"anti-war" is a nearly useless phrase for media criticism because it casts a wide trawler's net to group together works with entirely different aims, positions, and effects. is it "anti-war", in that it shows the consequences of violent invasions upon the peoples who are the victims of those invasions, is it anti-aggression, anti-empire? is it "anti-war" because it simply honestly depicts war, whatever the slant, as composed of its actual constituent substrate of human beings inflicting injuries on one another? or is it "anti-war" simply in that it laments how terribly difficult it is for those prosecuting these invasions that they get shot at by and feel bad about killing the people whom they are invading--which might be better termed anti-them-fighting-back? these are three very different things!
