>The film also notes that the United States has laws against propagandizing the U.S. public, which might make such a disclosure a confession of a crime. I would add that since 1976, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has required that “Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.”
That changed in 2013:
>The U.S. government's mammoth broadcasting arm has begun the "unleashing of thousands of hours per week of government-funded radio and TV programs for domestic U.S. consumption," John Hudson of Foreign Policy reported on Sunday.
>The content arrives with the enactment of the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, sponsored by Rep. Mac Thornberry (R- Texas) and Rep. Adam Smith (D- Wash.), which was inserted into the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
>The reform effectively nullifies the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, which was amended in 1985 specifically to prohibit U.S. organizations from using information "to influence public opinion in the United States."
>The new law enables U.S. government programming such as Voice of America (VoA) — an outlet created in 1942 to promote a positive understanding of the U.S. abroad — t0 broadcast directly to domestic audiences for the first time.
Imagine you have a tech industry that merged with madison avenue along with psychological methods learned from Guantanamo and CIA Black Sites, and you wanted to build a societal manipulation machine, otherwise known as propaganda. Makes me wonder if there is any relation between the changes mentioned here and some of what the social media infrastructure has been used to do.
However, that act didn't seem to have an effect in publishing media like: Top Gun movies and the America's Army videogame.
Not sure how the VoA programming looks like (sounds like I guess) but I don't think outlets for government promotion were lacking even before the act was overturned
Yup, Obama under the radar a few days before leaving office to Trump approved the creation of a propaganda department specifically targeting US citizens. Its no wonder we hear the same talking points across corporate media.
At this point the only thing we can truly trust is independent journalists. Most concerning is the rampant and normaliced acceptance of censorship in social media. Democracy depends on free speech. Its time we start dictching Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Google search for more open platforms that allow a broad and unfiltered exchange of ideas. We the people, not the other way around.
Once this was pointed out, I can't unsee it. It's kind of ruined movies that involves the military or military equipment for me, since it can be really obvious when creators toe the line for the military. When I see military equipment my gut reaction is to anticipate the other shoe dropping, and to look for shoehorned hero worship or some good-versus-evil plot point.
I think Hollywood is lot less subtle now at trying to push political propaganda than it was ever then, except that wokeism is the theme of the day. In some instances it has completely taken over the plot, like in the last season of Fargo, to the point of becoming some sort of unwatcheable catechism.
Americans love that stuff though, it’s not necessarily propaganda forced down our throats. We’d still want to see the badass, all American commando on a 100 kill streak.
One of the most interesting and moderately uncomfortable experiences for me was being in another country and seeing a war movie in that country’s theatres made by a director in that country
It was about a conflict I never thought about before, and also had me rooting for an anti-hero that on a side that would go on to oppose America, although acknowledgement of the US’ future involvement wasn’t even a part of the movie
Visitors and immigrants to the US must face that all the time, or dont have such nationalistic conditioning to care in the first place
In any case, the most interesting thing was how different the movie was. Like the things they focused on werent an unrealistic show of force and winning. I am enough of a film buff to put this on the specific director’s prowess, instead of culture, but I do think the surrounding culture is what helped the director greenlight working on that film.
I thought this has been common knowledge forever. I mean, if you see before the closing titles something like
"With grateful thanks to the US Navy and Airforce, without whom this film could not have been made"
then you have to assume that the helpful armed forces at least got approval of the final cut. At any rate, I've always thought that stuff like The Green Berets with John Wayne was pure war propaganda.
As we age these tells pile up and if we don't change the world around us we drown in tropes and cliches that are pushed by carpet baggers. So many different things that can't be unseen.
Speaking of good-vs-evil, do you also see WWII veterans and military history in the same light? They got into war that no one asked for. I cannot imagine if US and allies had lost WWII. It is simply unimaginable.
I cringe every time I hear the US president being described as the leader of the free world, as if there were 2 specific sides and USA were leading it and as if USA was an advocate for freedom.
In France, the french secret services (DGSE) worked hand-in-hand with the production of a TV show called The Bureau (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4063800).
The services were supposedly lacking diverse resources for both operators, admins and field agents of diverse backgrounds.
This series drew a very strong, credible and positive narrative that led to a massive number of people knocking at the doors of the DGSE to join the forces.
Propaganda? I think not. Well thought out recruitment strategy as entertainment? Most likely yes.
Is there a difference between the two? To be discussed... ;)
It's even more obvious when it's the other way around; i.e. movies that criticize them have to create war scenes without the all the free fighter jets and Apache helicopters. One of the worst (war) movie scenes in history have to be the one in "Lions for lambs" [1]. It looks like some low budget / film school creation even though it's a massive production, with Tom Cruise, Robert Redford and Meryl Streep.
Why do they even need the military for this? Can't they just use some computer graphics instead? We have video games full of photorealistic fighter jets and helicopters.
I suspect something similar is going on with all the cop/crime shows that show the "hero" cops completely disregard the law and due process. This always happens in situations where all the viewers completely agree that it is justified, e.g. a clear bad/evil guy (we already know he did it) and a small child that has to be saved from a prison...
I think this is essentially suposed to make us conceive law enforcement as always right and doing everything to "keep us safe" even if they have to disregard the law. You can clearly see it's working in how many people unquestionably support the police.
As a person who grew up without a television at home (I was homeschooled in Canada), this is strikingly obvious. Even the differences in mentality and worldview between those who grew up watching American TV shows and those who didn't is immediately obvious to me within 5 minutes of having a casual conversation. One of the reasons I left Canada and moved to Eastern Europe is for the refreshing change in monoculture: I can have normal conversations with people whose minds have not developed in a Hollywood Matrix, whose entire cultural context is not based on popular TV references (or the tropes presented in them). Lots of people in post-Soviet countries don't watch American television, and it is very easy to tell when they do. I now strongly prefer European TV productions (especially older British and French stuff), because the American superpower-worship and military propaganda, and now wokeism, is positively cringeworthy.
I bumped into this video about the making of 'Top Gun' the other day.
Interesting in many ways. It shows the photographical choices and approaches that they used. The creative process and choices (and the vision and influence of Bruckenheimer).. and the way that the Navy had an influence.
Example: the CO of the Miramar base (where it was shot) had a veto right on the script. He rejected because there was a romance between enlisted, and because there was an in-flight collision. Which resulted in Bruckenheimer finding 'work-arounds' : Charlie becomes an external consultant, the collision becomes a flat spin following a jet wash incident (the CO looked over old accidents to find something suitable)
“[George] Creel urged [Woodrow] Wilson to create a government agency to coordinate "not propaganda as the Germans defined it, but propaganda in the true sense of the word, meaning the 'propagation of faith.'"”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Public_Informatio...
"Creel later published his memoirs of his service with the CPI, 'How We Advertised America', in which he wrote:
“In no degree was the Committee an agency of censorship, a machinery of concealment or repression. Its emphasis throughout was on the open and the positive. At no point did it seek or exercise authorities under those war laws that limited the freedom of speech and press. In all things, from first to last, without halt or change, it was a plain publicity proposition, a vast enterprise in salesmanship, the world's greatest adventures in advertising… We did not call it propaganda, for that word, in German hands, had come to be associated with deceit and corruption. Our effort was educational and informative throughout, for we had such confidence in our case as to feel that no other argument was needed than the simple, straightforward presentation of the facts.”"
> [Hu Shih] was among the first contributors for radical ideological change and modernity in China. His article on the 'Indianization of China' presented a scathing criticism of Indian influence on China that inhibited the blooming of 'indigenous modernity', progressivism and dynamism there. Hu’s views supported contemporary 'modernist' Chinese intellectuals' labelling of India under the British as a 'ruined' civilisation, 'failed' state or incapable role model for the agenda of modernity. Yet, he did not overlook affinities, mutual respect and admiration for those in India searching for 'indigenous roots' to modernity. His famous observation that 'India conquered and dominated China culturally for 20 centuries without ever having to send a single soldier across her border' is one of the most quoted sentences in any study of Sino-Indian encounters and connections.
Iranians and later Turkic Mongols had a similar affect (Persianisation) on India itself before imperialism took hold, and westernisation came to the fore; for ex: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macaulayism
As someone who moved from Europe to the US, the pervasiveness of the military in televised professional and college football game is incredibly jarring to me yet is so normalized to Americans. Count the number of times there is a reference to the military, a cutaway to uniformed people in the stands or by the touchline, a clip of troops watching the game while deployed overseas, flyovers etc. Still, after 10 years, my reaction is "what has that got to do with sport?".
I've always assumed this to be a very deliberate strategy to build an implicit association between the "nobility" of sport and war, to boost recruitment and win over the hearts and minds of the American public for past, current and future military action.
Now count how many times you've seen any sign of the military at a sports event in Europe - rare to never. It's not normal and it's sad to me that it is so normalized in the US.
Aside from military, this tactic became obvious to me when space became (again) a theater of conquest around 2010, involving both private and public sectors, internationally.
The narrative around space became very strong, sending messages of conquest, entrepreneurship, science, dreams, you name it.
At the exact same period, bloomed movies like: Mission to Mars, Gravity, Interstellar.
I won't be surprised to see a surge of interest in space-related careers in younger generations in years to come.
I hope this doesn't come as a surprise to anyone. At least for a lot of people outside the USA it was super obvious that the mainstream movies in the cinema are painting an overly optimistic picture of the US.
Harsh, I know. But how long can US people watch the lies in their top-selling films about how heroic their soldiers are, while completely ignoring the atrocities their armies are involved in, around the world?
I'm not American but I feel that at least the general consensus on Reddit is already there. But realising that you're bad doesn't itself form a solution. You need some kind of consensus about a plan towards becoming better and that hasn't begun to form.
> We know that the Pentagon knows this, and what military officials scheme and plot as a result of knowing this, because of the work of relentless researchers making use of the Freedom of Information Act.
one graphic that stuck with me, that I saw a few years ago is this one (https://imgur.com/svsB0Ub) (question being: which nation, according to you, contributed most to the defeat of Germany?"
Being German and having Russian relatives the perspective on the war on the continent has always been interesting to me. The sheer scale and brutality of the Eastern front, the war crimes and death (The Soviet Union lost more than 15% of its population!) is astonishing.
I don't think popular media reflects this at all, not even necessarily maliciously or as propaganda intentionally. But that disconnect between the reality, and the recognition of it in Russia itself, has had vastly negative consequences when it comes to other countries trying to understand Russia even today. (and I suppose it's not by accident that in Germany for example, often only elder statesmen point this out)
Try asking most people about the Vietnam War, then visit Vietnam, especially the war museum in Saigon. Then pay a visit to the Landmine museum outside of Siam Reap, in Cambodia, to learn about Nixon's secret war that carpeted the border between Cambodia and Vietnam with bombs and landmines without anyone knowing.
That's a trip that would make you rethink America big time. It absolutely did for me. As an Italian, I was raised with the American Dream firmly in mind. When I turned eighteen I even started applying for the Green Card lottery every year for like six times. In the last 10 years I've grown so deeply disenchanted it's disturbing. The feeling of being force-fed a fake story by media for all these years is so bitter. But it's not just me. I would say that an entire generation of Europeans has been growing up to become deeply skeptical about anything Americans do.
This is completely true, but I wouldn't forget the role of the US Lend-Lease Policy in this [1]. After the German attack, the SU wasn't really able to defend itself on the material side (same as the UK after the Dunkirk loss), and supplies were provided heavily by the US.
> Roughly 17.5 million tons of military equipment, vehicles, industrial supplies, and food were shipped from the Western Hemisphere to the USSR, 94% coming from the US. For comparison, a total of 22 million tons landed in Europe to supply American forces from January 1942 to May 1945. It has been estimated that American deliveries to the USSR through the Persian Corridor alone were sufficient, by US Army standards, to maintain sixty combat divisions in the line.
The reality is far more horrific. The Japanese were preparing to surrender to the Soviets, but the US couldn't have the Soviets take credit for winning the war on both fronts so they dropped a couple of nukes on Japan.
I recently finished "The Phoney Victory" by Peter Hitchens which is certainly an interesting book. While one may not agree with every point or conclusion he makes in the book, I think he proves his overarching point rather well, which is essentially that WW2 was perceived in a skewed way during and right after (not that surprising really), but the perceptions have been getting more skewed as time passes (and especially so in Britain).
Yes, Russia had pushed Germany the whole way back into Berlin by 1945. Russia defeated Germany in Europe in WW2 the other allied powers basically showed up when it was all over.
I am a French citizen 65 year old. I remember that my father was bombed by US in Rennes (luckily he went out safe). Most ports on Atlantic coast were completely destroyed by US bombers and many towns (Lorient, Saint-Malo, Brest, etc) had to be completely rebuilt. Many people were displaced, homeless and had to be relocated in shelters. This lasted until the 60", see [0]
Yet now, for French people and media, destructions and people displacements were all the fault of Nazi's Germany. And for medias, the time after war was an happy time "les trente glorieuses" [1].
> The Soviet Union lost more than 15% of its population
Yeah, but that number is so high because they were effective at killing their own people. The number of needless victims during the fighting and those of the "cleansing" after a win is incredibly high.
There are some inadvertent reflections, though, since some of the communism death count figures include both the Soviet and Nazi casualties from the Eastern front.
Tom Secker, who's one of the co-producers of Theatres of War, has for many years written and podcasted about the CIA and the DoD's influences on movie and TV series scripts:
Chomsky is very good! It does not matter if you agree with his political stance or not, the fact based argumentation mixed with political rhetoric is a masterpiece of cerebral political writing, and a very good snapshot of some aspects of modern US history.
Is this some kind of marketing for the mentioned movie? The article mentions documents that are supposed to substantiate it's claims but then it just goes into speculation and only linking to other articles the author wrote. The mentioned movie doesn't even seem to be publicly available. Weird to see this here.
> Captain Marvel exists to sell the Air Force to women
That seems like a ridiculous claim. Carol Danvers was an Air Force officer when the character was created in 1968. No one was trying to sell the Air Force to women in 1968.
Marvel, both the comics and the movies, has been more anti-military than pro-military. The military, specifically the US military, is often the bad guys.
For example, it was the military that led to the creation of the Hulk, and are generally the bad guys in both the comics and movies when it comes to things related to Hulk.
If in a Marvel work the military shows up, it is almost a cliche that they are going to be the bad guys unless it is a military vs. military situation such as with Captain America. And even the first Captain America movie didn't portray the US military all that favorably--they create the first super soldier and then just want to use him as an entertainer!
[+] [-] 34679|4 years ago|reply
That changed in 2013:
>The U.S. government's mammoth broadcasting arm has begun the "unleashing of thousands of hours per week of government-funded radio and TV programs for domestic U.S. consumption," John Hudson of Foreign Policy reported on Sunday.
>The content arrives with the enactment of the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, sponsored by Rep. Mac Thornberry (R- Texas) and Rep. Adam Smith (D- Wash.), which was inserted into the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
>The reform effectively nullifies the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, which was amended in 1985 specifically to prohibit U.S. organizations from using information "to influence public opinion in the United States."
>The new law enables U.S. government programming such as Voice of America (VoA) — an outlet created in 1942 to promote a positive understanding of the U.S. abroad — t0 broadcast directly to domestic audiences for the first time.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-domestic-propaganda-offic...
[+] [-] Threeve303|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mulmen|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raverbashing|4 years ago|reply
Not sure how the VoA programming looks like (sounds like I guess) but I don't think outlets for government promotion were lacking even before the act was overturned
[+] [-] pibechorro|4 years ago|reply
At this point the only thing we can truly trust is independent journalists. Most concerning is the rampant and normaliced acceptance of censorship in social media. Democracy depends on free speech. Its time we start dictching Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Google search for more open platforms that allow a broad and unfiltered exchange of ideas. We the people, not the other way around.
[+] [-] quacked|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] heavyset_go|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cm2187|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MaxHoppersGhost|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vmception|4 years ago|reply
It was about a conflict I never thought about before, and also had me rooting for an anti-hero that on a side that would go on to oppose America, although acknowledgement of the US’ future involvement wasn’t even a part of the movie
Visitors and immigrants to the US must face that all the time, or dont have such nationalistic conditioning to care in the first place
In any case, the most interesting thing was how different the movie was. Like the things they focused on werent an unrealistic show of force and winning. I am enough of a film buff to put this on the specific director’s prowess, instead of culture, but I do think the surrounding culture is what helped the director greenlight working on that film.
[+] [-] denton-scratch|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blueflow|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] austincheney|4 years ago|reply
The history of this matter remains very clear in most documentaries on the subject both old and new, such as describing the marathon sprint of Zhukov.
[+] [-] sitkack|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] systemvoltage|4 years ago|reply
Aside: I find the WWII era military training/propaganda videos pretty entertaining: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QgXuhv7-54
[+] [-] prmoustache|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xcambar|4 years ago|reply
The services were supposedly lacking diverse resources for both operators, admins and field agents of diverse backgrounds.
This series drew a very strong, credible and positive narrative that led to a massive number of people knocking at the doors of the DGSE to join the forces.
Propaganda? I think not. Well thought out recruitment strategy as entertainment? Most likely yes.
Is there a difference between the two? To be discussed... ;)
[+] [-] bjarneh|4 years ago|reply
1: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0891527/
[+] [-] matheusmoreira|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cycomanic|4 years ago|reply
I think this is essentially suposed to make us conceive law enforcement as always right and doing everything to "keep us safe" even if they have to disregard the law. You can clearly see it's working in how many people unquestionably support the police.
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] fundad|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _xnmw|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ArnoVW|4 years ago|reply
Interesting in many ways. It shows the photographical choices and approaches that they used. The creative process and choices (and the vision and influence of Bruckenheimer).. and the way that the Navy had an influence.
Example: the CO of the Miramar base (where it was shot) had a veto right on the script. He rejected because there was a romance between enlisted, and because there was an in-flight collision. Which resulted in Bruckenheimer finding 'work-arounds' : Charlie becomes an external consultant, the collision becomes a flat spin following a jet wash incident (the CO looked over old accidents to find something suitable)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Knz5LM_FzEE
[+] [-] Lammy|4 years ago|reply
"Creel later published his memoirs of his service with the CPI, 'How We Advertised America', in which he wrote:
“In no degree was the Committee an agency of censorship, a machinery of concealment or repression. Its emphasis throughout was on the open and the positive. At no point did it seek or exercise authorities under those war laws that limited the freedom of speech and press. In all things, from first to last, without halt or change, it was a plain publicity proposition, a vast enterprise in salesmanship, the world's greatest adventures in advertising… We did not call it propaganda, for that word, in German hands, had come to be associated with deceit and corruption. Our effort was educational and informative throughout, for we had such confidence in our case as to feel that no other argument was needed than the simple, straightforward presentation of the facts.”"
[+] [-] ignoramous|4 years ago|reply
> [Hu Shih] was among the first contributors for radical ideological change and modernity in China. His article on the 'Indianization of China' presented a scathing criticism of Indian influence on China that inhibited the blooming of 'indigenous modernity', progressivism and dynamism there. Hu’s views supported contemporary 'modernist' Chinese intellectuals' labelling of India under the British as a 'ruined' civilisation, 'failed' state or incapable role model for the agenda of modernity. Yet, he did not overlook affinities, mutual respect and admiration for those in India searching for 'indigenous roots' to modernity. His famous observation that 'India conquered and dominated China culturally for 20 centuries without ever having to send a single soldier across her border' is one of the most quoted sentences in any study of Sino-Indian encounters and connections.
Iranians and later Turkic Mongols had a similar affect (Persianisation) on India itself before imperialism took hold, and westernisation came to the fore; for ex: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macaulayism
Dominant cultures have always sought influence.
[+] [-] ddoran|4 years ago|reply
I've always assumed this to be a very deliberate strategy to build an implicit association between the "nobility" of sport and war, to boost recruitment and win over the hearts and minds of the American public for past, current and future military action.
Now count how many times you've seen any sign of the military at a sports event in Europe - rare to never. It's not normal and it's sad to me that it is so normalized in the US.
[+] [-] xcambar|4 years ago|reply
The narrative around space became very strong, sending messages of conquest, entrepreneurship, science, dreams, you name it.
At the exact same period, bloomed movies like: Mission to Mars, Gravity, Interstellar.
I won't be surprised to see a surge of interest in space-related careers in younger generations in years to come.
[+] [-] pdimitar|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] a_throwaway_8|4 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn1VxaMEjRU
Harsh, I know. But how long can US people watch the lies in their top-selling films about how heroic their soldiers are, while completely ignoring the atrocities their armies are involved in, around the world?
[+] [-] worldsayshi|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dataflow|4 years ago|reply
Any links?
[+] [-] Barrin92|4 years ago|reply
Being German and having Russian relatives the perspective on the war on the continent has always been interesting to me. The sheer scale and brutality of the Eastern front, the war crimes and death (The Soviet Union lost more than 15% of its population!) is astonishing.
I don't think popular media reflects this at all, not even necessarily maliciously or as propaganda intentionally. But that disconnect between the reality, and the recognition of it in Russia itself, has had vastly negative consequences when it comes to other countries trying to understand Russia even today. (and I suppose it's not by accident that in Germany for example, often only elder statesmen point this out)
[+] [-] camillomiller|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elcapitan|4 years ago|reply
> Roughly 17.5 million tons of military equipment, vehicles, industrial supplies, and food were shipped from the Western Hemisphere to the USSR, 94% coming from the US. For comparison, a total of 22 million tons landed in Europe to supply American forces from January 1942 to May 1945. It has been estimated that American deliveries to the USSR through the Persian Corridor alone were sufficient, by US Army standards, to maintain sixty combat divisions in the line.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#US_deliveries_to_th...
[+] [-] Stevvo|4 years ago|reply
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_War
[+] [-] gampleman|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] reillyse|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaway4good|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JPLeRouzic|4 years ago|reply
Yet now, for French people and media, destructions and people displacements were all the fault of Nazi's Germany. And for medias, the time after war was an happy time "les trente glorieuses" [1].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abb%C3%A9_Pierre#Winter_1954:_...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trente_Glorieuses
[+] [-] tgv|4 years ago|reply
Yeah, but that number is so high because they were effective at killing their own people. The number of needless victims during the fighting and those of the "cleansing" after a win is incredibly high.
[+] [-] veidelis|4 years ago|reply
When?
[+] [-] heavyset_go|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] teh_klev|4 years ago|reply
https://www.spyculture.com/podcasts/
He's also amassed a huge library of documents via FOIA about this particular topic:
https://www.spyculture.com/documents/
[+] [-] goodpoint|4 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
[+] [-] fsloth|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] avgcorrection|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alephr|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tzs|4 years ago|reply
That seems like a ridiculous claim. Carol Danvers was an Air Force officer when the character was created in 1968. No one was trying to sell the Air Force to women in 1968.
Marvel, both the comics and the movies, has been more anti-military than pro-military. The military, specifically the US military, is often the bad guys.
For example, it was the military that led to the creation of the Hulk, and are generally the bad guys in both the comics and movies when it comes to things related to Hulk.
If in a Marvel work the military shows up, it is almost a cliche that they are going to be the bad guys unless it is a military vs. military situation such as with Captain America. And even the first Captain America movie didn't portray the US military all that favorably--they create the first super soldier and then just want to use him as an entertainer!