'Red Dawn' depicts universal struggle of those fighting foreign occupiers

As I channel surfed the other night, I found myself watching a movie that reminded me of our nation’s war in Iraq and the story of those rebelling against foreign occupiers everywhere.

The movie was “Red Dawn” and its cast, headed up by Patrick Swayze, was much better than the violent and grossly pro-U.S. film deserved.

The movie’s somewhat compelling plot involved a Soviet-led invasion of the U.S. It told the story of a small band of young Americans waging war against the Russian and Cuban forces occupying their rural Midwest town.

As I watched the movie, I was reminded of the war in Iraq because to some Iraqis, we are the foreign occupier not unlike the communist forces in “Red Dawn.”

In fact, I think that someone could get the script to “Red Dawn” and easily rewrite it to fit the current war in Iraq. The young people who decide to fight the foreign forces in “Red Dawn” could easily be cast as Iraqis fighting us.

Change the names and faces and “Red Dawn” could be made to tell the story from the insurgents’ point of view.

The script would have to be altered a little to reflect that U.S. forces do not typically execute civilians as payback for insurgent attacks, as the Russian forces do in “Red Dawn.”

But there have been enough war crimes committed by U.S. soldiers in Iraq, from Abu Ghraib to Haditha, to make some degree of cruelty on the part of U.S. troops accurate.

Watching how the young Americans in “Red Dawn” go from hiding out in the mountains, hoping to avoid contact with the enemy, to engaging in a guerilla war against the occupiers, made me think of how many Iraqis have likely taken the same path against our forces.

The point is that whether you see someone as an “insurgent” or “freedom fighter” is largely determined by your perspective.

I have not been surprised that our invasion of Iraq has resulted in an insurgency aimed at ousting us from the country. Ever since we invaded Iraq, I imagined how Americans would react if we found our country occupied by Muslim forces.

Imagine how Pocatellans would react if the U.S. were suddenly under the control of a foreign, Islamic army. It wouldn’t take long for some locals to start thinking about rising up against the Muslim forces.

Imagine if it came out that these Muslim soldiers had abused some Pocatellans being held at the local prison? Imagine if it came out that some Muslim soldiers raped a Pocatellan girl and then murdered her and her entire family? Imagine what would happen if dozens of Pocatellans were intentionally mowed down by Muslim soldiers?

Such actions, which our U.S. forces have been accused of in Iraq, would make someone decide to bear arms against a foreign military power occupying their nation.

In “Red Dawn,” the young Americans saw how the occupying Soviets and Cubans were taking fellow townsfolk prisoner and torturing them. Some Americans had been killed in the process.

When faced with the horrors caused by these foreign occupiers, the young Americans in “Red Dawn” realize they must battle back—for the sake of their loved ones and country.

The same thoughts and motivations are present in many of the insurgents in Iraq.

To us these people are rebels who are keeping Iraq from being a democracy. Myself and other Americans view them as the problem in Iraq, while U.S. forces are the solution.

But I think it’s important for us to realize that to many Iraqis, these insurgents are like modern-day versions of the American colonists fighting for their freedom against the occupying British.

I interviewed Idaho State University professor Sean Anderson a few weeks back about a story I was working on regarding the rift between Iran and the U.S.

One thing Anderson, a Middle East expert, told me is that any military action against Iran would cause a swell of nationalism in that country. In response to a U.S. or Israeli attack to eliminate Iran’s nuclear weapons capabilities, for example, Iran’s Islamic fundamentalists — who run the country and despise the U.S. — would find themselves with more support from the Iranian population than ever before. Iran’s growing number of moderates would find their influence immensely diminished as their country rallied against a common threat.

When any country is attacked by a foreign power, it typically does cause people in that country to rally around their leaders.

Remember how nearly every American gave President Bush their total support after 9-11? We had been attacked and reacted by giving Bush a mandate to avenge the wrong that had been inflicted on our nation.

Saddam Hussein was such an evil person that when we took control of Iraq, most Iraqis were overjoyed. We told them our plan was to eventually turn things over to them.

But as the days of our occupation turned into months and the months years, we began to run the risk of casting ourselves as foreign occupiers of Iraq and not the liberators.

Slowly, many Iraqis have grown to see us as the enemy.

Looking back on how we’ve handled the war, I think President Bush’s big mistake was not having a post-war plan that scripted U.S. forces as very temporary residents of Iraq.

Hindsight’s always 20-20, but if Bush had told the Iraqis from day one of our occupation that we would be gone in one year or two years, the insurgency would have had a tougher time taking hold.

Another Bush mistake was his disbanding of the Iraqi military and government and starting from scratch on both.

Bush, I believe, was afraid that those in the former Iraqi military and government were loyal to Saddam. But in Saddam’s Iraq, showing anything less than loyalty to the dictator could result in your torture and/or execution. Writing off the former Iraqi government and military meant that the rebuilding of the nation would be totally up to the U.S. military, which could have used some help.

The former Iraqi military and government was salvageable and by not realizing this, Bush set back the peace clock in Iraq by years and possibly decades and he made it easy for the insurgency to gain a foothold.

By putting our soldiers in the position of being something more than warriors trying to obtain military objectives, Bush has also set up our military for failure.

The rules of engagement in Iraq tie the hands of our military much like they did in the Vietnam War.

Soldiers operate best in conflicts where the enemy is easy to identify and can be attacked without limits.

Soldiers fight best when they’re allowed to fight. They fight worst when they’re asked to operate like police or social workers and are bogged down with rules about when they can and cannot pull the trigger.

The enemy in Iraq has no such rules.

By keeping our forces in Iraq for so long, Bush has put U.S. troops in a complicated situation that forces them to wage a limited war.

We lost in Vietnam because of the same thing — our soldiers were asked to fight with one hand tied behind their backs.

“Red Dawn” could also be rewritten to reflect that conflict because the plight of the freedom fighter is timeless and can be universally adapted to different times, places and combatants, from the French resistant battling against the Nazis to the Vietcong fighting us.

For all my talk about “Red Dawn,” it’s actually not the greatest movie. The film’s full of violence—mainly the young Americans killing the foreign troops.

But if you have a chance, pick up a copy of the movie at the video store and think about its theme.

You’ll be surprised at “Red Dawn’s” cast of well-known actors, including Swayze, Charlie Sheen, Lea Thompson, Jennifer Grey, C. Thomas Howell and Powers Boothe.

The film caters to the patriot in all of us and its anti-communist theme is reminiscent of America in the 1950s.

But in watching it, you might realize how even the U.S. could be seen as a hated enemy in the eyes of an occupied nation.