Homeland: Containment Culture in Representations of the War on Terror

In the years following 9/11, the War on Terror has been the subject of numerous films, television shows, and other forms of popular media. One such drama series is Homeland, which premiered in 2011. The show follows CIA operations officer Carrie Mathison as she investigates Nicholas Brody, a missing and presumed dead US Marine Sergeant held by al-Qaeda for eight years. Mathison, who was alerted by an informant when she was a field agent in Iraq that an “American prisoner of war [had] been turned,” suspects Brody of being the sleeper agent when he is rescued from an al-Qaeda compound.

 

The rhetoric of the Cold War is most evident in Homeland through the simultaneous fear of a foreign ideology gaining international influence, and the threat of enemy infiltration into the domestic sphere. The former is addressed more broadly as the War on Terror provides a backdrop to the events of the show and is framed as an existential and ideological conflict (as highlighted by the line, “why kill a man when you can kill an idea?” in the season finale); however, suspicion of an insider threat in the form of Nicholas Brody is quite literally the focal point of the show’s first season. Cold War emphasis on constant surveillance is demonstrated by Mathison’s interrogation and suspicion of Brody’s every move and body language, as well as her unauthorized installation of monitoring devices throughout his home prior to his return to his family. The constant vigilance demanded by containment culture is also highlighted by the suspicion of Brody’s seclusion from the family unit by his daughter Dana.

 

The connection made during the Cold War between national security and the fabric of domestic life is also explored in Homeland. While Brody struggles to embrace his role as poster child for patriotism, public service and the military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, tensions in his family life emerge. His wife Jessica’s affair with his best friend during his absence is revealed, and his relationship with his children suffers significant strain. Brody’s conversion to Islam is also treated as a source of suspicion which contributes to his Othering and the disconnect from his family. Thus, as was the case during the containment culture of the Cold War, the inability to conform to norms of ideal familial behavior is tied to issues of national security. This is particularly reinforced in the show’s season finale when it is a plea from Dana that ultimately convinces Brody against carrying out a terrorist attack. Fear of both the enemy inside and encroachment of a pernicious ideology from the outside, in addition to the need to conform to set standards of personal and familial behavior, are themes which clearly place narratives surrounding the War on Terror within in the framework provided by Cold War containment culture.

Echoes of the Cold War in a Song of Ice and Fire

In George R.R. Martin’s fantasy series A Song of Ice and Fire and HBO’s adaptation Game of Thrones, the themes of apocalyptic warfare play out on a invented universe that parallels our own Cold War world.

Two major conflicts are occurring in these books. The vast majority of the pages cover the war for the Iron Throne, the seat of power in the mythical Seven Kingdoms. Simultaneously, Martin sets up a life-or-death struggle, between the ice-zombie Others and the realms of men. This dual struggle forms the core of the book, with much of the intrigue and character development found in the domestic conflict while the looming threat of annihilation adds a sense of scale.

It is the second conflict, and its symbolism, that echoes the Cold War most clearly. While the dualist vision of Good versus Evil comes out more explicitly in the show, the basic structure of the tale points to a message of forgetting domestic issues in order to focus on grander issues. The wars for the Iron Throne drain food, time, and men, while the inevitable crunch of the Others moves closer and closer to the living. Like the Postwar Consensus that suppressed domestic political issues in order to present a United America, Westeros seems to need a focus on more pressing issues.

The rhetoric of Jon Snow, one of the heroes of the story, echoes those of Cold Warriors in its defense of universal values:

HBO, Game of Thrones, Season 7 Episode 7, 2017

The rhetoric of Jon Snow, and the story in general, points to a war not for power, but for survival. Just as Hiroshima brought the stakes of conflict from the subjugation of people to the elimination of human life on Earth, the Others also represent a quantum leap in terms of the stakes.

George R.R. Martin has not finished his books yet. Many of his works tend to subvert fantasy tropes, to undercut our assumptions. But what’s clear from the first five books of the series, and the first seven seasons of the show, is that the rhetoric of the Cold War still echoes in the halls of the Red Keep. Like the apocalyptic vision of a nuclear winter, the ice-controlling Others haunt the nightmares of men. What’s clear is that Cold War rhetoric remains a key weapon in the arsenal of the living. Good versus evil never goes out of style.

An Analysis of the Rhetoric of President Donald Trump’s 2017 Speech to the United Nations General Assembly

On September 19, 2017, President of the United States Donald J. Trump addressed the United Nations General Assembly. In his speech, he warned of the coming foreign policy changes his administration would bring to the international stage. The fiery rhetoric used by President Trump was reminiscent of that used by President Kennedy to warn of the potential of other nations to subvert the interests and security of the United States.

President Trump gave his speech with the assumption that other nations and terrorist groups fight, not to see their own philosophies realized, but to undermine the wellbeing of the American people. This notion of the president’s that the United States is resented by other countries is as old as the United Nations, itself. Since the end of World War II, language calling for the containment of contrarian beliefs has been used in hundreds of Cold War and post-9/11 speeches. These 2017 remarks are no exception as President Trump warned of “growing dangers that threaten everything we cherish and value.” Similar rhetoric was used by President John F. Kennedy in his own address to the United Nations in 1961 in which he, too warned of “the threats against the vital interests and the deep commitments” of the United States.

Both presidents evoked pathos in their speeches to urge the international community to stand united against the use of nuclear weapons. President Trump said, “North Korea’s reckless pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles threatens the entire world with unthinkable loss of human life,” just as President Kennedy reminded the community that “mankind must put an end to war–or war will put an end to mankind.” They explicitly called out the use of terror tactics employed by states and non-state actors, alike, and promised to match any threat with an appropriate reaction. Just as Kennedy vowed that “free men cannot be frightened by threats, and that aggression would meet its own response,” Trump urged the body to “confront together those who threaten us with chaos, turmoil, and terror.” In comparing these two historic speeches, it is evident that much of the rhetoric of the Cold War lives on in today’s political leaders and has a heavy hand in modern diplomatic campaigns.

Photo Credits to the United Nations and the British Broadcasting Corporation