BSG and the War on Terror

I’m a single disc into season 2 of the new version of Battlestar Galactica. I’m more of an interested bystander than a fan; it hasn’t hooked me in ways that make really being a fan pleasant. But! I’m not here to feel sorry for myself and my inability to love the show.

Instead, I’m thinking about reflections of national consciousness in popular fiction. Disclaimer #1: I don’t watch a lot of TV, and nothing live; the only two current fictional shows I’m familiar with are BSG and Lost (in which I’m also early in season 2). So please forgive me if none of this blathering is new or interesting. Disclaimer #2: Do not look for political opinions in this post. Disclaimer #3: There will be probably be abstracted spoilers below. It should be comprehensible to folks who don’t watch BSG, though. Hopefully other BSG viewers will chip in or argue.

So, I’m starting my comparison with the initial surprise attack on the colonies in BSG, and 9/11. Both were shocking, explosive, and made the survivors hyper-aware of a threat they’d thought was under control. Very different scales of destruction, when compared literally, but certainly similar emotionally. Both involved the disabling of systems the victims thought were safe, and used a means of attack nobody had anticipated.

The heroes are facing enemies who are both alien and very familiar, who seem to have an aggressive religious agenda and an unreasoning hatred for the heroes. The heroes’ own religion is a bit kooky but those who are devout are very devout. The heroes are extremely isolated and mostly without allies as they struggle to survive.

Internally, one faction prefers continued avoidance measures and very strategic strikes only when necessary. Another faction believes that taking some risks in order to follow their religion will ultimately lead them to safety and a return to their old way of life, as manifested by old myths. Almost everybody pays at least lip service to the idea of preserving democracy in the face of such extreme trials but in order to actually preserve democracy some hard choices must be made– because factions have different views on how valuable democracy is, as compared to survival.

Meanwhile, the familiarity of the enemy is starting to make people uncomfortable, because what it means is that the enemy could be anywhere and anyone. Loyalty becomes a paramount character trait, but protestations of loyalty cannot overcome the truth of where one is from. The heroes react violently to possible disloyalty, but themselves sometimes end up acting in ways directly contrary to their supposed allegience. They’ve placed somebody who takes advice from an invisible source in a position of great power and authority, despite suggestions from other angles that the invisible source may not have the best interests of the heroes in mind (or may even be just the manifestation of a troubled mind).

Some heroes are even more bothered by the familiarity of the enemy because they have reason to believe that individual members of the enemy force are basically people just like the heroes. But given that they are demonstrably the enemy, there’s a struggle to find some way to reconcile the two ideas. Mostly, the idea that they’re simply the enemy wins out– we see a lot more of the enemy acting like an enemy than acting like people. Not only do they attack again and again, but we hear the enemy’s dogma emphasized over and over again, along with an incessant repetition of the heroes’ faults.

The media matters, but only one of the hero factions seems aware of it. It matters more than really makes sense, because it provides information and entertainment to a frightened and bored population. After all, there are constant reminders that a war for survival is being fought, and that their way of life is being destroyed.

Hmm. I feel like there’s more, but I’m not sure it isn’t just detail-work re-emphasis of the same ideas and themes. Also, I’m incredibly sleepy. What do other people think?