In the comments, many people think that Glen, a black Puritan general, is the main theme of the film.
really interesting.
If the director is really satirizing Glen, there is probably no need to shoot so many positive aspects of Glen. Glen insisted on training, Glen tried to love the Afghan civilians, Glen tried to respect the local Afghan government (although he was a puppet), Glen respected and understood every ordinary soldier (though he could not solve the confusion).
The reason why he tried is because he never really respected the Afghan civilians and the government, otherwise he would agree with the Afghan saying from the heart, "You did a good job, I like the road you built, but after you leave, we It will get worse. The later you go, the worse we become, so please leave, please leave, please leave."
What the director has to say is precisely based on "Glen is one of the best generals". Glen is like a hound chasing shadows, the faster he runs, the less he can catch up. The US military wants to accomplish too many goals in Afghanistan, and the prerequisite for achieving these goals is to withdraw troops. This is the only thing Glen, as a general, cannot do. Glen has personal ambitions. There is nothing wrong. It is just that the way the generals solve problems is always to fight, so the female reporter stood up and reminded him that what you said is right, but sacrifice is meaningless, because you can't modify the nature of war: war of aggression .
You can support a puppet regime, but you can't really let him be independent, otherwise you will run into someone's bedroom in the middle of the night to ask the other party to agree to your military action. The other party vetoed it and the other party asked you to withdraw troops. What should you do? Glen yelled at the puppet president, "Leading your country", but he is the head of state, and he has to listen to the words of foreign generals. How to lead the country?
At the end of the film, the recall of Glen is even more ironic. What the tabloid author wants to expose is the invincible war of aggression itself, not the scandal of Glen himself, and the United States only pays attention to the latter. Replacing Glen with Bob is just the beginning of another cycle of tragedy. But in any case, the official career of generals will be affected, politicians' gloves will be slightly dusty, the US military may have sporadic casualties, the United States spends huge military expenditures, and it is the homes of the Afghans that will be destroyed in the end. In the whole play, Westerners from top to bottom, including Glen, who repeatedly emphasized the existence of Badi, have no real respect for the Afghans.
By the way, wouldn’t it be true that many comments on Glen were replaced by Japanese and puppet troops? The Japanese army has also done a lot of construction in China, and all the raids can be explained as cunning guerrillas. Isn’t it a movie that reflects the failure of the Japanese army, and it also smeared our soil? Many Japanese generals invading China were not as capable as described in anti-Japanese dramas. They are also soldiers with "ideals" and "ambitions", but they are destined to be unable to win after embarking on the path of aggression.
However, Japan may be more likely to win victory than the United States. The U.S. military has always been reluctant to be as inhuman as Showa Japan. It always has to respect the local culture and the democratically elected government (although the Americans are very broken: democracy cannot be given, the local fundamental There is no sense of democracy). In the last eight years, is it true that the sins caused by it are much less than in Japan? Japan has at least established effective administrative management in Taiwan and the Korean Peninsula (this sentence is definitely not for the massacre of indigenous people, forcible conscription of comfort women, forcible war labor, obliteration of local culture and emperor education).
View more about War Machine reviews
