January 16, 2004

  • I went to see LOTR III last night for the second time.  Mind you, its not that I am a fanatic or anything like that.  I mean, no swords in the closet or wizard robes hidden under the bed.  My wife hadn’t seen it yet and I, err, uh, didn’t feel right about her going alone.


     


    I usually don’t think much during a movie such as LOTR.  I just get completely engrossed in the cinematography, sounds, emotions, etc.  I come away with an overall-impression of whether I enjoyed myself or not.  This time there was a moment, however, towards the end of the movie when a connection between the art and the real popped into my brain.  A poignant difference between the story telling of not only this epic but of so many of the stories of times long ago and the way the world actually works.  Aragorn had convinced the remains of the army of men to engage in a hopeless battle against the orc army which was regrouping at the foot of Mount Doom.  The purpose of the battle was to act as a diversion to draw the enemy’s attention away from Frodo.  It was a brave and honorable commitment of these men’s lives.  The stakes were high.  If Frodo was not successful, surely the age of man was in its final days.  Without even the certainty that Frodo was still alive, Aragorn was willing to send his men into battle with death being the only possible outcome.


     


    With his small army surrounded and out numbered by hosts of orc and worse, Aragorn, stood in the lead.  He placed himself between his army and the enemy and with the simple statement of purpose, “For Frodo”, he turned and charged, never even looking back to be sure that the others would follow.  This is courage of conviction.  There is no doubt here that the words spoken by the King so emotionally were not hollow, but were filled with purpose and truth.


     


    The thought that struck me so clearly as I sat in the theater was, would we be in Iraq today if George W. had to lead the charge into battle?  Would it be such a clear necessity to oust Saddam if George had to be the platoon lead man who has to kick open the door, not knowing if he would be met with a hail of bullets or a screaming baby.


     


    At first glance, this seems like a reasonable question.  The logic here is pretty bullet proof.  It is, unfortunately, too simplistic.  It is the stuff of epic stories where the complexities of governing and leading a nation are condensed down into a single either chivalrous or evil leader.  The leaders in these battles are never killed until it is the right time in the story, which may be never.  The reality of battle is that, after all of the careful planning is set into motion, it becomes a rather random process.  Placing the leader of nation in such a crap shoot, would be the epitome of irresponsibility.  Real life requires us to be much smarter and trusting than the soldier who throws his lot in to follow his king into battle.  We must select a leader from a host of wannabees and trust that his/her convictions, integrity, and intelligence will lead us in the right direction.  Which takes more courage, leading your army into battle or sending your army into battle when you know there is no other choice (not saying this quandary applies to Bush and Iraq)?   I am not sure.


     

    Having said all that, I don’t know that my rational self will be able to suppress this persistent day-dream of  Bush and Hussein locked in a 10’x10’ cage, each with a sharp knife…winner takes all

Comments (7)

  • Well said.  I think that the knowledge that one must be physically present on the field of battle would temper the impulse of some leaders to use force vs diplomacy. While I am sure that there must be some knowledge of the fate of the fighters, I'm not sure that leaders understand the gamut of experience a soldier undergoes in war.  I don't think any of us do, unless we've been there.  Blessings.

  • I am becoming more and more convinced that one of the hallmarks of a true leader is the ability to put aside any personal sense of doubt, seize the Answer by the horns, declare it loudly, and follow it absolutely.  Despite my sympathies with your particular political leanings, I think W. may even own some of this characteristic.  But as to putting oneself in the line of fire and charging on down the field:  as you say, it's a scenario belonging more to days of yore, or perhaps merely to the simplistic fairy tale, than today's realities.  Certainly I myself am very drawn to Tolkein's world because the answers were so very, unavoidably plain; because the necessity of sacrifice for Good was so Right.  Nothing is as clear, in truth.  Not in his day, and certainly not in ours.

    And hey.  If there's any more members of your family who haven't seen it yet, please don't put yourself out or anything.  I'LL go with 'em!

  • Interesting thoughts... I was having a similar discussion about that the other day.. if Bush had to actually lead this war - would we have one? I don't think he has the character necessary to do so...

  • Bush vs Hussein?

    For wildly different reasons, I'm not a fan of either of them-- but my guess would be that Saddam would eat George alive... faster'n you can say WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

  • ps. and can't wait for DVD version of the entire LOTR series... If Return of the King doesn't win an Oscar this year -- it'll be a travesty! (I say this, all the while thinking that those Academy types will probably vote in Mystic River...)

  • I am amazed that your mind went to such places during that movie... I enjoyed the movie but had never thought about it in such terms. Your logic astounds and intrigues me. Keep up the entries!

  • Good food for thought, Bob.  I've subscribed to you (so far, the only male on my list other than my husband).  I remember how tough it was to be a newbie hoping to get regular readers.  Good luck with you site, and enjoy!

Comments are closed.

Post a Comment