Justice at Zero Dark Thirty

Zero Dark Thirty, directed by Kathryn Bigelow

by Paul D. Miller

I was in Arizona on 9/11.  I was in the Army at the time, doing a summer of training at Ft. Huachuca.  Someone told us as we milled about after morning class that there was some kind of attack in New York.  By the time we got to lunch there were wild rumors about how many bombs had gone off and how many planes were in the air.  They cancelled afternoon class and we watched news the rest of the day, forty or fifty soldiers crowded into a small common room.  We turned the TV on just in time to see the second tower collapse on live TV.  I will never forget the gasps, the anger, and the profanities that filled the room as we watched.


I have no idea if you will like Zero Dark Thirty (2012). The film is too close to home for me to watch like a regular movie.  I served in Afghanistan with the Army in 2002.  I served in the CIA as an analyst in the Office of South Asian Analysis from 2003 to 2007.  I worked in the White House as Director for Afghanistan and Pakistan from 2007 to 2009.  My entire career has been defined by 9/11 and the aftermath.  I have such a deep personal stake in it that when I heard someone was making this movie, I felt, at first, violated.

Watching the movie was all the more personal and unsettling  because of one particular violent scene.  I am not  normally squeamish about movie violence–I love the Alien franchise–but it took a few years after serving in Afghanistan  before I could watch war movies again.  It seemed weird and disrespectful to watch real-life horror as entertainment.  That sense was magnified infinitely during one scene in Zero Dark Thirty in which a fictional suicide-bomber pretends to blow himself up, we see a special-effects explosion, and we see a half-dozen actors pretend to die.

The scene is based on a true incident–an attack on a CIA forward operating base in Khowst in December 2009. The incident was so devastating to the CIA that the President released a statement and CIA Director Leon Panetta wrote an oped in The Washington Post.

A friend of mine was there.  I attended his funeral and met his widow.


Watching this movie made me both sad and angry.  Not angry at Kathryn Bigelow or Columbia Pictures.  I would have been if she had made a cheap and splashy film that exploited 9/11, my friend’s death, and the bin Laden raid as blockbuster fare.  This movie, if made by Michael Bay, would have been disgusting.

But Bigelow has made a sensitive and respectful film, one that honors the people who lived its story.  I told my wife after seeing Bigelow’s previous, Oscar-winning film, The Hurt Locker (2009), that it was the most faithful depiction of soldiers’ lives in a modern combat zone I’d ever seen.  I felt honored that someone took the time to tell our story, the story of a million veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, and to tell it right.

Similarly, Zero Dark Thirty tells the stories of the countless  soldiers, sailors,  airmen, Marines, CIA officers, intelligence professionals, and special forces who have spent a decade hunting not just bin Laden, but all of al-Qaida and its murderous allies around the world.  It is the most accurate depiction of intelligence work I’ve ever seen in a movie–the painstaking detective work, the frustration, the dead-ends, the bureaucracy, the uncertainty, and the sudden life-or-death stakes.  There isn’t the slightest hint of James Bond or Jason Bourne here:  even the SEAL Team Six raid is done slowly, methodically, with more professionalism than flare.  If this were pure fiction, no one would see it because it would be too dull.  Bigelow resists the urge to sensationalize, and in so doing she elevates the material and demands that we pay attention to, and think carefully about, what we are watching.

Good art tells stories, provides catharsis, shows how individual lives make up a broader story, teaches and educates, holds up a mirror for us and let us decide if we like what we see or not.  That requires, of course, that we approach art with a sense of responsibility.  We only hear what it is saying if we are listening for it and are willing to think carefully about it.  Art demands an active viewer, listener, or reader; and it demands a response.  Otherwise it is just images and sound–”sound and fury”–that we pass before our senses to pass the time.  Watching Zero Dark Thirty that way would be disrespectful, and wrong.

The right response to this film is not anger at the filmmakers.  It is, first, anger about 9/11, the wars, the death, and, for me, the casual ignorance among the vast majority of the population about the sacrifices borne by a tiny handful of heroes.  I was angry most of all at al-Qaida, at Osama bin Laden and his hateful jihad, at Humam Khalil Abu-Mulal al-Balawi for murdering my friend.  But the anger is muted by a pervading sadness:  Zero Dark Thirty is a profoundly melancholy, grim film.


Another response is to think carefully about the nature of war.  Some critics claim Zero Dark Thirty is pro-torture for showing American personnel getting valuable information from detainees after waterboarding them and treating them roughly.  Another, more experienced ex-CIA officer has criticized the movie for its inaccurate portrayal of the “enhanced interrogation” techniques.  Several United States Senators weighed in to say the movie is inaccurate, which is a compliment of sorts.  They hadn’t bothered to comment on the accuracy of depicting Congress as full of stupid, slavery-loving crooks in  Lincoln, after all.

The critics and the Senate are missing the point of historical dramatization.  In the ten-year hunt for bin Laden, the United States did stuff, hard stuff, controversial stuff that was maybe on (or over) the line between right and wrong.  Waterboarding, for better or worse, has become the most recognizable symbol of all that stuff.  Bigelow’s decision to include a scene of waterboarding in the movie is an accurate dramatization that the U.S. did stuff like that.  If waterboarding itself did not literally provide the crucial link in the hunt for bin Laden, I am absolutely certain that  some of the stuff the United States did after 9/11 has been instrumental in preventing another 9/11 and keeping al-Qaida on the run.

Let me say that again.  With all the weight of ten years of work in the Army, the CIA, and the White House, I am absolutely certain that there would have been at least one, if not more, successful, large-scale terrorist attacks on the United States without the “gloves-off” measures used in the last decade.

Is that just?  Leaving aside nuance, let’s just ask it straight:  are torture and assassination permissible tools of self-defense?  Ultimately, the movie does not provide an answer, and I won’t presume to offer a definitive solution in a movie review.   On the one hand, the moral foundation of government is to defend its citizens and uphold order.  A government that fails in its first duty is not worthy of the name. Paul writes in Romans 13 that the ruler “does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.”  If the death penalty is justified, and I believe it is, then so is hunting down and executing a war criminal.  And if we can kill some, then we can certainly rough up others in the pursuit of good information about them.

On the other hand, Paul writes in Romans 12 “‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord.”  And we know that every human being has inherent dignity and worth in the sight of God as a creature made in his image.  Maybe there are some things–acts of revenge or humiliation–that governments should not do under any circumstances.  Perhaps the very same act–like using an  “enhanced interrogation” technique–is an obligatory act of self-defense and a damnable act of revenge at the same time for different people, depending on the state of their hearts. I confess after more than ten years I am less sure about these issues than ever.

Bigelow’s film, by refusing to editorialize or tell its audience what to think about these questions, compels us to ask and answer them ourselves.  In this sense it is fundamentally different than the other great post-9/11 film about terrorism, Steven Spielberg’s Munich (2005), which ends on a preachy note with one character telling another that “there is no peace at the end of this.”


The bulk of Zero Dark Thirty is a very good spy thriller.  It ends, as we all know, as a war movie. The final sequence [this is not a spoiler unless you've been living in a cave], showing SEAL Team Six’s assault on Osama bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, called to my mind the St. Crispin’s Day speech in Shakespeare’s Henry V:

And gentlemen in England now-a-bed / Shall think themselves accurs’d they were not here, / And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks / That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.

Every soldier, sailor, airman, Marine, and spy–and a good swath of the American population–woke up on May 2, 2011, heard the news, and wished they had been there in Abbottabad.  Zero Dark Thirty gives us the vicarious experience of having been there.  Bigelow wisely underplays the climactic moment–even refusing to show bin Laden on camera–lest it degenerate into a Tarantino revenge fantasy.  Even so, I confess it was gratifying.  The finale offers a national catharsis  after a decade of frustration.

I recognize how bloodthirsty that sounds.  But I don’t think bloodlust is the only danger, or even the biggest danger, in relishing the climax of Zero Dark Thirty.   Read the Psalms again and note how often David rejoices over his enemies’ defeat.  We spiritualize too much if we think these Psalms only apply to the “enemy” of temptation, or sin, or the devil.  Sometimes we have actual human enemies who want to kill us, and defeating them is good.  No man’s death is occasion for a party–the celebrations on the National Mall were unseemly–but as I told my students the next morning, justice is good, and sobering.

No, a bigger danger, perhaps, is in cheapening the sacrifice, risk, and work of those who were actually, not vicariously, involved in the hunt.  Some viewers will enjoy a fleeting and shallow sense of pride and pleasure before moving on with life. It may feel gratifying to watch it happen on screen, but take a moment to recognize that you didn’t really do anything to make it happen.  Watch and enjoy Zero Dark Thirty–it is a very good movie–but don’t treat it like a cheap thrill.

In the closing months of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln called on the nation in his Second Inaugural “to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan.” Here’s an idea for a responsible approach to Zero Dark Thirty.  Watch the movie, then donate the equivalent of your movie ticket, if not more, to the CIA Officer’s Memorial Foundation.  The Foundation provides educational support to the children of CIA officers killed in the line of duty.  My friend left behind three of them.

  • Maggie Goff

    I have to say that I had not planned on seeing this, but have changed my mind after reading this post. Thank you. Also, thank you from the bottom of my heart for all that you have done for our country.

    I live in Bisbee, AZ, not far from Fort Huachuca. Have been there many times in my role as a Patriot Guard Rider, and just to experience the beauty that is Garden Canyon.

  • Paul Lobo

    Hi Paul
    wonderfully written; i haven’t see the movie, but your review speaks volumes.
    It seems to me that for people like yourself who have had (and still do) such a personal connection/stake with all that has happened, there is no easy answer to many of the questions you have raised.
    i hope/pray that you and others, who have served so well, will have some kind of closure.

  • Pingback: ‘Zero Dark Thirty’ is Very Gripping and Very Demanding()

  • Donny

    Excellent write-up! I agree, Kathryn Bigelow did a great job with this movie, and I was very appreciative that it was NOT the exploitative movie I was expecting it to be. With that said, I would just like to end this by saying “thank you” to you, and to all the other men and women that keep our country safe…

  • Pingback: Excellent ‘Zero Dark Thirty’ far richer than torture flap | Opinion Blog()

  • Pingback: The Real Story: “Zero Dark Thirty” and the Hunt for Bin Laden - Movie Mom()

  • Michelle B.

    I too lost one of my very best friends in that CIA attack on Dec 30, 2009. His name was Jeremy Jason Wise. He was the most honorable man I have ever known. His passing has left me raw emotionally. I still have not come to terms with it. One year ago today his younger brother Benjamn B. Wise also lost his life serving in Afghanistan. Ben left behind a wife and three small children. There is no way that I can handle watching this film. I went to see Les Mis last week and they played a preview of Zero Dark Thirty. It included a few seconds of the scene where Jeremy was killed. I was not expecting it. I screamed out “NO!!!” and burst into tears. I tried to convince myself that I did not see what I thought I did. Thank you for your blog. Now that I know this I will make sure to warn the Wise family as I know it would be much too painful for them to watch as well. God knows they have already been through enough.

  • Josh

    I can tell from your well written article that you have a lot invested in the search for the evil and bringing to justice those who did us harm and would continue to do so after 9/11. In order to make all the sacrifices that have been made to this day worthwhile, many people like myself question. It is our nature. We do it to find the truth and to protect those we love.

    The biggest danger is not the sacrificing of principles, nor the bloodlust, nor the cheapening of a sacrifice, but the action of a nation to fully commit to a war that killed tens of thousands without even fully knowing the facts of who to blame. To know this you would have to start at the beginning to know who was at fault. It is a moral imperative. You must know the truth without a doubt before those sacrifices were honored. Before we sacrificed our principles.

    Watch Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth. Listen to the experts who have serious reservations about the story. I warn you, there will most likely be some serious cognitive dissonance.

    This one event has dictated our foreign and domestic policy for a decade and has lost us liberties that were given to us in the Bill of Rights. You HAVE to know the truth or all else that is done is forfeit.

  • Pingback: A Good Review of Zero Dark Thirty « iconobaptist()

  • Jeremy Forbing

    Thank you for writing this, and for sharing emotions that are so personal along with your insights. The same melancholy that you note pervade the film is also present in your writing, and should, rightly, pervade any reflection on the wars. Your honesty is much appreciated.

    • Ralph Hitchens

      This was a good, honest review from someone who had a piece of the action, so to speak. I agree that it was a straightforward portrayal of an action carried forward from intelligence collection to analysis to target acquisition, and then to the final closing of the loop. From the press reaction I expected the torture scenes to be more graphic and prolonged, so I think the filmmaker was actually more restrained than she could have been. While the denouement was undoubtedly satisfying to many, some perspective is needed. Our national nemesis was a man living in hiding, isolated from the outside world, surrounded by women and children with only a couple of armed guards for protection. Can anyone link this man with the groups springing up in Mali or Algeria or any number of other places in the Mideast? What was the real intelligence value of taking him out, or of the files and hard drives we recovered in the process? I supposed we can always use this raid as a demonstration to the world of the unmatched reach of American power, similar to what a Roman legion did to a handful of fanatic Jewish rebels at Masada in 73 AD.

  • http://about.me/ngakpaKJT Ngakpa K. Jigme Tonpa

    I cannot pretend to understand the frustration and grief that you experienced, and which resurfaced as you confronted scenes in this film. That it is true to your life and dozens of other intelligence officers slogging in the field, and exposed to countless dangers, is doubtless true. My unhappiness with this film (and similarly “Django Unchained” where arguably as similar wrong was avenged, and seemingly fully) was that our actions become our life hereafter – and our enemies adopt our tactics. If we never used humiliation as a commonplace tactic in the past… and it became commonplace in our treatment of Muslim prisoners after Abu Ghraib… then easily our enemies will make us, when imprisoned, drink our own piss and wear women’s undergarments and set fire to the Bible – following our example. The more “creative” and abusive our tortures become, and the more debased our conduct toward our enemies, the lower our rank amongst humans and the further from our moral compass we have strayed. And certainly it has been adequately demonstrated (again and again) that very little reliable or actionable intelligence is gained by torture – the motivation to do so, and the personal energy expended to do it, rest in the soul of the torturer alone.

  • Pingback: Favorite Movies of 2012 | Ad Fontes()

  • Joseph O’Mahoney

    Your self-confessedly bloodthirsty reaction to watching a guy get killed seems to be confusing your analysis of the criticisms of the film’s inaccuracies. The film implies that torture was useful in the search for Osama Bin Laden. It was not. Your special feeling that there would have been a major terrorist attack if the CIA etc had not tortured a bunch of people (some of them demonstrably innocent like Khaled el-Masri) is not backed up by anything approaching evidence, and in fact if a major attack HAD been thwarted it is likely we (or at least the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence) would have heard about it.
    Also, you skip right over any justification of your morally corrupt cheerleading of torture and assassination. Leaving aside your evil acceptance of the death penalty, this jump in reasoning is astonishing: “And if we can kill some, then we can certainly rough up others in the pursuit of good information about them.” The fact that someone may have information about a wrongdoer does not give us the right to torture them. Your reaction to 9/11, to torture and to this film is representative of what is wrong with America today. You would be well served by paying attention to another part of Romans 12; “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”

  • Pingback: Depicting versus Endorsing versus Censoring « Confessions of a Movie Queen()

  • Pingback: Man Who Killed Bin Laden: “Is This the Best Thing I’ve Ever Done, or the Worst Thing?”()

  • Pingback: Argo: A Hollywood Feel-Good Fantasy()

  • Dave McLennan

    Brilliant review. Thank you!

  • Pingback: Star Trek Into Terror()