Why doesn't the war on terror exist?

In the recent L.A. Times editorial, "Is Hollywood too timid for the war on terror?" Andrew Klaven chastises Hollywood for not examining the War on Terror. “Because the war on terror is the history of our time,” Klaven writes, “The outcome of our battle against the demographic, political and military upsurge of a hateful theology and its oppressive political vision will determine the fate of freedom in this century.” Yet, even though he labels this war as “our” history and, in doing so, deflects away from the partisan interests that developed this war since the 2002 mid-terms, Klaven believes it is Hollywood’s fault. Television attempts to tackle the War, but movies do not because movie makers want us to beleive that if we ignore it, it will go away. The movie industry is the perfect fit to tell the ultimate good versus evil tale so why doesn't it?

That kind of rousing story seems tailor-made for films. So why aren't they telling it? It's not just about left and right, blue and red; it really isn't. You don't have to like President Bush or support our efforts in Iraq to understand the threat of conspirators plotting to kill your children in the name of jihad.

In all fairness, moviemakers have a legitimately baffling problem with the nature of the war itself. In order to honestly dramatize the simple truth about this existential struggle, you have to depict right-minded Americans — some of whom may be white and male and Christian — hunting down and killing dark-skinned villains of a false and wicked creed. That's what's happening, on a good day anyway, so that's what you'd have to show.

Moviemakers are reluctant to do that because, even though it's the truth, on screen it might appear bigoted and jingoistic. You can call that political correctness or multiculturalism gone mad — and sure, there's a lot of that going around. But despite what you might have heard, there are sensible, patriotic people in the movie business too. And even they, I suspect, falter before the prospect of presenting such a scenario.

We cherish the religious tolerance of our society, after all. Plus, we're less than a lifetime away from Jim Crow and, decent people that we are, we're rightly humbled by the moral failures of our past. We've become uncomfortable to the point of paralysis when reality draws the limits of tolerance and survival demands pride in our traditions and ferocity in their defense. We can show homegrown terrorists in, say, "Déjà Vu" or real-life ones, as in "United 93," but we can't bring ourselves to fictionalize the larger idea: Islamo-fascism is an evil and American liberty a good

I think that the writer wants Hollywood to revert back to the WWII era, where the government and the movie industry produced propaganda to unite the American public. Further, he asserts that its Hoolywood’s desire for political correctness that diminishes this objective. However, I have a better idea: let’s have a non-partisan attempt to define the War on Terror.

In the recent SOTU Address, President Bush finally discussed the differences between Sunni and Shia, though it seems from the address both groups are our enemies and our allies. Politicians have not been able to fully define this war without being partisan. Yet, the writer asks Hollywood to engage the complexities of the War on Terror in a two-hour film without discussing American involvement or American-morality.

This article pushes the burden of proof from our political leaders and citizens to the movie industry. While it may not be bad to develop such movies and these movies may help the general public, this article covers uneasy ground into the area of propaganda and asks little of the elected officials and the citizens of this country to engage in an active debate over the topics. Instead, and much worse, it asks the general public to be apssive consumers and ot be patriotic while supporting these movies. Further, it asks nothing of our politicians.