the daily snivel

Brad Reed writes a fantastic article in the American Prospect about the new cognitive dissonance facing conservatives who formerly embraced the new Battlestar Galactica series when they were able to interpret it as a metaphor for the war on terror: you have the innocent humans attacked by genocidal cylons that will stop at nothing to prosecute their religious crusade, even relying on suicide bombing to sow terror and discord through the fleet.

The problem is that, in this season (season 3), the humans have become the terrorists. Brad writes:

National Review’s Jonah Goldberg, who writes regularly about Galactica's politics on NRO's group blog, The Corner, also picked up on parallels between the show and the war on terror. Goldberg took particular glee in attacking Galactica's anti-war movement, which he said consisted of "radical peaceniks" and "peace-terrorists" who "are clearly a collection of whack jobs, fifth columnists and idiots." Goldberg also praised several characters for trying to rig a presidential election. "I liked that the good guys wanted to steal the election and, it turns out, they were right to want to," wrote Goldberg. Stolen elections, evil robots, crazed hippies ... what more could a socially inept right-winger want from a show?

But alas, this love affair between Galactica and the right was not to last: in its third season, the show has morphed into a stinging allegorical critique of America's three-year occupation of Iraq. The trouble started at the end of the second season, when humanity briefly escaped the Cylons and settled down on the tiny planet of New Caprica. The Cylons soon returned and quickly conquered the defenseless humans. But instead of slaughtering everyone, the Cylons decided to take a more enlightened path by "benevolently occupying" the planet and imposing their preferred way of life by gunpoint. The humans were predictably not enthused about their allegedly altruistic rulers, and they immediately launched an insurgency against them using improvised explosive devices and suicide bombers. Needless to say, this did not go over very well in the Galacticon camp.

I think the main reason Battlestar Galactica has been such a huge success is that the characters behave in very flawed, often irrational and, frankly, human ways. There is a constant tension between conflicting goals, resulting in noble characters doing selfish and even reprehensible things -- or even in the "bad guys" being more than cartoonishly evil villains, being portrayed instead as fraught with internal discord and disagreement over what is right and what is necessary. Faced with a repressive occupation, what choice would humans seeking freedom have than to begin to resist, even violently if necessary? As Saul Tigh (former second-in-command aboard Galactica and present resistance leader) very aptly states in one episode, "I've sent men on suicide missions in two wars now, and let me tell you something. It don't make a godsdamn bit of difference whether they're riding in a Viper or walking out onto a parade ground. In the end they're just as dead. So, take your piety, and your moralizing, and your high-minded principles, and stick 'em somewhere safe until you're off the rock and sitting in your nice, cushy chair on Colonial One again. I've got a war to fight."

Violence is rarely justifiable, but there's an old adage about terrorists versus freedom fighters that is often forgotten. Now, I don't think killing civilians for political aims is ever legitimate, of course, but then I hold that as true whether you're a zealot strapping bombs to your chest or a president authorizing dropping them in an airstrike.

But the world isn't black and white, even fictional worlds, if they're going to be believable, and that's why I find myself on the edge of my seat every time I watch Galactica. You don't really know who the good guys are sometimes. You don't really know who is going to win.

On the other hand, "conservative blogger" Jon Swift (think Jonathan Swift and A Modest Proposal here) writes an excellent analysis of the Galactica conundrum from his sensible conservative point of view:

The Sci Fi Channel show is a moving and haunting allegory about why we should stay the course in Iraq. The heroes are a deeply religious race, called the Cylons, who struggle to bring democratic ideals and Christian values to a planet called New Caprica (Iraq, of course) in the face of an increasingly violent insurgency. In a clever and ironic twist the Christian Cylons (Americans) are actually very human-like machines, while the villainous "humans" on New Caprica (al Qaeda) are brutal terrorists who follow a primitive polytheistic religion and behave like animals.

...

The terrorists are led by an unscrupulous man prone to violent rages named Admiral Adama (Edward James Olmos), who not only has a name that is clearly meant to evoke Osama Bin Laden, he also bears something of a resemblance to Saddam Hussein. He even has a lazy, playboy son like Saddam had. The insurgency is headed up by the unhinged Col. Saul Tigh (Michael Hogan), who is locked up in a Guantanamo-like prison at the beginning of the episode recovering from some Cylon alternate interrogation procedures (apparently New Caprica is free of nit-picking Geneva Conventions).

As soon as Col. Tigh is free he goes right back to lead the insurgents and decides to up the ante by launching a depraved suicide bombing campaign. The first attack takes out a group of idealistic young police recruits, which, of course, directly parallels terrorist attacks against Iraqi security forces taking place today. If I have any criticism of the show it's that the New Capricans are so unsympathetic and vile in contrast to the peace-loving Cylons, who are clearly just trying to help them, that at times it seems like a simplistic battle between good (the Cylons) and evil (the New Capricans). A few more shades of gray might make the show more interesting.

Be sure to watch the series yourself and make up your own minds.