Mavericks: U.S. Drafting New “Top Guns”?
“We’re in a very critical period now and it’s important not to give the Iranians the impression that war is inevitable.” – Geneive Abdo, Arabia Foundation
As a young girl, I enjoyed spending summers at the beaches of Manhattan and Hermosa in sunny Southern California. I’d lie if I said it was only to swim or watch the waves. Nope, I enjoyed watching the sun rise with the surfers and volleyball players. So it’s no surprise that after watching Rick Rossovich, who played the role of “Slider” in the film “Top Gun”, I was front and center at the beaches watching the boys play.
I wonder how many young men and women could have imagined that four years after the 1986 film “Top Gun”, they would be called to report for duty in the Gulf War. The war was short, but returned with a vengeance lasting almost nine years in the War with Iraq in 2003.
The new film, “Top Gun: Maverick”, is set to be released in 2020. Why now? Perhaps, to inspire young men and women to serve. It appears that not only is there a shortage of young people wanting to serve their country, but there is “no strategic plan of action” to obtain “highly qualified candidates” as argued last week at an Intelligence Community Diversity & Inclusion hearing.
Members and panelists wrongly attribute the lack of candidates to their non-inclusion. They ignore or fail to accept the possibility that a considerable number of the generation they’re targeting has no interest or whose experience/skills do not meet their standards of “highly qualified candidates.”
The situation creates a problem for an administration that appears to be propelling the country into war, provoking if not antagonizing North Korea and Iran. This brings me to the February hearing on the topic of Mandatory Service. Purpose?
“In 2017, Congress created NCMNPS to review the selective service system and whether women should be required to register as all 18-25 year old males are required to do so. They also are charged with suggesting ways to create a universal expectation of national military, national or public service.”
Reportedly, once mandatory service is approved, an integrated system would pull data from those having applied for school loans and DMV applications prompting registration requirement notifications. The commission is set to make their recommendation to Congress by years’ end 2019.
The overarching criticism from the public was that if the recommendation was to enforce mandatory service, then the website “inspire2serve” should be changed to read “force2serve.” From a geopolitical perspective, it was also pointed out that it is unfair to draw comparisons between the U.S. and Israel. Such remarks are unparalleled. Unlike the U.S., Israel’s defense policies are governed primarily by a State not located in a militarily favorable geographic position.
After listening to the hearing, I wondered how the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) was going to handle the public’s pushback. Then, I recalled listening to a discussion on C-SPAN over a decade ago on the subject of television and demographics. The speaker noted how soap operas had influenced the public (primarily women) decreasing a country’s overpopulation in South America.
Researchers found that portraying small families in soap opera puts out subliminal messages to women viewers (small families=attractive parents, nicer home, clothing, cars, and less stress). After some decades, the studies showed a correlation between one or two children in soap operas and the families of the public at large.
The power of communication via radio, television and print ads can be found going back to the early 20th century in the U.S. and in Nazi Germany. In 1933, Joseph Goebbels advised, “Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.” Actually, it makes sense why the DOD would use film as propaganda. But the U.S. and Germany are not alone in this practice. According to Randall G. Schriver, Assistant Defense Secretary for Indo-Pacific Security Affairs, China is doing the same.
Washington D.C. and Hollywood Connection
Last month, at the Hudson Institute, a Washington D.C. think tank, Schriver responded to questions on “European Union Relations with U.S. and China”, acknowledging that “Assistant Secretary of Defense was in Los Angeles last week meeting with producers, directors, writers, and people from the entertainment industry. Why in the world would I show up at something like that?” Mr. Schriver’s presence in venues of communication comes as no surprise.
However, it was his reply that surprised me. “Because for China, the information space is part of the sort of comprehensive competitive space for them and they are using the information space for perception management, influence, operations…direct investment and production was affecting script content…” To be clear, China leveraging communications is nothing new. What is surprising is the hypocritical stance some take ignoring that Hollywood has been doing the same.
For example, viewing some of Hollywood’s World War II films, one comes away thinking that the U.S. singlehandedly won the war against the Germans arriving first on the scene and joined later by the Soviets. Somehow, I do not think Mr. Schriver shares this narrative. Given his background, I give him more credit.
According to propublica.org, via Department of Defense, Schriver served as an active duty Navy Intelligence Officer from 1989 to 1991. Though this may have been Mr. Schriver’s first visit to Hollywood, he may be familiar with the film “Top Gun.”
Iraq: “Between a Rock and a Hard Place”?
“The Iraqi government has just emerged from a brutal fight against a terrorist organization.” – Abbas Kadhim, Atlantic Council
Thirteen years have transpired between the U.S. Gulf War in Iraq and invading Iraq in 2003. It would appear that Iraqi land is no stranger to U.S. “boots on the ground”, so much so that it may not recognize those of Iraqi soldiers. Is it any wonder that Iraq does not want to be caught in the middle between Iran and the U.S.
As Kadhim points out, “Iraq does not want to choose sides…Iraq cannot afford losing the cooperation and work with Iran on trade, on energy…and Iraq also cannot afford going against the U.S. because the relation between Iraq and the U.S. is very unique and very important for Iraq.” Unique and important seems to increasingly define most of the countries in the Middle East and their relation to the U.S.
Rising tensions and wars due to clashing ideologies, economies and geopolitical decisions do not permit me to accept that Congress created the Commission on Mandatory Service simply in response to China’s actions. Moreover, China may likely be a pretext when in actuality it is the return to war with the Middle East that awaits, a war positioned to include Iraq and Iran. What’s the basis for my argument? A history of leaders easily espousing threatening words only to have the “hardliners” put them into action.
On May 28, 2019, the Hudson Institute discussed “Iran and the Middle East.”I found the moderator, Michael Pregent, and panelists Geneive Abdo, Abbas Kadhim, and Omar Al-Nidawi well informed on the subject. Having first-hand experience on Iraq, “Pregent is a former intelligence officer with 28 years experience working security, terrorism…served in Desert Shield and Desert Storm.”
The U.S. has been known to favor regime change, but is Iran the one who patiently awaits a new administration? According to Pregent, “I think they’re trying to wait out the Trump Administration. They believe there will be a change in the administration in 2020…I believe Iran can survive the next 18 months.” Since President Trump “pulled out” of the deal with Iran, Iranian government has been steadfast amidst the country’s economic challenges.
End game?
According to Abdo, “We’re talking specifically about the Islamic Republic of Iran. They’re not going to agree to the 12 conditions. That’s why there is a stalemate.”Right, but as Al-Nidawi argues, “I think there are actors in Iraq that have historical grievances with Iran and with Iran’s proxies in Iraq…Remnants of the Ba’ath Party…and some hardliners in the Shia political establishment.” Mounting pressure from multiple stakeholders with various agendas surely adds tension to an already conflicted Congress especially as it approaches a high-stakes 2020 election.
So will the “hardliners” prevail? This may entail provocation from two of Iran’s powerful enemies: Saudi Arabia and Israel. For the U.S., Iran would need to make the first move or as Pregent argues, “We will be the counteraction to an Iranian action, not the preemptive action unless it’s the scenario of the fist being caught.” If Pregent is proven correct, then such an action will be deemed out of character for the U.S. as its war playbook speaks loudly of preemptive measures, “shoot first, and ask questions later.”
I find the timing of the Commission on Mandatory Service Policy (February); the Assistant Secretary of Defense meeting with the Entertainment Industry (March); and the upcoming film “Top Gun: Maverick” not coincidental but rather ideal for proponents of war. As Al-Nidawi noted, “people are now agitating both in the region and also lobbying here in Washington to try and push the U.S. to take action on Iran and its allies in Iraq.”
Forced to Serve Unjust Wars?
How can we mandate young men and women to sacrifice their lives for unjust wars especially when witnessing how their country has reportedly treated veterans and returning soldiers needing support? The website “inspire2serve” highlights a cascade of images of young people with the message “Strengthening American Democracy through service.” Interesting, the education system does not convey this message very well in its teaching civics in K-12.
Accordingly, “The Commission is committed about how to foster a greater ethos of military, national, and public service in the United States.” I’d like to see this same level of commitment for veterans and those who have not been able to leave the war behind. Hell has burned their soul and weakened their heart. To tear done what little strength they have, brave men and women are made to face society ill-equipped; lack of proper heath care and real support for reintegration to civilian life and the workforce.
Of course, the Commission on Mandatory Service may very well be a front to instill doubt in U.S. adversaries on the idea that the U.S. is gearing itself for war. As to the film, Top Gun: Maverick, it was due for release this July but was pushed back one year. Lack of funding is normally the case or production problems but I have not confirmed a reason. Or, was the move politically motivated? Or, did the reviews of the war film “12 Strong” play a factor in the postponement of “Top Gun: Maverick”? Jerry Bruckheimer was a producer to both films. He may have the answer.
True Mavericks
Visiting the beach today brings bittersweet memories of fun and the boys playing volleyball, who then left to serve their country. Young men I did not see again. Like the surfers risking their life to ride “the perfect wave”, I imagine they’re still fighting in the “danger zone.” But, unlike those who may be forced to serve, the men and women who chose to serve their country had more than a fighting chance.
Like the fearless surfer and competitive volleyball player who face treacherous waves and opponents, a soldier needs to have an unquestionable “fighting spirit” in them to combat the enemy. That’s what makes them a “Top Gun”, a Maverick.