John Milius, liac forced us to confrontrnsome uncomfortable issues concerningrnour rcsolxc in combat. W’atcbing thisrnfihii in the afterniatli ot the attack onrn c w York and Washington should makernAmericans squirm, \liateer else it failsrnto do, it refuses to let us off an exceedine-rn_ -‘rn1 painful moral hook.rnAs his biblical htlc indicates, Copjjolarnwanted nothing less than to become arnprophet to an America shll tormented hrnits recent defeat in Vietnam. .t uioments,rnhe succeeds —now here more sornthan in the hideous challenge luuledrnat us h’ the film’s nionstrousK’ clearcrncd (keen Beret colonel, alter Kurt/,rnphned h an appro|.-)riatcl monstrousrnMarlon Brando. IIo\, Kurt/ wants tornknow, do we conduct a war against truebelie’rning zealots w ho are willing not onh-rnto die for Hicir cause but to commit an-rnatrocitx- thc^ deem necessar to its success?rnUsing the narratie structure and litcrarrnconceit of Joseph (xmrad’s llcciii ofrnDarkness, the plot sets uulitar intelligencernagent Capt. Beujanun \ illardrn(Martin Sheen) on a mission to find andrnmurder Kurtz for using “unsound methods”rnin his personal prosecution of thernwar. As did Kurtz in Conrad’s uoxclla.rnCjoppola’s Kurtz has stepped off the maprnof what is deemed acecptable restraint.rnI le lias moed into Clambodia and set u])rnhis own fortress compound, inhabited b-rnMontagnard trihesnien w ho w orship himrnas though he w ere a god. ‘rhe e en offerrnhuman sacrifice to him in the form ofrnslain enemies. I’o the officers in Saigon,rnhe’s a destabilizing x)ice in the wilderness.rnHa ing rejected their sound methodsrn—dro]3]3ing bondis on North Vietnamrnin 10,()()()-ton paloads —he must bernsilenced.rnKurtz has been dri en o er the edge b’rnAmerica’s hpocritical war ot half-measures.rnHe is disgusted b’ his eountr’s inabilihrnto face the truth about its cnenn.rnIn his ees, Hie iet C-ong are brae, determined,rnand merciless ad’ersaries whorncannot be defeated b” .Vnierieans whornlack ideological commitment and heroicrnhonor. When Willard arries at his compound,rnKurtz illustrates his point with arngrish anecdote, ears earlier, he hadrntried to hel|3 some Vietnamese illagersrnb administering imuumizatious to theirrnchildren. Later, he discovered that thern’iet C’ong had come and ssteinaticallrnbacked the aecinated arms from eachrnchild. Horrified at first, his feelings gaernwa to admiration. “The genius of that,”rnDis-appointmentsrnbv Bradley R. StrahanrnSo wh’ hae we been waitingrnall this time for ” I h c MxstcriousrnStranger,” for “The Shadow,” forrn”the god in the machine”?rnhat our sight fails Nowwcrnfinalh’ can see? Now that wernfail to hear the sentence, die wordsrnwe spoke fiualK reach oru’ ears?rnSo let us bum our old loc letters,rntear up those “|.)romising ” poems,rntake our tight jeans to Goodwillrnand smile blankK at the horizonrnw here nothing will come o errnbut a few more suns and stars,rnw hile we wait for the mistrnencrusted moon to bring us rain.rnhe muses, almost dreaniilw He’s con-rninccd the men who did diis were moralrnand lo ing in |3eaeetiine. What fascinatesrnhim is their abiht to “ufilize theirrnprimordial instincts” in conflict. “If 1 hadrnten diisions like that, our troubles wouldrnl)c soon oer,” he assures Willard. “Horrorrnhas a face,” he explains. “You mustrnmake a friend of horror. Horror is arnmoral force.” It would be eas to assumernsuch conn lieu ts are designed to reealrnKurtz’s insanih, but I don’t think it’s thatrnsimple. Kike Conrad’s Kurtz, diis manrnhas stepped bcvond the comforting Inpocrisiesrnwe use to coinince oursehes thatrnwe are dccenfK’ ciilized. Another characterrnw ho belie es Kurtz to be a great (althoughrnflawed) man explains (using arnparaphrase of CJonrad’s words) that “Hisrnintelligence |is| perfeeth’ clear but hisrnsoul jis| mad.” With Kurtz, C^oppola andrnMilius have tried to make us face thernmoral eonsecpicnees of going to warrnagainst an implacable enein- operatingrnoutside all moral boundaries.rnWhatever the warrior code of honorrnwas supposed to be in past centuries, inrnoin’ time of guerrilla engagements,rnmechanized weaponrv, and total war, itrnseems lio|3elcssK nostalgic. If we’re goingrnup against a teehnologiealhrnequipped enemy readv and willing tornconrmit an” atroeit, including suicidernbombings, how do we res]3ond? Can ourrnmethods be au less ruthless? More tornthe ])oint, fiae tbe been in the ]3ast?rnRemember the rhetoric about the “smartrnbombs” we were su])posed to liae usedrnin the (iulf War? \ e’e since disccneredrnthe weren’t as smart as adxertised. I lowrnman innocents did we maim and kill inrnthat campaign? And then we left beforernthe job was done, using compassion asrnom” excuse. .Vs Willard sas about oiu’rntreatment of the Vietnamese: “We w onidrncut diem in half with machine guns andrnthen hand diem a bandaid. It was a warnwe bad of living with oursehes oerrnthere.”rnI hae no idea what will be happeningrnwhen this issue hits the newsstands, but Irndo know this: We had best open our e esrnand face Kurtz’s challenge lionestK. Wernare going to hac to find wa}s to fight arnhorribh amoral eiiem-, meeting himrnwidi supreme and unflinching determination.rnLet’s pra we can find flic willrnand means to do so w ith clear minds andrnsound souls. L en as we descend into flicrndarkness, let’s keep listening for L.d’srnoiee, calling us toward the light.rnSO/CHRONICLESrnrnrn