The U.S. TV series Homeland is a remake of the Israeli series Prisoners of War. I’ve not seen the latter but I think its safe to say that Homeland has gone way beyond the original source material. The show’s first season was one of Showtime’s most popular series and the 2nd and 3rd seasons built on that popularity. I’ve been watching it on and off since it first hit the DVD market, probably about eight years ago. I remember reading, around that time, that it was a favorite of President Obama. The show has garnered a handful of Emmy and Golden Globe awards as well as critical praise from lesser figures. Given its topic, it also should not surprise that it has earned its share of controversy.
I’ve now just started watching Season 6, originally airing on Showtime in 2017. In one online review (IMDB, if I recall) I read a complaint that nothing much happened in that season’s first show – that there is no way to tell what the season is going to be about. I don’t know if that’s true but I still wanted to record my takeaway from this one show before I cloud my judgement with other, perhaps more substantial episodes.
The season opener, first off, must wrap up some loose ends from the previous season. I gather that this production is renewed on a season-by-season basis so, at least for this particular transition, there was no way to know when wrapping up Season 5 whether that would represent an ending, or whether the story was to continue. Additionally, we need to set the stage for the coming episodes. To the later point, we meet a young man, a New Yorker born of Nigerian parents, who creates web videos about Islamic terror activities in New York. We also meet the incoming President, who is in the period between election and inauguration.
The episode aired less than a week before Donald Trump’s inauguration as President. It was filmed, however, before the election results were known. The show, for obvious reasons, must use fictional characters to stand in for its major political and governmental personalities. In 2016, the show’s fictional election victory went to Elizabeth Keane, a Senator from New York. If this sounds to you a little like one of the actual candidates for president that year, we may be thinking alike. In President-elect Keane, I have to assume I’m looking at the writers’ fantasy version of Hillary Clinton, an anti-war president who has strong views in opposition to elements of the War on Terror and America’s related clandestine operations. CIA bigwig Dar Adal (F. Murray Abraham) points out that this is not the message candidate Keane ran on – her anti-war stance will be a surprise to the electorate. As the episode ends, we witness a meeting of top “deep state” officials, apparently working to counter the obvious intentions of the incoming president to reel in the military-industrial complex in their global operations.
I find this ironic. There is nothing in Hillary’s past that suggests she would be anti-war. Senator Keane’s feelings are tied to the death of her son while serving a third tour-of-duty in the Middle East – a backstory that couldn’t align with but a precious few of our top politicians. If anything, it was Donald Trump that showed himself to be anti-war, pro-draw-down, and in conflict with the hawkish stance of the CIA and other agencies. Obviously Trump was no peacenik – his “support the troops” stance can and did involve support for military action – but his record is arguably one of the least militaristic of any President since Jimmy Carter. Furthermore, his stint in office may have flipped the dove/hawk political lines. One of Joe Biden’s first acts as President was to deploy forces to the Middle East. What a change from his Democrat predecessors, who at least campaigned on bringing the boys back home (even if the difference between Obama and Bush policy was hard to discern). Are we due a future where Republicans are the party of peace and Democrats are the pro-intervention global policemen? I’d guess we’re already there in many ways, just waiting for the “narrative” to catch up. Substitute “isolationist” for “anti-war,” and see how that grabs you.
Going back to the fictional universe, while we see a brewing conflict between the “elites” and the “will of the people,” we’re also shown a dark side to that War on Terror. Newly-introduced character Sekou Bah, Muslim faith aside, comes off as an all-American kid. Although his father is Nigerian and presently in Nigeria (having been deported, probably unjustly, in the post-9-11 actions), Sekou clearly sees himself as American. He posts some anti-establishment content and, while he knows he is challenging his own government, he assumes that his guarantees to the Freedom of Speech will be protected. He finds out his mistake while being held as a terrorist.
Terrorism and how to address it was obviously an issue during the election campaign of 2016. Candidate Trump called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.” This strongly colored the perception of what a soon-to-be Trump administration was going to be about. As of the airing of this episode it would not have been known, but he would follow through with his promise by March. One could be forgiven for anticipating a return to the post 2001 environment which made life very difficult for not only Muslim immigrants, but also Muslim-Americans.
So what about today? We’re almost exactly four years into the future and the world looks very different.
The former director of the CIA, John Brennan, has now called for a war on the ongoing American “insurgency,” suggesting we target “religious extremists, authoritarians, fascists, bigots, racists, nativists, even libertarians.” For tactics, he offers, we should look to the war against the likes of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere. We must bring that war on terror home to take on our fellow Americans. Even worse, he is not alone. Similar sentiments have emanated from members of Congress and from other governmental agencies. As if to challenge our ability to even keep up, the new Secretary of Defense (about a week ago) has ordered that the entire military “stand down” for 60 days while our forces purge themselves of racists and nazis. This week he suggested that this is only the beginning. One struggles to understand what that even means. Will it mean a massive political purge of all those who supported Donald Trump or just more training on the inadvisability of making dick jokes?
So with whom should we identify in this new season? Carrie Matheson, I suppose, if you are watching the world, not as a victim, but as an agent for change. But what if you voted for Donald Trump? What if you are worried that the election system is being systematically weighted toward a particular outcome? What if you think that MyPillow guy might have a point? Then maybe you feel a little more like Sekou Bah, about to get your doors busted down by Federal agents?
I imagine one counter-point to all of this is “it’s about time!” Maybe subjecting those very people who have cheered on America in her various wars-on (Drugs, Crime, Terror, etc.) to a taste of that same medicine is some kind of “teaching moment.” Isn’t this just a case of “what comes around, goes around?”
I sure hope any rational thinker doesn’t believe that if we keep piling on more wrongs, we’ll eventually get it right. My (I hope rational) interpretation is that we’re currently combining genuine fear (folks who’ve read about the Proud Boys and Oathkeepers poised to seize the reigns of government by force), a lust for retribution, and some colorful rhetoric* in a way that implies there is more to it than there really is. So far, we have talking-head bluster and the occasional scary quote. I suppose we can all hold out hope that cooler heads will prevail. If not, well then I suppose hotter heads will prevail.
*Our language has become so infused with military-style lingo, it’s hard to know how to take some of these announcements. Politics is organized into “campaigns” over “battlegrounds,” with each candidate promising to “fight” for the voters. The use of military language by the politically-appointed head of the military should not surprise us at all. So does “stand down” simply mean “hold a meeting?” The problem with using incendiary language for impact is that you might, inadvertently, start fires you never meant to start.