I salute the Navy SEALs (and all personnel in the United States Armed Forces). They keep us safe, get the bad guys, and many make the ultimate sacrifice. They are heroes one and all. But can they act in a motion picture?

In “Act of Valor,” the rock and roll tribute to Navy SEALs who counter an array of national security threats around the world, actual SEALs star in the film. Unfortunately, there are no budding Audie Murphy’s or R. Lee Ermey’s among them. When the SEALs are in action they are entirely believable and compelling, but when authentic pathos in the form of non-fighting dialogue is required of them they come up short.

But it really matters little because the point of this movie is not to delve into the inner lives of the characters too much. “Act of Valor” is about kicking terrorist ass, and in that regard it delivers like a well-placed shot from an assault rifle. If you like guns, equipment, technology, and double taps to the head this movie has it all. We travel the world with a SEAL team which, at first, simply rescues a hostage from a terrorist camp. At the camp, however, they recover intelligence that leads to something much, much bigger, and they then race from Asia to the South Pacific to Mexico to neutralize the threat.

In this movie, there’s no shortage of sky diving, submarines, Chinook helicopters, UAVs, exotic firearms, mountains, deserts, and so much more. At times I thought I was watching the kind of military recruitment advertisement that one sees on NFL Sundays. There’s no question that films like this have the cooperation of the Department of Defense, but “Act of Valor” also capitalizes on the gaming trend, and frequently the audience’s point of view is similar to what one would see in a video game such as “Call of Duty.”

I’m guessing the reason for casting real SEALs was mainly to hype the film, but I think it was a mistake. I have no doubt they make the battle scenes more realistic, but I did not notice any more technical competence in this movie than I did in, say, Black Hawk Down. Indeed, “Black Hawk Down” used an array of very good, professional actors as leads, and the comparison, in that regard, to “Act of Valor” is stark.

“Black Hawk Down” also did not indulge in clichés—the wife and child who seem there solely to set up an eventual tragedy, the heirlooms passed from previous generations of soldiers, and the soldier who jumps on a grenade to save the rest of his squad. In Act of Valor, any depth the producers give to the characters feels contrived (along with the toothpick that dangles from the mouth of the team leader through the whole of the movie). And since the performances aren’t quality enough to give the quieter scenes any life, they feel that much more mannered. By comparison again, “Black Hawk Down” simply felt much more organic and original.

Nevertheless, “Act of Valor’s” production value is enough to keep you engaged throughout—the battle on the river at the terrorist training camp is masterfully filmed and will thrill any war-film junkie.

I do have one plot quibble, and please read no further if you don’t want the story spoiled. I am by no means a geopolitical expert, but I simply don’t see Mexican drug cartels, which have no ideology, wanting to aid suicide bombers hoping to gain entry into the United States. This is where the entire film leads and ends up, with the SEALs tracking down would-be suicide bombers as they attempt to cross into tunnels on the southern border with the help of the cartels. The cartels exist to make money off drugs, so why would they risk bringing down the wrath of the entire American military apparatus by helping some radical jihadist? Is there some of this activity on our southern border and in Latin America? I’m pretty sure there is, but I’m not sure it would receive major cartel support and the sacrifice of dozens of their fighters, which is what happens in the final shoot out.

“Act of Valor” is an interesting glimpse into what the Navy SEALs do around the world, and it’s probably no coincidence this movie comes just a short time after SEAL Team Six found and killed Osama Bin Laden. If you are looking for a wild, two hour ride, then this is your movie. If you’re looking for a memorable war film in the mold of “The Dirty Dozen,” “Platoon,” or “Black Hawk Down,” then you’re best off returning to base, mission not accomplished.

“A Marine Story” is an important movie in one respect: it humanizes the struggle of homosexual men and women in the United States military who want to serve but must keep their sexual preference secret. The film was released in 2010 and was a festival/indie hit. Even though the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy is now defunct, “A Marine Story” succeeds in dramatizing what so many men and women had to undergo all the years DADT was in effect.

The movie tells the story of Alexandra Everett, an accomplished and decorated Marine, who is discharged under murky circumstances. It seems she was drummed out of the military when allegations of homosexual behavior emerged. She returns to her rural hometown, where everyone believes she was honorably discharged. The town also believes she is married. Only near the end of the film do we learn her marriage is a sham, a cover so no one suspects her of being gay. Upon returning to the town, Alex is asked by a policeman friend to mentor a troubled girl, Saffron. The town has been overrun by ‘meth’ related crime, and a judge has given Saffron a choice: she can go to jail or join the military. Alex is tasked with preparing Saffron for boot camp. The training relationship storyline between Alex and Saffron competes with Alex’s struggle to remain closeted both in the present and –told in flashbacks– while in the military.

I do not believe “A Marine Story” was in theaters, but it is available on DVD. It is a movie that should be seen, but I’m not sure it succeeds artistically. It’s a message film and there’s certainly nothing wrong with that, but, as with many message films, the message can overshadow the ability to enjoy it as a work of art or entertainment. That’s why I led this review with the notion that it is “important” to see this film. It’s important to see “A Marine Story” because one gets a glimpse at the unintended consequences of DADT. But it’s as if the concept of the movie is where it ended.

The filmmakers have a difficult time with getting beyond the message to tell a truly engaging story. As such, the politics of the movies are always too close to the surface, and when the filmmakers try to veer away from politics into pure story (as when Alex tries to rescue Saffron from her meth-addled boyfriend’s drug lair or when a man Alex bests in a bar fight begins to stalk her and take clandestine photos of her with another woman) it’s hard to become truly engaged by the narrative.

“A Marine Story” could have taken a lesson from Biloxi Blues. Biloxi Blues is a comedy starring Matthew Broderick and Christopher Walken, a sentimental and humorous look back at recruit training during World War Two. It’s a two hour movie, but in one five minute segment we get all the power of the issue that it took “A Marine Story” 90 minutes to tell. One of the recruits, a kind and shy boy who always stuck up for the other guys in the platoon, is revealed to be homosexual. He’s taken away in front of the entire regiment, presumably to prison. It’s a devastating and moving moment, and it works because the character felt like a real character, not a walking rhetorical point.

In “A Marine Story,” Alex is at times a compelling character and the performance of Dreya Weber is very strong, but we never feel like we are too far away from political and social pot shots, and the movie does have some contradictory moments.

For example, Alex hoists the American flag immediately upon returning home so we are meant to see she is a patriot. But patriotic toward what? The military is generally sneered at. Her superior in Iraq wants to help her, but then it only seems to be a ploy to bed her to prove she is heterosexual. When folks in the town get wind she is gay, someone paints “Fag” on her car. She covers the graffiti with American-flag car magnets, and as she drives through the town a series of country bumpkins and other rough and tumble types blindly shout out things like “USA, woo!!!”

I think the idea is to show that even though the military has mistreated her, she is loyal to her country and loves it. But then why are fellow patriots around the town depicted as little more than mindless rubes? We don’t get any sense that she may regret sending Saffron off to a military that has treated her so callously. In fact, it’s kind of a back-handed compliment to the armed forces: boot camp is better than meth addiction or jail.

These reservations aside, “A Marine Story” does not drag even if its narrative stretches credulity at points. It’s the kind of film that is earnest and probably deserved more attention as opposed to another 4,000 screen release of some run of the mill blockbuster with a bloated budget and too many explosions to count.

wireimage.com

Rapper Soulja Boy angered the United States Military with a statement in his new song, saying “Fuck the FBI and the army troops…fighting for what? Be your own man…I’ll be flying through the clouds with green like I’m Peter Pan.”

Retired Marine Fred A. Flores responded to Soulja boy, calling the song “offensive” and telling the rapper to apologize.

“It’s a very offensive statement … especially with the 10th anniversary of 9/11 coming up,” Flores said according to TMZ.

View the video below:

Eastern Massachusetts residents need not be alarmed this Wednesday, June 1st, by fighter jets overhead.

According to the National Guard, F-15 Eagle fighter jets from the 104th Fighter Wing, Massachusetts National Guard in Westfield will participate in an Alert Force exercise from 10 a.m. to noon in the skies over Provincetown, Nantucket, Hyannis and Martha’s Vineyard.

The Jets will be training with the Civil Air Patrol, which will fly low-speed civilian propeller planes.

The exercises are designed to prepare the Massachusetts Air National Guard in the case of any airborne threat in Northeast airspace.

Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak has resigned as president after 18 days of protests by the country’s people, and 30 years as the country’s ruler.

The move was a surprise, as many thought Mubarak planned to step down yesterday during his speech. Emergency law however is still in place and will be until the military sees fit to remove it. The Supreme military council, now in control of the country, also asked protesters to return to their homes in an address on Egyptian state television.

Blast reported this morning that Mubarak left Cairo for Sharm-el Sheikh, a resort town a few hundred miles away from the capital.

The news was announced by appointed vice-president Omar Suleiman, in an address this morning: “My fellow citizens. At these hard circumstances our country is experiencing, President Mohamed Hosni Mubarak has decided to waive the office of the President of the Republic, and instructed the Supreme council of the Armed forces to run the affairs of the country. May God guide or steps.”

It is still unclear if elections will take place soon, of if their are plans to institute a civilian-controlled government.

However, today, the mood in the streets of Cairo has changed from anger and agitation, to joy and relief, now that the ruler the people so despised has finally given into their demands.

“Feb 11 is (a) Historic day in Egypt! We will celebrate it forever,” tweeted Egyptian Blogger Mahmoud Salem, 29, a 2004 graduate of Northeastern University, who has been active in the protests since the beginning.

Salem, who was nearly beaten to death in Tahrir Square last week, returned on Friday, victorious.

“People (are) jumping up and down. Everyone hugging. We did it. I wanna cry from happiness,” he tweeted.

Click here for a live stream of the celebration in Egypt from Al Jazeera English.

Contradiction in rhetoric and action is a pretty standard feature of foreign policy for countries around the world. We were reminded of that this week; while President Obama and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton were giving speeches about how Egypt‘s President Hosni Mubarak should listen to the demands of his people, Mubarak’s army was flying American-made jets over protests sites and tossing cans of “Made in USA” tear gas into the very crowds of people Obama and Clinton demanded Mubarak listen to.

Here’s the contradiction: while supporting a government that suppresses its people with nearly than $1.3 billion in military aid a year, you demand a change in that country’s ruling scheme, but only when the country’s people rise up and protest.

The gaffes don’t help either. Vice-president Joe Biden said it was too early for Mubarak to step down and called him “very responsible.” Later, adding this, “I hope Mubarak … is going to respond to some of the legitimate concerns that are being raised,” according to the linked article above. He hopes.

Yes, the US is now reevaluating the aid package it sends Cairo’s way every year, but only AFTER Egypt’s governmental actions have become worldwide knowledge. Only AFTER everyone knows the reality of Egypt’s political situation and its effect on society.

This is far from the worst regime the US has ever supported. But it isn’t the best, and that $1.3 billion could do a lot of good instead of what it’s currently doing. Helping to suppress a people utterly fed up with a hostile government.

Ps. I came across this video today that deserves a look. This was made in 2007, when Mubarak was in office for 26 years. It calls for an end to his regime. Very powerful.

Dear EarthTalk: Merino wool undergarments tout themselves as being kinder to the environment than other wools or synthetics. How is this so? — Stella Cooley, Bangor, Maine

Since the 1970s, professional athletes and weekend warriors alike have sworn by base layers made out of synthetic “fibers” that would let sweat-based moisture escape, dry fast and be easy to care for. But such garments don’t come without trade-offs: They tend to get stinky when mixed with bodily odors and, like so many modern technological marvels, are derived from petroleum. Merino wool-based garments function just as well or better—and without the olfactory stigma or carbon footprint increase.

The soft and pliable cousin to the traditional wool our grandparents wore, Merino wool is revolutionizing outdoor wear while helping manufacturers and consumers lower their impact on the environment. This natural fiber, derived from Merino sheep in New Zealand, is soft on the skin, wicks sweat effectively, dries out quickly, is naturally odor-resistant—and is machine-washable to boot. And since Merino can be easily spun into different weights, it is used in a wide variety of clothing types (underwear, shirts, coats) making it a natural choice for layering.

Some of the leaders in the Merino underwear revolution include Ibex Outdoor Clothing, SmartWool and Patagonia, each which sources its wool through Zque, a New Zealand-based certification for Merino producers that adheres to a strict set of sustainability and ethical treatment standards. Qualifying ranches must feed their sheep natural grass and spring water and maintain a low “head-to-hectare” ratio. Upwards of 170 New Zealand Merino ranches have been certified accordingly by Zque as “ethical wool” producers.

Unhappy with synthetic base layers that made him “sweat like a gorilla,” cross-country skiing enthusiast John Fernsell teamed up with sheep farmer and mountaineer Peter Helmetag to start Ibex in 1997. “Everything looked the same and didn’t work,” says Fernsell. “It was all either Gore-Tex or polyester fleece.” The duo set out to find a better choice. With its inherent functionality, style, comfort and sustainability, Merino emerged the victor. Today Ibex sells several different cuts of Merino wool undergarments, including a line of underwear for men and women, long johns for men and women, and boxers for men.
SmartWool, better known for its Merino socks, also makes highly regarded Merino undergarments, such as the mens’ Microweight Boxer Brief and three long johns for men and women of varying weights. Patagonia also sells a full line of Merino under- and outerwear. Additionally, many more companies have jumped on the Merino bandwagon, so consumers interested in trying it out now have more styles and varieties than ever to choose from. These products are available directly from the manufacturers’ websites or through outdoor retailers including REI.

While Merino undergarments have a lot going for them, they are still expensive compared to the alternatives. But Merino converts insist that the rugged material lasts much longer than synthetic or cotton clothing without sacrificing comfort, style or fit. Scratchy old wool has come a long way indeed.

CONTACTS: Ibex Outdoor Clothing, www.ibexwear.com; Patagonia, www.patagonia.com; SmartWool, www.smartwool.com; Zque, www.zque.co.nz; REI, www.rei.com.

Dear EarthTalk: What is the U.S. military doing to reduce its carbon footprint and generally green its operations? — Anthony Gomez, New York, NY

As the world’s largest polluter, the U.S. military has its work cut out for it when it comes to greening its operations. According to the nonprofit watchdog group, Project Censored, American forces generate some 750,000 tons of toxic waste annually—more than the five largest U.S. chemical companies combined. Although this pollution occurs globally on U.S. bases in dozens of countries, there are tens of thousands of toxic “hot spots” on some 8,500 military properties right here on America soil.

“Not only is the military emitting toxic material directly into the air and water,” reports Project Censored, “it’s poisoning the land of nearby communities, resulting in increased rates of cancer, kidney disease, increasing birth defects, low birth weight and miscarriage.” The non-profit Military Toxics Project is working with the U.S. government to identify problem sites and educate neighbors about the risks.

Meanwhile, the U.S. military manages 25 million acres of land that provides habitat for some 300 threatened or endangered species. The military has harmed endangered animal populations by bomb tests (and been sued for it), reports Project Censored, and military testing of low-frequency underwater sonar technology has been implicated in the stranding deaths of whales worldwide. Despite being linked to such problems, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has repeatedly sought exemptions from Congress for compliance with federal laws including the Migratory Bird Treaties Act, the Wildlife Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.

It’s unclear whether the U.S. military is taking heed of criticisms in regard to pollution and endangered species management, but it is undoubtedly concerned about climate change, as its effects on the environment could lead to unprecedented natural resource wars and mass migrations of people. And reducing our reliance on potentially hostile foreign oil sources is a short term national security imperative as well. A recent Obama administration directive calls for the DoD to draw 20 percent of its power from renewable sources by 2020. Nikihl Sonnad of the GreenFuelSpot website reports that the Army and Air Force are planning to include solar arrays on several bases in sunny western states. The Air Force is also building the nation’s largest biomass energy plants in Florida and Georgia, and the Navy is building three large geothermal energy plants and funding research into extracting energy from ocean waves.

Some of the military’s R&D into renewables is for battlefield applications. Outfitting troops with the capability to produce their own on-site power from solar and wind sources not only makes sourcing oil less of a necessity but also should serve to reduce casualties from fuel transport operations. Over 1,000 American troops have lost their lives delivering fuel in the past few years alone (in part because enemy combatants often use fuel trucks as attack targets), says Sonnad.

Elisabeth Rosenthal reports in The New York Times that “there is great hope that some of the renewable energy technology being developed for battle will double back and play a role in civilian life.” She adds that the armed forces have enough purchasing power to create genuine markets in the non-military world.
CONTACTS: Project Censored, www.projectcensored.org; U.S. DoD, www.defense.gov; Military Toxics Project, www.stopmilitarytoxics.org/about.html; GreenFuelSpot, www.greenfuelspot.com.

Is “don’t ask, don’t tell” dead?

According to USA Today, Cynthia Smith, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said the suspension of “don’t ask, don’t tell” is in response to the October 12 decision of a central California federal judge that ruled the law implemented under President Clinton in 1993 was unconstitutional.

Judge Virginia Phillips on Tuesday denied a government request to delay her order. The Justice Department said the Obama administration will appeal to the appellate court in San Francisco.

A Pentagon memo signed by Clifford Stanley, undersecretary for Personnel and Readiness, said gay recruits can begin the process to join but should be told what could happen later because “a certain amount of uncertainty now exists about the future of the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ law. During the process, they (recruiters) will say, ‘You have to be mindful that this could be overturned.’” he told the paper.

The Marine Corps also weighed in, issuing a directive to recruiters Tuesday that said, “Homosexual conduct, by itself, is not currently considered a bar to accession.”

Advocates for repealing the policy warned gays interested in serving to be careful. The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network commented, “If you come out now, it can be used against you in the future by the Pentagon.”

General James Conway, commandant of the Marine Corps, has said most Marines oppose reversing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which permits gays to serve as long as they are not open about their homosexuality.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates ordered a task force to investigate the consequences of repealing the policy. Results are due December 1.

BRISBANE, Australia — An Australian Special Forces Explosives Detection Dog named Sabi has been found alive and well almost 14 months after being declared missing in action in Afghanistan.

The black Labrador retriever, who was trained to detect improvised explosive devices in the Oruzgan province, was recovered by a US soldier at an isolated patrol base recently.

The US soldier, known only by his first name John, was aware his Australian Special Forces colleagues were missing one of their explosive detection dogs.

John said it was immediately obvious that Sabi was no ordinary canine.

"I took the dog and gave it some commands which it understood," he said.

At the time of her disappearance Sabi was coming to the end of her second tour of duty in Afghanistan, having previously deployed to Oruzgan in 2007.

Sabi was declared MIA in September 2008 after the combined Australian, US and Afghan National Army convoy was ambushed by an insurgent force.

Nine Australian soldiers including Sabi’s handler were injured during the attack After the engagement Trooper Mark Donaldson earned the Victoria Cross, Australia’s highest military honor for bravery.

After more than a year in South Afghanistan, Sabi was flown to Tarin Kowt to be reunited with one of her Australian Special Forces handlers, who knew instantly it was the team’s missing dog.

"I nudged a tennis ball to her with my foot and she took it straight away. It’s a game we used to play over and over during her training," the trainer said.

"It’s amazing, just incredible to have her back."

The US Army Criminal Investigation Command announced Monday night that it was looking for any military of civilian personnel or any vehicles that may have left the scene of the Building 42003 massacre scene at Fort Hood, Texas.

CID would not speculate but said it was looking for anyone who “may have inadvertently left the scene” of the November 5 shooting that left 13 people dead.

“The above mentioned individuals will greatly assist the Fort Hood office of the U.S. Army CID and the Federal Bureau of Investigation in their bullet
trajectory analysis of the scene to ensure the comprehensiveness of the ongoing investigations,” the Army said in a statement.

Here is the US Army’s list of victims of the shooting rampage November 5.

Twelve soldiers and one civilian employee were killed.

Lt. Col. Juanita L. Warman, 55, of Havre De Grace, Md. She was assigned to the 1908th Medical Company, Independence, Mo.

Maj. Libardo Caraveo, 52, of Woodbridge, Va. He was assigned to the 467th Medical Detachment, Madison, Wis.

Capt. John P. Gaffaney, 54, of San Diego, Calif. He was assigned to the 1908th Medical Company, Independence, Mo.

Capt. Russell Seager, 51, of Racine, Wis. He was assigned to the 467th Medical Company, Madison, Wis.

Staff Sgt. Justin Decrow, 32, of Plymouth, Ind. He was assigned to the 16th Signal Company, 62nd Signal Battalion, 11th Signal Brigade, Fort Hood, Texas.

Sgt. Amy Krueger, 29, of Kiel, Wis. She was assigned to the 467th Medical Company, Madison, Wis.

Spc. Jason Hunt, 22, of Tillman, Okla. He was assigned to the 1st Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas.

Spc. Frederick Greene, 29, of Mountain City, Tenn. He was assigned to the 510th Engineer Company, 20th Engineer Battalion, Fort Hood, Texas.

Pfc. Aaron Nemelka, 19, of West Jordan, Utah. He was assigned to the 510th Engineer Company, 20th Engineer Battalion, Fort Hood, Texas.

Pfc. Michael Pearson, 22, of Bolinbrook, Ill. He was assigned to the 510th Engineer Company, 20th Engineer Battalion, Fort Hood, Texas.

Spc. Kham Xiong, 23, of St. Paul, Minn. He was assigned to the Forward Support Company, 20th Engineer Battalion, Fort Hood, Texas.

Pvt. Francheska Velez, 21, of Chicago, Ill. She was assigned to the 15th Combat Support Battalion, Fort Hood, Texas.

Chief Warrant Officer retired Michael Cahill of Cameron, Texas. He was a civilian employee on Fort Hood.

When you’re writing a book about the military, this critic thinks, you’ve got to be a great writer. You have got to know what you’re doing, and you have got to understand the shark-infested waters you’re swimming in.

A bad book about the military will do one or several of the following things: 1) reduce the troops to tropes; 2) wave a flag; 3) become an excuse for an author to enter into a partisan argument between himself and the reader’s sensibilities; and 4) read like a Michael Bay (or, if in the 90s, Jerry Bruckheimer) movie.

I just finished reading an earnest attempt at macho beachside literature, “Horse Soldiers,” pitched to me by the PR company slinging the book as something for Dad on Father’s Day (which was Sunday?). My dad’s a retired Commander in the US Navy, so I couldn’t really think of the book without wondering how he would feel about it, and the military has kind of seeped into the back of my mind and informed, I’m finding increasingly as I get older, how I look at most things.

As such I feel compelled to discuss further the risks of writing a sensationalized take on military strategy, to elaborate on my negative review of the book, which should appear on Blast sometime this week.

The thing is this, at bottom: Nobody’s going to go to a book about military strategy, especially the War On Terror, without a political position of their own. I, myself, think the entire affair was ruined the moment the Commander in Chief decided not to pursue Bin Laden, so, within those confines, the Horse Soldiers’ mission (to fight Al Qaeda) wasn’t really the issue. The issue I had with the book was more that it didn’t do what it could to treat the soldiers as people, and instead gave us a Tony Scott movie with a pair of protagonists, a faceless enemy and a host of extras.

It’s about, I suppose, “supporting the troops.” The author, Doug Stanton, did a monumental amount of research to put “Horse Soldiers” together, and it shows. But Stanton’s encyclopedic amount of interviews and legwork produced not a book full of humanity, but a book full of pop and action. I didn’t care about the people whose lives were at stake in the war, and I didn’t get a sense of how their campaign fit in with the rest of the war, and these two things made the book into an excercise in sugar-spinning.

The more I think about it, the more frustrated I get, in fact. The book’s got staying power; I’ll give Stanton that.

HICKAM AIR FORCE BASE, Hawaii (Air Force News Service) — Air Force officials have scheduled to deploy two contingents of F-22A Raptors to the Pacific theater in January 2009 for approximately three months.

Current plans call for 12 of the fighters to deploy to Kadena Air Base, Japan, from Langley Air Force Base, Va., and another 12 to deploy to Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, from Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska. The deployments support U.S. Pacific Command’s theater security packages in the Western Pacific.

The F-22A is a transformational combat aircraft that can avoid enemy detection, cruises at supersonic speeds, is highly maneuverable, and provides the joint force an unprecedented level of integrated situational awareness.

As part of continuing force posture adjustments to address worldwide requirements, the Defense leaders continue to deploy additional forces throughout the Western Pacific. This is the latest example of the flexibility U.S. forces have to meet their ongoing commitments and security obligations throughout the Pacific region.