|PIC1|As war and violence continue in the Middle East, many in the West wonder whether the ‘war on terror’ can ever be won. While some security analysts think Al Qaeda is largely a spent force, we nevertheless hear again and again about other groups linked to it.

Given the nature of Islamic extremist groups, one wonders how Western intelligence agencies can ever penetrate them and gain the information they need.

This is the question at the centre of Ridley Scott’s Body of Lies. The security services have impressively sophisticated technology at hand, but is it enough? Early in the film we are told that, ‘Our enemy realises they are fighting guys from the future,' so they disappear by living as people from the past. If they don’t use modern technology for communication, they cannot be monitored and tracked.

Body of Lies is based on the novel of the same name by David Ignatius, a journalist who spent a decade covering the Middle East and the CIA for the Wall Street Journal. It’s impossible to know, of course, how much of his story is based in the facts of how the CIA operates and how much is invention. But much of it seems very plausible, and the grittiness and urgency of its portrayal make it feel very real.

Screenwriter William Monahan says, "The story showed the intelligence world more or less as it is with, if anything, more pragmatism and less political colouring than you find in the actual CIA." As part of his preparation for the lead role, Leonardo DiCaprio spent time talking to Ignatius as well as with former CIA agents.

The CIA’s best man on the ground in the Middle East, Roger Ferris (Leonardo DiCaprio), is trying to track down Al-Saleem, the leader of an extremist group which is responsible for a bombing campaign in Europe. He is dependent not only on his wits and experience, but also on constant communication with his boss, Ed Hoffman (Russell Crowe).

Hoffman is back in suburban America, but from what he sees on his laptop via spy satellites, and from what Ferris tells him over the secure phone line, he knows precisely what is happening. And his instructions into Ferris’s earpiece can mean the difference between life and death for the agent.

Ferris is totally committed to stopping terrorism, and he risks his life daily in order to do so. Information is everything, and Ferris is relentless in his pursuit of it, but in the murky world in which he operates, he cannot be sure whose information he can trust. He has little choice but to trust Hoffman, but he knows that his superior will stop at nothing to achieve his objectives – and that may mean that Ferris is left high and dry because Hoffman is frequently running two different plans at the same time. The one man he can rely on is himself. He must trust his instincts, his ability to seamlessly switch from one situation and character to another, and his sharpness in spotting when something is going wrong.

The big difference between Ferris and Hoffman is that the former cares deeply about what is happening to the region and its people, whereas the latter is cold, ruthless and detached, concerned only with America’s interests.

David Ignatius says, "Ed Hoffman is cynical, tough, a man who was born to use other people. He doesn’t care about the human cost of what he does. Ferris is a person who cares deeply. He uses people, but it bothers him that he’s doing it." Roger Ferris is troubled by the moral dilemmas and questions of conscience.

After Hoffman moves Ferris to Amman, the field agent develops a fragile trust with Hani Salaam (Mark Strong), head of the Jordanian security services. Both men rely on their instincts and feel that they can trust the other. But they also both know the nature of the game they are playing, and Hani insists that Ferris must never lie to him.

Ridley Scott comments, "In Hani’s soul is a tradition of honour and trust. If he doesn’t trust you, you’re not going to get anywhere. And to gain his trust, you’ve got to act transparently. But by virtue of his job, Ferris is fundamentally obligated to lie to him."

Things come to a head when Ferris and Hoffman concoct a plan to disseminate false information in a bid to flush out Al-Saleem. What makes things even more difficult for Ferris is that he develops a tentative relationship with a Jordanian nurse, Aisha (Iranian actress Gloshifteh Farahani).

Watching Body of Lies is a tense affair for anyone who allows themselves to be drawn into the narrative. The increasing danger for Roger Ferris and the consequences of failure at any point easily induce a state of acute nervousness.

But part of the anxiety comes from witnessing Ferris’s moral dilemmas. Given the situation in the Middle East, the conscience struggles he experiences are important to all of us. Global security is of immense importance, and Western security forces play a crucial role in achieving it. But what moral compromises are made along the way? Do we have any option other than to have men as ruthlessly efficient as Hoffman playing devious games with friend and foe alike? Are deception, disinformation and covert violence necessary in order to achieve the goal? Do the ends justify any means? Watching a film like this, it’s hard to imagine what alternatives there might be. But if we want the world to be free of the terrorist threat, doesn’t that make us complicit in the moral compromises?

These kinds of ethical choices are often presented in a utilitarian fashion: what matters is the greatest happiness – or security – of the greatest number of people. I reject utilitarianism because it is fraught with problems. Who knows, for example, what the ultimate consequences of certain actions will be? What we think is expedient now can turn out, as we know all too well, to be disastrous in the long run. This is repeated in the Middle East again and again. And does the security of the majority really justify the mistreatment of a minority? Given the value we put on the rights of minority in today’s world (and rightly so), it surely cannot.

However, it does seem to be clear that great evils can sometimes only be confronted by actions which, in other situations, would be perceived as wrong. This is a key part of the idea of a just war. War is not good, but sometimes there is no choice. I don’t like people being used and manipulated and deceived, but I do believe that terrorism is a greater evil. And I feel for the people on the ground who have to make tough calls and risk doing the wrong thing.

One of the extraordinary things about the Christian message is that Jesus Christ, God’s Son, stepped into our world in order to identify with morally corrupt humanity, to be abused and wrongfully arrested as a result of disinformation, to be falsely prosecuted and killed, all to deal with the problem of evil itself. Self-sacrifice is a deeply moving concept. I admire intensely the willingness of people to risk their lives for our security, as Roger Ferris does. But how much more do I appreciate the self-sacrifice of the one who alone can deal with the evil in the human heart.


This article was first published on Damaris' Culturewatch website (www.culturewatch.org) - used with permission.
© Copyright Tony Watkins (2008)