As you may be aware, there's a war going on. Although President Barack Obama has declared an end to combat operations in Iraq, U.S. troops there and in Afghanistan still face threats to their lives on a daily basis. In fact, 2010 has already set the annual record for U.S. troop fatalities since the war in Afghanistan began nine years ago. All indications are a conditions-based withdrawal is still many years away. With all the sacrifices U.S. servicepersons have made, the least we can do is make sure their entertainment needs are met.
I can't begin to imagine how it feels to be deployed overseas in an unfamiliar, extremely high-stress environment. But if I were, I'd want to be treated like an adult, and I wouldn't appreciate the fact that the sale of pornography is banned on U.S. military bases. For whatever reason, we have a tendency to act like members of our volunteer armed forces don't know what's good for them. Just last week, U.S. soldiers experienced an additional setback for their entertainment options when the upcoming "Medal of Honor" video game was banned from U.S. military base exchanges.
The story so far…
Insensitive
Most Americans enjoy television as an entertainment medium. Recent Nielsen data indicates Americans are watching television now more than ever. In addition, many of us use our televisions to watch movies or play video games. Sitting in front of the TV as a method of frivolous amusement is completely ordinary, even if we have a variety of programming preferences.
I suppose if you've never played video games, they must seem very silly. When I was a kid, Nintendo was like the most amazing thing ever, so I assume many people my age have a fondness for video games. Having lived my life in an era of video game abundance, I view it simply as one of many entertainment options.
Still, some people (who are probably a little older than me) take video games very seriously, despite not being familiar with them. All over the world, it's not uncommon for civilized countries to restrict the sale of games found to be excessively violent or otherwise inappropriate. While there are certainly many games that are excessively violent and inappropriate, in America we typically let grown-ups make up their own minds about how they spend their time.
But if you don't know much about video games and all you hear is, "there's a game where you can play as a Taliban fighter and kill U.S. soldiers," it might tickle one's censorship bone. There's a new "Medal of Honor" game coming out next month, and it contains a multiplayer scenario in which the player can adopt a Taliban avatar. This is not everyone's idea of fun:
"Small victory,'' was all it said on the subject line of Karen Meredith's e-mail.
But for the Silicon Valley military mom, who lost her son in the Iraq war, the decision this week by U.S. military base exchanges not to carry the controversial "Medal of Honor" video game was still great news.
"I'm thrilled,'' said Meredith, whose son, Lt. Ken Ballard, perished in 2004. She has set off a storm of protest against Redwood City-based Electronic Arts and its "first-person shooter'' game, which allows players to pretend they're Taliban fighters killing American soldiers in Afghanistan. She applauded Maj. Gen. Bruce Casella, commander of the Army and Air Force Exchange Service, or AAFES, for the decision to keep the game out of its stores worldwide. […]
Due out Oct. 12, "Medal of Honor" has drawn accolades from gamers and has been defended even by some U.S. soldiers. But it has unleashed howls of protest from families who have lost loved ones and even from Great Britain's Secretary of State for Defence Liam Fox, who urged retailers to "ban this tasteless product.''
It's easy to see where Ms. Meredith is coming from – surely no one could expect her to see the entertainment value in "Medal of Honor." But I can't agree with the wisdom of banning the game's sale on military bases.
Perhaps many, if not most, combat veterans wouldn't care to play a game that represents an experience they're uncomfortably familiar with. I really haven't a clue, but it's a little unseemly to take the question out of their hands altogether. If soldiers don't want to play it, it won't sell on its own. And I have a hard time believing many U.S. servicepersons would be offended by its availability.
With all due respect to Ms. Meredith, it's really just an unfortunate misunderstanding. Playing as a Taliban character isn't part of the game's main storyline – it's just an option during multiplayer, i.e., you can play as the "bad guy" if you want. It's the same principle that sold many Darth Vader action figures when I was a kid. Electronics Arts' spokesman likened "Medal of Honor" multiplayer to youngsters of a different generation playing cops-and-robbers: "Someone is the good guy. Someone is the bad guy. When the robbers won, it didn't mean those kids wanted to kill the police."
In fairness, one could argue there's a big "too soon" issue about representing an ongoing conflict as a means of entertainment. For families that have lost loved ones during the Global War on Terror, the idea of playing a game that involves killing U.S. soldiers must be appalling in any context. But ultimately, it should be up to consumers to render a verdict on a game's tastefulness. It's condescending to deny them that opportunity by banning it.
To be sure, any U.S. soldier who wants to buy "Medal of Honor" will have plenty of options. Since the ban won't realistically prevent anyone from obtaining a copy of the game, the primary effect will be to inconvenience U.S. soldiers who might prefer to buy local. American troops already face enough inconvenience with the endless real wars they're fighting – it's an insult to restrict their ability to have a laugh fighting a pretend one.
