"For the war ... against the troops"

Such is the state of politics these days that if a politician criticizes a war or military action, some demagogue will be ready with the accusation of undermining or attacking the military personnel involved. That's why most statements against a war are accompanied by something like, "Of course, I am 100% behind our troops."

During the Gulf War, comedian Bill Hicks recognized this kabuki and came out with his own version: He was for the war, but against the troops. Not only did he take this stance to invert the political posturing of the day; he was also pointing out - protesting, almost - the huge difference in technology (and casualties) between our troops and the Iraqis.

James Cameron seems to be channelling Hicks in his latest spectacular. (A few mild spoilers follow.) He structured Avatar so that the story would culminate in a huge, glorious battle between the indigenous, low-tech Na'vi and the sophisticated invading troops from earth; and so that we would be rooting against the earthlings. To accomplish the latter, he drew on negative stereotypes of the military: bloodlust and single-minded hatred of the enemy.

Cameron also throws a similarly unflattering light on capitalism. In his lust for unobtainium, the civilian leader is happy to blow away however many of the tall blue natives he needs to.

Some folks have sharply criticized the movie for these reasons. The criticisms have a point, and the story is weakened by these one-dimensional characters. (For a more fully-realized portrait of the military, positive and negative, I'd recommend the TV mini-series Generation Kill. As for the critique of capitalism - at this moment in history I'm OK with letting it stand.) On the other hand, these folks have to be pretty villainous if we're going to put up with seeing them get brutally mowed down.

Overall, I'd say enjoy the thrill ride. Go to an IMAX if you can, put on the 3D glasses, and let Cameron put on his show. He does know how to tell a story.