter to the top.
I suggest you are shortsighted. It takes a generation or two of development to change the leadership of an institution. You will note it was the army that integrated before society as a whole, and over time, officers who supported those changes, and were the result of those changes moved to positions of leadership. Or have you never heard of a man called Colin Powell?
You also insult the leadership of the military at all levels, all of whom once upon a time were recruits, when you express an opinion that they are somehow not speaking out for the well being of the soldiers in their commands. They might not do it in a manner you would find more acceptable, such as standing on a street corner with a sign, yelling in a crowd, or posting notes in a video game, but they are working within the system to take care of their troops, and I would note, to great effect.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
