
I just watched the movie Syriana. I must say it was quite a fantastic movie. The plot was so complex and complicated that I had to rewind it several times to keep it all clear in my mind. The movie makes some very poignant observations on geopolitics. But unfortunately I'd have to say that much like Spielberg's Munich, also released in 2005, in the end it leads the audience towards the wrong conclusions. Syriana's plot is complicated, and I don't think I could possibly explain it without typing my fingers down to bloody stumps, but here is a synopsis of the themes and ideas behind the film.
Syriana paints the picture that the world is filled with corruption particularly on the part of the United States. How do they do this? In the film, US businesses and government use money and military power to secure oil no matter the stakes. The United States goes as far as to undermine other countries attempts at free-market capitalism and democracy in order to ensure that they get the oil they want and need. They back leaders financially and militarily who will agree to pro-US oil deals, rather than leaders who support democracy and free-trade. The United States sends the CIA to assassinate opposition to these "pro-US leaders". The US government and Department of Justice allow for corruption (enabling massive oil mergers) by making superficial arrests and convictions, only to let the real criminals get away. The list goes on, but lastly and importantly the United States puts honest hard working people in other countries out of the job to ensure oil for themselves. These people are then driven to terrorism by the situation that is forced upon them. They hate the United States for taking their jobs, they are destitute, and they are coerced by others to participate in terrorism in order to make their families financially better off.
An interesting idea posed in this film is that the US is merely doing what they believe to be in their best interest. By securing themselves oil they are doing what has made and is keeping the United States the only super-power in the world. The rub though is that they are creating their own worst enemies (terrorists) in doing so. At least this is what the movie wants you to believe. And this is where my misgivings come into play.
I can neither deny nor validate the accuracy of this films portrayal of American foreign, domestic, or business policies and how they relate to oil and corruption. These ideas certainly have some historical basis. Just take the United States' role in Operation Ajax where they attempted to overthrow the Iranian government and impose a US-friendly monarchy in its stead. And we all know that politicians are corrupt. I do not know though how accurate the amount of play in real life these policies play in reference to the movie. The problem I see with this movie though is the connection it makes between these US policies and terrorism. The movie makes some reference towards the terrorists in this film being affiliated with Islam, but in the end it is clear that it is financial hardship which pushes them to terrorism. The two terrorists want to better their families and that is their main motivation. The truth is that while it is possible that perhaps some terrorists are driven to the act by financial hardships, this is not what is globally driving terrorism. Radical Islam, or Islamism, is what is behind terrorism. Jihad, Sharia, and violent interpretations of the Koran are what is behind terrorism. Terrorists are more than willing to admit that despite their economic hardships, it is Allah's command which drives them to blow themselves up in a crowded cafe. They openly admit that they would martyr themselves for Islam no matter whether they need money or not. So lets not confuse ourselves into thinking that we're the ones causing the terrorism.
Sorry George Clooney. The movie was good, but your liberal propaganda would only be eaten up by people who get their facts from Hollywood. And those people are ignorant.

