 |
Iron Man 3: Blow-back, the Military-Industrial Complex, and
Drone Warfare Disinformation
Over the weekend I had the opportunity to see Iron Man 3 in
all its 3D IMAX glory and can say that I thoroughly enjoyed it. Anyone who
knows me knows that I am a huge comic book connoisseur (nerd). I have been so ever
since I cracked open that box of comics in the basement of my parents’ home. I
clearly remember reading Superman, Batman, Spider-man, and last but not least
Iron Man. In particular the stories that I enjoyed most as a youngster were
those about Iron Man and his arch nemesis Ultron. Unfortunately, Ultron has not
been featured in any of the recent Iron Man movies as he is one of the lesser
known enemies of Iron Man and the Avengers. Hopefully, someday we’ll get to see
him make an appearance in the movies. However, enough reminiscing about my eternal
inability to grow up and back to my feeble attempt at persuading you nonetheless
that I have.
Iron Man 3 at its core is about sacrifice, the sacrifice
that creates or defines heroes. Those who have been following the story of Iron
Man as told through the movie versions recognize this particular thread running
through the entire trilogy. Tony Stark is the CEO and son of the namesake of
Stark Industries, the leading arms manufacturing firm in the United States and
arguably the world of the Marvel Universe (think Lockheed Martin). After coming face to face directly with the destructive
product of his corporation’s creation (bomb shrapnel to the chest) he has a
change of heart (literally) and dons the Iron Man technology to stop domestic
and apparently foreign threats. All three of the stories tease the prospects of
the various foreign threats extant in the Marvel Universe in favor of focusing
on the white collar and political intrigue involved in arms manufacturing
technology and the wars that are perpetuated or perhaps more fittingly
sustained thereby. Whatever viewpoint you subscribe to the problem of war seems
to be somewhat of a chicken and egg problem. However, it is important for
analytical purposes to start somewhere and for all intents and purposes it
seems that the writers of the Iron Man saga chose to focus on the evils of
corporate arms manufacturing. Much of the context that supports such a story is
assumed and we’re dropped in to the heat of the action, much like our current
situation, devoid of historical understanding of the means and modes of our
modern day war landscape. Regardless, the movie has some definite themes to
discuss and we’ll now turn to a few I picked up while watching it.
Blow Back
The third Iron Man
operates on the same principle as Tony Stark proclaims from the beginning in
true semiotic fashion, “A famous man once said we all create our own demons,”
truly this movie sees its purpose as speaking rather directly (or indirectly?)
at the war on terror and in particular
the concept of “blow back.” As a counterterrorist expert explained, blow-back
is “the term of art for terrorists’ responses to government action against
them. For example, if in response to the killing of a terrorist leader in a
targeted killing, terrorists perform a suicide bombing, then that attack is
called blow-back.” Further, he explains that blow back is, “a preferred modus
operandi because it demonstrates to the three audiences described above (the
swayed, the swayables, and non-swayables) that aggressive government action is an
ineffective counterterrorism policy, and that a political response to terrorist
demands (what others might call capitulation) is the preferred course.” In a less technical sense then blow –back is simply
the natural unfolding results of the law of cause and effect. Of course this
isn’t causality in the strict sense, as individual actors joining together by
more or less conscious decisions reap the fruits of what they sow. This is
exactly what Tony Stark’s existential dilemma is in the third movie as all his
previous decisions come to a head. These decisions include: his decision to create
and implant in himself the Iron Man Technology; his decision to out himself as
Iron Man; his decision to sacrifice his life to save New York; and his decision
14 years earlier to ignore aspiring weapons and medical research possibilities.
More specifically, he ignores and humiliates Aldrich Killian and Maya Hansen
who both have promising research ideas the latter plant limb regeneration
technology and the former a weapons technology that enhances or upgrades the
genetic abilities of people in general and soldiers in particular. 14 years
later, Killian returns after being shamed by Stark and utilizes the research of
Maya to create bio-tech upgraded humans. Interestingly, this type of research
has been foreshadowed in the Iron Man stories from day one and is taken to the
next level by Killian with the concept of implantable human Nano-biotechnology.
Trans humanist researchers are well on their way to developing these very types
of technologies and see the inevitable implementation of them within the next
32 years. ( See Ray Kurzweil, the Singularity, Trans humanism). http://lifeboat.com/ex/transhumanist.technologies
I generally don't read much of what Glenn Beck writes but this article was easy to find and does cover the general issues regarding the ethical issues involved in trans humanism.http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/06/transhumanist-movement-is-coming-the-ethical-dilemma-posed-by-rapidly-advancing-technology/
In Iron Man 3 the technology manifests itself in its
invariably destructive propensities through the archetype of returning “war on terror” soldiers. These soldiers are volunteers as they have lost
limbs in the theater of war but something with either the soldiers themselves
or the technology is flawed and causes several of the soldiers to spontaneous
combust, causing massive domestic damage, a la suicide bomber. This is rather
interesting because many of the latest domestic terror threats have been
committed by the veterans of the war on terror. Underlying that particular
issue is an obvious reference to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and other
psychological disorders resulting from the realities and horrors of war. Many of
the most recent domestic terror threat individuals had also been under
psychological evaluation and were subscribed Selective Serotonin Reuptake
Inhibitors (“SSRI’s”) prior to their actions. While these medicines are fairly
common for treatment of depression, anxiety, and personality disorders, they
are coming under increasing scrutiny for their numerous dangerous side-effects
including hallucinations, mania, and suicidal ideation. It is interesting that
Iron Man 3 chose the specific archetypes of returning soldiers for not only
medical and biological weapons research, but that those same individuals are
the actors carrying out the domestic terror threat in the movie. Further,
evidence of the allusion to these same problems is in the struggle of Tony
Stark with anxiety from all the traumatic events of his past coming back to
haunt him. The idea is that war has its costs and is a form of blow-back in
both regards.
The Military Industrial Complex
The rest of the story focuses on a phony figurehead of an at
first appearance legitimate foreign terror threat, the Mandarin as played by
Ben Kingsley.
In the fictional Marvel Universe the Mandarin appears as a stand
in for Osama Bin Laden, the terrorist par excellence. The only problem is, as
Tony later finds out, that the Mandarin is actually an actor paid by Killian to
drum up the war on terror and create “supply and demand” for the his arms
manufacturing. This is and has always been the essence of the Military
Industrial Complex that many former Presidents warned about. J. Reuben Clark, a former BYU Law Professor
and Elder in the LDS Church warned about the Military Industrial Complex and
its seemingly limitless financial backing and interest in creating and
sustaining warfare for profit. At one point he stated that the whole government
had been subverted and was under the direct control of the Military Industrial
Complex.
Iron Man 3 glosses over these more interesting story aspects within
its realm on the basis of Tony Starks (Robert Downey Jrs) seeming American
charm, wit, sarcasm, and ultimately heroic character. In the first Iron Man,
Stark upon having a change of heart after seeing the destructive propensity of
his corporate cash cow first hand, denounces war, and loses his government
contracts. In the second movie he comes before a Congressional Investigation Committee
demanding he turn over the Iron Man technology in the name of National Defense.
After making a mockery of the state of weapons technology in his absence and
once again turning down the government’s demands he sarcastically proclaims, “I
have singlehandedly privatized world peace,” drops the mic and is out. While in
the context of the story this particular scene is awesome and plays to the strengths
of the comic book worldview, Tony Stark’s character, and Robert Downey Jrs
acting, it ultimately glosses over the reality that there is no real Tony Stark
in the world we inhabit. In the real world the United States in 2011, spent
$711 billion dollars on its defense budget. The total of all the worlds’
governments reached $1.29 trillion dollars or 74% of total world expenditures, according
to Wikipedia. Further the United States
has been the world’s leading arms exporter for the last decade if not
longer. All of the most prominent
weapons manufacturing corporations are located in the United States but nowhere
do we hear of a character such as Tony Stark, who has effectively privatized
world peace. In the real world the
private arms manufacturing corporation’s biggest clients has been and will
always be governments as is evidenced by the statistics aforementioned. Further there is no Iron Man Technology, a
technology that only one man with fairly sound judgment possesses (though Tony
sometimes seeks revenge). The major weapons of mass destruction that could be
remotely considered similar to the power of the Iron Man technology are
possessed by nearly every major world power with minor powers well on their way
to obtaining. While there are no real allusions to nuclear warfare in the
movies the stabilizing effect of the Iron Man technology on the world is
apparent. Ultimately, however Tony is forced to give up the technology to a
trusted military confidante in Colonel James Rhodes played by Terrance Howard (Iron
Man) and Don Cheadle (Iron Man 2, 3). The use of the Iron Man Technology by
both individuals further blurs the lines of reality on the issue that is
secretly (not really?) at the heart of Iron Man 3-drone warfare.
Drone Warfare
The concept of drone warfare has increasingly become an
issue of concern in the theater of foreign war, domestic security, privacy and
constitutional law. I remember discussing the issue back in 2011 in my
International Criminal Law class as part of the emerging counter terrorism
paradigm under the Patriot Act. The discussions ultimately came down to the
inevitable increased use of drone warfare and strategic targeted killings. Targeted
killings are justified by governments on the basis that “the target is an
illegal combatant who is suspected of either of having participated in terror
attacks or ordered them to be carried out.” It is further premised on the basis
that arresting the target presents an “extraordinary operational risk.” The
concept of targeted killings therefore is at least in some sense theoretically
distinct from assassination (though a political head could potentially be a
target) and extra-judicial killing (summary execution when arrest is possible
or on the basis of political or other disagreement) though the three could
definitely coincide. One of the major criticisms of the current targeted
killing paradigm is that there is no oversight to ensure that the targets are
legitimate threats and even more fundamentally how those determinations are even
made as well as the obvious due process issues. Additionally, as mentioned
above the problem of blow-back has increasingly become a major theme as made
popular by series like 24, Homeland, and numerous other movies.
In Iron Man 3 (and really the whole series) the theoretical
principles and decision making parties are present in regard to the issue of
drone warfare. But in Iron Man 3 the full realization of the possibilities of
drone warfare come to full fruition. Right at the beginning of the movie Tony’s
former drive Happy, played by the hilariously awesome Jon Favreau (the original
director of Iron Man) becomes the head of Stark Industries under new CEO Pepper
Potts (Starks girlfriend played by Gwyneth Paltrow). In a conversation about security
threats he states, “the human element of human resources is our greatest point
of vulnerability . . . we should start phasing it out immediately.” Ridiculously prophetic in the next instance we
find that one of those genetically enhanced soldiers has breached security and
is the embodiment of the end game ideal of the trans humanist, complete melding
of the human and the robotic, which in the actual climax of the film is the
point, with Pepper Potts being infused with the new genetic formula that
creates a super human who ultimately saves Tony and by extension makes his Iron
Man suit irrelevant.
From the government
perspective, having now obtained the Iron Man Technology in the form of Colonel
James Rhodes’ War Machine-rebranded as “Iron Patriot”-shows the ideal vision of
drone warfare and in specific targeted killing. Iron Patriot like Iron Man is
an idealist, a hero, and a cool character, but the difference between himself and
Tony, like most soldiers, is that obedience to the chain of command is
paramount. In this case the government gets the best of both worlds in the
sense that Rhodey is portrayed as a man of character, honor, and
discernment. He’s Captain America for
the twenty second century and has the armor design to prove it.
One thing here
that strikes me about Rhodey from the comics as well as the movie iteration is
that he is the type that would disobey a direct order if it violated his
conscience and in putting forth this personification, the movie is smart (or
rather predictable?). The hard questions then get glossed over on the basis of
the characters positive traits as with Tony Stark. Iron Patriot is in this
version of the story the perfect drone weapon, one that has the moral judgments
of a human mixed with the technological firepower and precision of a machine.
In one scene he bursts through the door of home in Pakistan where intelligence
regarding the location of the Mandarin has led him. It happens to be nothing
more than a normal home where several Pakistani men are gathered. A little
later he bursts through the door of a sweatshop where Pakistani women are
making “cheap software.” He derides military intelligence, “Unless the Mandarin’s
next attack on the U.S. involves cheaply made software, I think you messed up
again.” As he’s leaving he says to the women, “You’re free. If you weren’t
before, Iron Patriot on the job. You’re welcome.” The interesting thing about this is that
Pakistan is generally recognized as one of our allies in the war on terror
though contradicting stories arose out of the Bin Laden raid. More importantly
though, Pakistan is a hot bed of terrorist activity and U.S. Intelligence
operations since 1965 and has been one of the major theaters of experiment with
drone warfare. I suppose it is fitting that this is the country that the
writers chose to portray (though I was thinking it would be Libya). Whatever
the case, the issue of national sovereignty is glossed over and the theme of “democracy”
for all is perpetuated in this brief scene.
During the climax of the film and really at almost every
pivotal action sequence we come to find out that Tony Stark is not actually
inside the Iron Man suit but is off-site remotely controlling the suit or
suits. Some of the more hilarious sequences involve Tony experimenting with the
remote controlled drone technology which again glosses over the reality of this
type of technology and its implementation today.
Tony explains to Rhodey during
the final fight that he can’t wear one of the many suits Tony remotely calls
because “they’re only coded to me.” This particular sequence reminded me of the
GPS sonar cellphone tracking technology from the movie the Dark Knight. The parallels
between Bruce Wayne and Tony Stark are superficially striking and puzzled me
over the weekend at their popularity with the masses. Anyone who knows me knows
that I am the world’s biggest Superman fan. That doesn’t mean that I don’t
appreciate other superheroes but I just find that Batman and Iron Man are
rather uninteresting contrary to popular belief. Superman has always
represented the truly fantastical, the truly ideal, and the embodiment of true
heroism as the first and greatest superhero, which is the point of comics.
Batman and Iron Man are at best pragmatists and at worst nihilists in the final
analysis. Regardless, the question that puzzled me over the weekend is why
people are so attached to these two characters. Often the response is that they
are “realistic” and “relatable.” I personally, am not the inheritor of billions
of dollars, a weapons manufacturing corporation, or had my parents murdered in
front of me. Further, I personally experience my life as meaningful,
purposeful, and hopeful, not as dark, broody, or gritty. Further, the two most
striking parallels about these men and the strange contradiction that their
popularity is with the masses surrounds their inherited wealth, affluence, and
influence. I guess people love rich white men of inherited money interests who establish
and perpetuate monopolistic corporations. It seems that today there is general shift
away from that type of admiration, like for example Mitt Romney or Wall Street
in general. Let no one think me a
Republican or a Democrat, as I like to not think of myself as an ideologue, but
I find that parallel rather interesting given the shift in the political
landscape to those who are represented as being men of the people (once again I’m
not saying he is). In the comic book world Superman, while arguably a god, is
definitely a man of the people, a blue collar newspaper man devoted to sticking
up for the little guy and exposing corporate and criminal corruption, but that’s
not “relatable,” . . . whatever. Anyway, in the Dark Knight Bruce Wayne
secretly developed technology that allowed him to map the entire city through
cell-phones and pinpoint the location of anyone. He used it in the climax of the
film on the basis that it was necessary to find the domestic terrorist the
Joker. The movie did a decent job of asking some of the hard questions, unlike,
Iron Man 3 in the form of Lucius Fox’s hesitance to use such a machine. He
wisely said, “that’s too much power for one man to have.” The privacy
implications are astounding, and yet this is actually relatively close to the situation
we now live in. Almost every cellphone has gps tracking, checking in, saved
cloud data, and individual profile building propensities. The private
corporations that use this information for advertising maintain fairly strict
parameters of privacy for its patrons, but it is relatively easy for government
officials (and perhaps private individuals) to obtain these profiles through the
use of warrants, national security letters, and through outright violations. In
the Dark Knight as well as Iron Man 3 these two real issues are front and
center and are ultimately resolved without much if any discussion as to their
legality, necessity, or morality. In both instances we’re only let into the
inner workings of the richest men and corporations in the world because we’re
sitting in the theater watching them decide what’s best for us. Otherwise there
is no one there monitoring either of these characters and we’re ultimately
supposed to trust them on the conclusory illogic that the ends justify the
means. Both characters put fail-safes in their creations and ultimately destroy
their weapons as we are led to believe a true hero would do. In the end then we
are left with the notion that these controversial issues are not only in the
hands of individuals and governments that use them benevolently and can be
trusted conclusively but that they are actually necessary because of “bad guys,”
even if we aren’t sure who the ultimate bad guy is. Overall, I enjoyed the
movie but not as much as some of the other more recent superhero movies because
of the blatant politicizing of the aforementioned issues. It was a lot of fun,
a lot of explosions, cool extremis Iron Man armor, and great character representations
by all involved.
Ben Kinsley’s turn as the Mandarin was priceless in its
embracing of conspiracy theories of a controlled opposition. The reveal at
least according to those theories is however really not all that far off. It
would be fair to say that the themes running through the movie will continue to
become more relevant given our current state of affairs and the conditioning
affect that major movies have on the general populace.
