Why Iron Man Is Right, and Why Supporting Captain America Would Be Totally Insane
The following is based exclusively on Marvel movies (meaning no comics or TV shows), and there are no Civil War spoilers until the end (I’ll warn you in advance)
The Avengers’ battles leave a lot of collateral damage, and over 100 countries ask them to submit to some international oversight. The US Secretary of State urges them to sign, and Tony Stark (Iron Man) agrees, arguing that some checks might save them from excessive or misguided uses of force, and that rejecting the deal would create a rift between the Avengers and the international community leading to something worse. Steve Rogers (Captain America) disagrees, arguing that it would shackle the Avengers and prevent them from doing what they need to do to keep people safe.
Tony’s right, and the implications of Captain America’s position are terrifying. Steve thinks humanity should shut up and trust its protectors. He’s wrong. The protected should get a say too.
Benevolent Dictators
Cap’s arguing that the Avengers don’t need any restrictions or accountability because they know what’s best. They can launch missions, destroy property, violate sovereignty, and hurt or kill people whenever they believe it’s right, and it doesn’t matter what anyone else thinks.
At some level, all superhero movies (and most action movies) revolve around this fantasy. The protagonists are good guys and their violence is justified because it stops bad guys.
But in reality, oversight and accountability regarding the use of force are crucial components of democracy and world order. That’s because we can’t always identify who the good guys are in advance, and even people who think they’re doing the right thing sometimes don’t.
It’s better to deny everyone absolute power and avoid the risk of a tyrant than to grant anyone absolute power in the hopes of a benevolent dictator.
International Limitations
At the international level, states have agreed to numerous restrictions on the use of force.
The Geneva Conventions set out guidelines for the treatment of prisoners and rights of non-combatants. The Geneva Protocol prohibits chemical and biological warfare. The UN Charter limits the legitimate use of force to self-defense and actions authorized by the Security Council.
They’re hardly perfect, and the “Sokovia Accords” restricting the Avengers wouldn’t be either. But they do help shape behavior —for example, there have been very few chemical weapons attacks since the signing of the Protocol — and they provide a forum to address violations.
Countries wary of international law assert their sovereign right to defend their interests and national security, and yet still accept some restrictions. The Avengers do not represent a country, and claim to protect the entire world, but Captain America insists they don’t have to accept any restrictions or respect anyone else’s opinion.
The closest real world analogue is private military corporations, the 21st century version of mercenaries, often referred to as military contractors. If we follow Cap’s logic, companies like Academi (formerly known as Blackwater) should be able to conduct operations in any country whenever they think it’s the right thing to do, with no oversight whatsoever.
National Restrictions
At the national level, restrictions on the authorized use of force protect individual rights and increase public trust.
The United States has civilian control of the military, rules of engagement enforced by courts martial, Congressional oversight of the military and intelligence services, and accountability to the public every two years via national elections. Many other countries have similar restrictions.
Again, far from perfect. But much better than the “just trust us” alternative.
Do you think the CIA, NSA or US military should be able to do whatever they want with no public accountability because they’re “good guys”? If not, there’s no reason the Avengers should either.
But Are They Good Guys?
For the sake of argument, let’s say Cap’s right: heroes should be allowed to do whatever they deem necessary. They’re good guys and we should trust them.
Let’s look at the Avengers’ record.
In The Avengers, they repelled an alien invasion and prevented a nuclear missile launched to stop the aliens from destroying New York City. Though their fight caused a lot of damage, many more would have died if they didn’t act.
So far so good.
But in Age of Ultron, Tony Stark and Bruce Banner created an artificial intelligence that goes rogue. They had good intentions — protecting Earth from future alien invasions with less collateral damage than the battle of New York— but the result was devastating. The Avengers eventually stop Ultron, but not before he kills thousands of innocent people and destroys a city in the fictional Eastern European country of Sokovia.
That calls for accountability and oversight.
And in Civil War…
Okay, it’s SPOILER time
…
Leave now if you don’t want to know about things that happen in Captain America: Civil War
…
Ready?
…
In Civil War, Captain America’s behavior demonstrates why no one should be trusted to always do the right thing.
Unlike the morally complicated and occasionally mistaken Tony Stark (see: Ultron), Steve Rogers is the paragon of virtue. He’s the quintessential Good Guy, and yet he fights to help a terrorist suspect resist arrest.
The suspect is James “Bucky” Barnes, AKA the Winter Soldier, and Captain America cripples members of the local security services and causes numerous car accidents in an effort to help Bucky escape. Cap’s reasoning is entirely personal: “because he’s my friend.”
The movie tries to justify this by revealing that Bucky was framed for a bombing at a UN building, but Cap didn’t know that at the time. He just feared that his friend would be killed resisting arrest, and put that personal interest over justice and public safety.
Steve Rogers is the protagonist, and the audience sees events through his eyes. From his perspective, his actions are defensible. But how would you feel if someone forcefully prevented the FBI from arresting the Boston Marathon bombers or San Bernardino shooters? Most terrorists have friends and family that don’t want to see them arrested. That doesn’t put them above the law.
And, even if Cap knew that Bucky didn’t do it, the Winter Soldier is a mass murderer. There’s no question he’s guilty of other terrorist attacks. He’s dangerous and should be in jail.
“But he was brainwashed,” you say. That’s a good reason to show mercy, to place him in psychiatric care rather than an isolated cell, but it doesn’t forgive his past crimes. Child soldiers, as well as some al Qaeda and ISIS operatives, were arguably brainwashed. That doesn’t give them license to violently resist arrest and avoid a fair trial.
Even worse, as the movie shows, Bucky can be controlled by anyone who knows the secret to his brainwashing. That makes him dangerous. He should be locked up; if not for justice for his past crimes then for public safety.
By protecting Bucky, Cap shows that he can’t be trusted to always do the right thing. Sometimes, he puts his personal interests ahead of the public’s. That’s normal. But the whole point of global security and public safety is to put the interests of humanity above the interests of one person.
If Captain America can’t be trusted to be above the law, then no one can. The world is better off if the Avengers have oversight and accountability, just like everyone else trusted to use force on behalf of the public.
Like this post? Dislike it, but find it interesting? Please comment below, and follow me on Medium for more.
