Introduction Summaries The year 1975 marked the capitulation

The year 1975 marked the capitulation of American forces in Vietnam, resulting in the

withdrawal of military occupation in South Vietnam. The War in Southeast Asia resulted in a

tearing apart of the American social fabric. For the generation of youth growing up in a

postWWII America, the Vietnam War initiated an era of self-reflection and subjective critical

thought. Beginning with the soldier’s personal experience, followed by families grieving for the

loss of loved ones, the effects of the Vietnam War were documented in various forms. Many

people assume that war is central only to history books or personal experiences. However, as the

evidence will demonstrate, war is also documented via artistic avenues, such as interpretations in

music and visual media. For instance, Neil Young’s song lyrics for “Ohio” tell the story of the

deaths of four Kent State students protesting the Vietnam War:

Tin soldiers and Nixon’s coming

We’re finally on our own

This Summer I hear the drummin’

Four dead in Ohio

Gotta get down to it

Soldiers are gunning us down

Should have been done long ago

What if you knew her and

Found her dead on the ground?

How can you run when you know?

The Vietnam War is documented via a diverse collage of media, augmenting the centrality of the

war experience as written in any history book.

The effects of the Vietnam War eventually materialized in film. However, unlike music’s

ability to critique the war, film of the 1970s remained elusive about initiating critical dialogue.

To better understand the Vietnams War’s social consequences, George Lucas set out to

document how the war transformed America by documenting the war’s effects on American

youth. In 1973, Lucas filmed American Graffiti, a film based on a group of friends from small

town America experiencing their last night together before being sent off to war in Vietnam.

American Graffiti documented the transition from innocent, pre-war America to an American

social landscape transformed by the Vietnam War, resulting in a generational divide and loss of

youth. As Taylor expresses, “Kids today are growing up at a time when people are saying there is

no tomorrow and that it can be just as challenging and exciting as the past. It said that we

shouldn’t interfere in the lives of other people. Maybe the kids saw something about Vietnam in

that.” Lucas’ experience growing up in a conservative post-WWII environment, coupled with his

having lived through the Vietnam War, influenced his ability to recognize the dichotomy created

by the social and cultural effects of war. On the one hand, there was Lucas’ early childhood

introduction to WWII films that centered good versus evil; this was followed, however, by the

experience of 1960s and ‘70s anti-war dissent, which influenced his questioning of wartime

policies.

The release of Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope in 1977, following the end of the war

in Vietnam, marked Lucas’ venture into American warfare. Unable to work on Apocalypse Now

as an avenue toward dissecting the Vietnam War, Lucas ventured into outer space as a medium

for documenting the war. Realizing the war’s consequences for society, Lucas translated the war

via a popular culture lens by adopting the “space fantasy” in film as a creative avenue.

Growing up among the Second World War generation, Lucas was raised within the “good

war” ideology. In his early childhood, Lucas experienced one of the greatest social influences,

the television. The family TV exposed Lucas to early forms of popular culture such as Buck

Rogers as well as the war in Southeast Asia and its effects on American society. As the evidence

will demonstrate, every facet of Lucas’ upbringing foreshadowed his experience of living in a

wartime environment, and every segment of the Star Wars narrative represents a form of cultural

documentation of war and its effects on society.

The good war ideology remains a vital part of the American psyche and media landscape.

It continues to feed American ideals of warfare based on a higher calling toward eradicating

ideologies that are opposed to personal agency and self-determination. Good war ideology is

central to films and media showcasing WWII, such as Captain America, Captain Marvel, and

Saving Private Ryan. As President Franklin D. Roosevelt stated, “This year of 1945 can be the

greatest year of achievement in human history… Most important of all—1945 can and must see

the substantial beginning of the organization of world peace. This organization must be the

fulfillment of the promise for which men have fought and died in this war. It must be the

justification of all the sacrifices that have been made of all the dreadful misery that this world

had endured.” The Clone Wars’ use of good war ideology introduces new generations to the

American values of upholding democratic ideals, therefore transmitting WWII ideologies to

newer generations. Daddis’ study of military magazines’ use of good war ideology exemplifies

this point:

For veterans to wax nostalgic over their wartime experiences and for young boys to

remain hopeful war would make them into men, the pulps had to accentuate the positive

aspects of American GIs in battle. Myths had to be constructed and framed in such a way

that the needs of Cold War society could be fulfilled by “good war” narrative. In this

way, as pulp writer Mario Puzzo maintained, World War II was a “gold mine.” Properly

fabricated, the memory of the Second World War might guide new recruits as they

deployed to Southeast Asia in search of martial glory.4

The Vietnamization of The Clone Wars conveys the ordinary foot soldier’s challenges

with personal agency. Lucas’ connection to the Vietnam War and its effects on society, but more

so to his generation, remains central to the development of The Clone Wars. For Lucas, his main

aim was to uncover how democracies succumb to dictatorships. One of the key features in Lucas’

narrative involved the use of the ordinary soldier, who represented the lower-class stratification

of society. The use of clones as a form of commodification to wage war places social

commentary on the draft and the experience of the ordinary soldier. Hence, clones demonstrate

the complexities involved with the field of battle, where wartime directives overwhelm personal

agency and soldiers are left to make sense of combat and to fill the voids of war.

The Republic’s imperialist policies for maintaining a sphere of influence and safety

represent America’s War on Terror. The act of imperialism by industrialized and technologically

advanced countries over nations who lack industry and technology represents a consistent

narrative in the development of war. After all., the War on Terror continues to rage after nearly

two decades. Current recruitment of soldiers includes those born during or after September of

2001. For current generations of soldiers, none have experienced a life without war.

One of the key themes in The Clone Wars is the representation of women as the primary

vocal agents in advocating for wartime dissent. While women sound the warning about the

consequences of following wartime mandates, the Jedi blindly follow these mandates, leading to

their inevitable demise. Also depicted is societies’ adherence to wartime policies dictating war,

such as the home planets pertaining to the Separatists and the Republic. The commentary is thus

placed on American society remaining aloof about wartime policies. One main reason for social

apathy is the use of clones as marginalized soldiers in a prolonged war.

Another major facet of the social commentary is the use of technology and media as

contributing factors toward feelings of apathy in wartime. As articulated by Silvestri, “The

bottom line is that the narrative for war is changing. War looks and feels a lot different than it

used to. Social media contributes to a feeling of routine in an already perpetual war.” After

twenty years of continuous warfare, Americans remain aloof about the effects of war on personal

agency and society.

Female representation in The Clone Wars remains consistent within the Star Wars

universe, beginning with Princess Leia’s plan to sabotage the Death Star. The Clone Wars’

representation of women is that they are central to wartime dissent, which enables their social

and cultural agency. Although women’s agency remains attached to social constructs pertaining

to men as the primary decision makers, female characters are outliers in expressing narratives

that rearticulate war’s effects on society, as opposed to men’s willingness to follow policies

aimed at initiating war. Thus, The Clone Wars’ representation of gender pays tribute to women

being at the forefront of dissent against the continuation of war.

Lucas’ vision for The Clone Wars acts as an extension of his treatment of war as a source

of moral education for American youth. As expressed in the beginning narrative of every The

Clone Wars episode, “The cost of war can never be truly accounted for.” Every episode opens

with a proverb that challenges viewers about the complexities of war. Lucas aimed to regenerate

optimism to depart from the depressive effects of the Vietnam War on American populations. As

Lucas expressed to Jay Jones about the original Star Wars, “We’ve got to generate more

optimism” than previous films, such as THX.6

The Clone Wars completely abandons optimism in favor of returning to THX, Lucas’ first

feature film based on a dystopian future. In Lucas’ own words, “I realized after THX that people

don’t care how the country’s being ruined. All that movie did was to make people more

pessimistic, more depressed, and less willing to get involved in trying to make the world better.”

Lucas’ treatment of The Clone Wars recognizes the continuation of war and its effects on society

while addressing its evolution as an outlier stemming from societies’ lack of dissent or social

agitation. By examining The Clone Wars through the lens of Lucas’ upbringing and wartime

influences, this study views The Clone Wars as an act of cultural documentation of war that

describes American ideologies toward waging war while addressing a lack of dissent in the social

discourse. This examination will thus provide insight into the diverse themes that articulate The

Clone Wars as a cultural production of war.

My Solo Journey

“It is a period of civil war,” read the lines streaming across my TV screen the very first

time I viewed Star Wars, my introduction into futuristic warfare, and possibly the first time the

idea of war become concrete to me. Years later and throughout my education, the same theme of

warfare resonated with my selective readings of the Great War, WWII, and Vietnam. With each

passing year, my understanding of war expanded, as I came to view it as an inherited conflict and

byproduct of American ideology. Hence, my interest in history and love for all things Star Wars

intersected in this analysis of the animated television series Star Wars: The Clone Wars, a social

commentary about American ideals told through futuristic war but grounded in the history of

warfare.

The Clone Wars as understood in the Star Wars universe is mentioned in the first film

Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope and is developed in Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of The

Clones, where Obi-Wan discovers the biological development of a clone army. The premise of

Attack of The Clones is based on Obi-Wan’s investigating the purpose of the clone army and

concludes with Chancellor Palpatine’s consolidation of power. As The Clone Wars is about

intergalactic warfare, and he use of a marginalized humanoid clone army as an agent of control

via colonization and imperialism of outer planets. The Clone Wars saga represents six

generations of

American military interventions, including WWII, Vietnam, and post-9/11 operations in the

Middle East. As exemplified by Taylor,

Luke’s allusion to Ben Kenobi’s “diary of The Clone Wars” in the third draft is the first

mention of a conflict that would become a major part of Star Wars lore… The Clone

Wars were a World War II to this current Vietnam-like guerrilla action against the

Empire (which, in the third draft, Luke called the “Counter Wars”). Lucas would guard

The Clone Wars’ details more jealously… and they would be off-limits even to

Lucasfilm’s licensed writers. We would not find who find out who the clones were, or on

whose side they had fought for nearly three decades-during which time a million

imaginary versions of the conflict would play out.

Lucas’ environmental and generational experiences with war are present in The Clone Wars,

which also represents factions of American cultural and ideological values toward war. The

Clone Wars can thus be seen as a cultural production of war.

The premise of the research project is to understand America’s social relationship with

war via a popular culture medium. By focusing on The Clone Wars as an avenue toward

understanding war’s influence on American society, this study views The Clone Wars animated

series as contributing to public discourse by establishing a conceptual map,9 or a cultural

representation of war and its effects on society. The central contributing element of The Clone

Wars rests with analyzing the animated series’ content as a form of social literacy toward

understanding wartime policies in an era that has not experienced a global war.

Popular Culture

OBI-WAN: I have to admit that without the clones this would not have been a victory.

MASTER YODA: Victory, victory, you say. Master Obi-Wan, not victory. The shroud of the

dark side has fallen. Begun the Clone Wars has.

For every generation in the U.S., there is a shared understanding of war, where young

men and women are introduced to war through various socializing elements. The socialization

process begins with an interpretation of war by writers, illustrators, filmmakers, and family war

storytellers. Stuart Hall refers to the ways in which we learn to link, share, and understand signs,

symbols, and representations as occurring through the creation of conceptual maps. The semiotic

representation of the masculine hero of these stories begins to fester in the minds of young men.

Star Wars: The Clone Wars, a series about good versus evil and freedom versus suppression, is

much about American culture’s relationship with war.

Every generation’s affinity with war begins with a form of pop culture relative to their

time and place. As described by Sheftall’s account of the inception of the Great War, young men

shared enthusiasm for the opportunity to live out their heroic war fantasies. Sheftall emphasized,

“Young gentlemen were never allowed to forget a pantheon of noble heroes, some real, some

fictional, with a lineage stretching unbroken from ancient Troy, who fought bravely, lived

chivalrously, and died gloriously.” Much like family histories, literature, and media, The Clone

Wars contributes to social dialogue through its focus on complex themes of warfare such as

torture, good war theory, and foot soldier representation.

This analysis of The Clone Wars will be based on Sweet’s use of Bakhtinian theory as a

form of sociocultural dialogue that produces meaning making. Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin

(1895–1975) was a Russian literary theorist and philosopher of language who influenced Western

thought and theory. Bakhtin developed The Dialogic Imagination, where he argues that language

is not static, but evolves dynamically, effecting and being affected by the culture that produces it.

Sweet argues that The Clone Wars’ depiction war and its effects on society represents a form of

cultural dialogue that evolves with viewers of the Star Wars franchise. As explained by Sweet,

“In a general sense, focusing a critical lens on the presence of popular culture in people’s lives

reveals how dominant societal discourses, cultural myths, individual identities, and institutional

ideologies are reified and subverted. For someone constantly engaging these questions, popular

culture is never ‘just entertainment.’” Sweet’s approach foregrounds pop culture as a focus for

meaning making. The consensus is based on exposing a specific genre as a contributing medium

for the learning and sharing of relative ideas. The Clone Wars, as a popular cultural document,

creates shared dialogue among various groups and platforms, producing a shared conceptual map

for a generation of people. The use of pop culture as an educational platform, coupled with the

rise of social media, continues to gain significance in academic fields.

Background and Focus

Lucas set out to understand man’s propensity toward war. He created Star Wars as a

critique of imperial colonial overreach and indigenous fight for self-determination. As explained

by Taylor, “Lucas was fascinated by the notion of how a tiny nation could overcome the largest

military power on Earth, and this was baked into The Star Wars right from its earliest notes in

1973: ‘A large technological empire going after a small group of freedom fighters’” The 1977

release of Star Wars mirrored previous generations’ martial ventures into distant planets to fulfill

a war journey. Corresponding to previous conflicts, Star Wars depicts an ordinary farm boy and

many others who, eager for the glories of war, leave outer rim outposts and marginalized

communities in search of their Iliad journey. Lucas contends that most of the inspiration for Star

Wars developed out of the need to rework elements of the Vietnam conflict into Star Wars. Many

of the draconian characters such as Darth Vader and Chancellor Palpatine were appropriated out

of his early film career coinciding with the Vietnam War. As supported by McDowell, “Lucas

himself has candidly suggested that the Emperor is a Richard Nixon-type character, and Darth

Vader is representative of a Henry Kissinger-type. There may be something in this, and it’s

certainly true that Star Wars, as with any human artifact, reflects a deep cultural resonance.”

Imposing President Nixon and the Vietnam War onto a story of teenage rebellion to save

democracy, Lucas had Luke Skywalker believe he fought in the war to end all wars. Instead,

Luke embraced the idea of fulfilling his destiny by experiencing his father’s heroic journey.

Humanity’s fascination with war is best described by Campbell, who states, “If the deeds of an

actual historical figure proclaim him to have been a hero, the builders of his legend will invent

for him appropriate adventures in depth. These will be pictured as journeys into miraculous

realms, and are to be interpreted as symbolic, on the one hand, of descents into the night-sea of

the psyche, and on the other, of the realms or aspects of man’s destiny that are made manifest in

respective lives.” Americans’ experience with war is developed through various contributing

elements, such as the war’s effects on men’s notions of masculinity. As represented through pop

culture mediums, masculinity is the social currency placed on every generation’s use of war as a

rite of passage.

This study will examine The Clone Wars animated series as a cultural component in the

socialization process of war by analyzing the animation, language content, and themes related to

masculinity, patriotism, gender, propaganda, and class. This analysis will highlight the

development of themes that articulate hyper-realistic messages of war. Lucas’ use of American

cultural and historical appropriations will be examined for how they work as mechanisms of

cross-generational forms of social capital and engagement. To support the main premise of my

argument, themes related to good war theory, Vietnam, and post-9/11 warfare will underscore the

complex historical narratives involved in understanding storytelling and animation as avenues for

interpreting war through a popular culture medium.

This cultural study of The Clone Wars analyzes how an animated series based on war

uncovers American social constructs and ideologies of war as means of conflict resolution. To

achieve this analysis, a cross-historical and social examination of wartime influences and effects

on society were examined using an interdisciplinary approach. Aspects of sociology, race and

gender theory, and history constituted the multi-disciplinary lens used as a means of examining

war as a cultural production.

The first chapter evaluates George Lucas’ experiences with growing up in post-WWII

America, which exposed him to popular culture representations of WWII via films. These films

featuring John Wayne, coupled with reinterpretations of key battles, were central to the

development of social constructs pertaining to masculinity, defining the “bad guys,” and

exposing younger generations to American exceptionalism.

After analyzing good war theory, the second chapter will examine the representation of

women, not only in The Clone Wars, but in the broader Star Wars universe. By analyzing

women’s roles during wartime, this study will find its central footing in women who not only

serve as combatants in war, but fight the ideology and rationale for waging war. This

examination will reveal women to be the focal element in anti-war dissent.

After evaluating war from a gender lens, the third chapter will examine the effects of the

Vietnam War on society. The dichotomy between good war theory and the effects of Vietnam

anti-war dissent represents a central feature in The Clone Wars. This chapter will uncover Lucas’

use of good war elements as featured in opening narrations and battle scenes. The Vietnam War

and dissent are examined through Lucas’ interpretation of the marginalized soldier, and his

experience in combat signifies the use of foot soldiers as marginalized, disposable commodities

in war.

Afterwards, this analysis will conclude with a brief overview of The Clone Wars’ use of

imperialism and capitalist agendas to expose the post-9/11 War on Terror as a foreign policy

initiative aimed at prolonged war and the pacification of social dissent. This examination will

contribute to the understanding of the impact of technology on soldier experiences and the

representation of war. By examining the social constructs of war and their effects on society, and

masculinity specifically, one is given a lens to unlocking war’s propagation through various

cultural means: propaganda, patriotism, media, and popular culture reinterpretation.

By analyzing George Lucas’ upbringing and exposure to American war culture, this study

examines The Clone Wars as a facet of war and its effects on society. The concept of war and its

propagation is a central element in the animated series. Viewing the series through a war and

society lens enables an interpretation of The Clone Wars not only as an animated series, but as an

agent in the introduction of war to younger audiences that also sustains American cultural values

of war to older audiences. This study argues that war is a common feature in the social

development of American society, where its purpose as a generational introduction is found not

only in history books and family stories, but more importantly, in popular culture.

1. War through a Popular Culture Lens

I have focused on places and situations where literary tradition and real life notably

transect, and in doing so I have tried to understand something of the simultaneous and

reciprocal process by which life feeds materials to literature while literature returns

the favor by conferring forms upon life.

—Paul Fussell, The Great War and Modern Memory

In the tradition of understanding humans’ propensity for war, one must look through

various avenues of literature, media, song, and pop culture to find war’s depth and meaning. This

analysis of Star Wars: The Clone Wars will provide one of those avenues for understanding an

American cultural production of war. Technology today, more than any other time in history, has

enabled humans to communicate through various forms of interpretation and understanding.

Every generation has left its thumbprint on pop culture that transcends society’s relationship with

war. To better understand The Clone Wars, this study will examine how a children’s animated

series based on war translates into an interpretation of American cultural values via the series’

characterization of war and geopolitical policies aimed at containing terror.

To showcase The Clone Wars’ political relevance, Scott Thill explains, “The Clone Wars

has become increasingly philosophical and powerful. It is the scariest cartoon on television for

any age. It’s also perhaps our most relevant animated series, especially for a nation so shocked

and awed by perpetual war that it’s willing to hand off constitutional rights like due process.”19

Beginning from a historical and social literary to a multimedia generational war format, The

Clone Wars places narratives, character developments, and social semiotic messages in line with

WWII, Vietnam, and post-9/11 mandates of imperialism and just war theory.

The Clone Wars animated series showcases a semiotic rendering of galactic battles

reminiscent of WWII naval warfare, aerial dog fights, and Vietnam troop deployments via

helicopter gunships. George Lucas’ influence from war, coupled by his mentoring of Dave Filoni

as executive art director, allows for the series to indulge the viewer with war action and speed.

Political democracy underscores the diversity of animation and storytelling throughout the series.

Historical semblances of past wars combine with contemporary geopolitical policies pertaining

to the War on Terror to provide an interpretation that connects with a multi-generational

audience.

The storyline focuses on exposing apathy during wartime, highlighting the diverse effects

of war such as social displacement, killings, torture, colonization, imperialism, and

environmental degradation. Race and class are represented by the alien populations’ lack of

industrialization and inability to wage war. The Clone Wars provides a medium into

understanding how and why Americans wage war and come to terms with its effects. As

described by Sweet, about Lisbeth van Zoonen, “The intersection of politics and entertainment

provides a unique public space wherein popular culture artifacts, such as a television series,

function as sources for discussing, criticizing, and imagining politics for the performance of

citizenship.” Pop culture in the form of animated media is often overlooked for its insignificance

in public discourse. Hence, The Clone Wars series contributes to the world of Star

Wars by introducing younger audiences to the connections of war through its franchise.

Wartime Contribution

The Clone Wars’ development is based on three American wars, though the series’

narration primarily uses WWII good war ideology as a democratic call to arms. War action is

central to the Vietnam foot soldier experience, while the Republic’s imperialist occupation of

distant planets is reflective of the post-9/11 War on Terror. Though Lucas refers to The Clone

Wars in the original Star Wars film, he waits multiple decades to unpack the clones’ relevance.

The theme of the three wars is based on Lucas’ life experiences with American wars. One

of Lucas’ main reasons for making Star Wars was his fascination with happenstance leading to

the demise of democracies. The Clone Wars is central to a war being fought by clones under

ideological assumptions of peace and democracy. However, clones are kept ignorant of the war’s

geopolitical mandates. The Clone Wars includes social commentary by depicting military action

used to colonize or imperialize outer planets to establish larger spheres of control. Such military

action represents the practices of imperialist nations in need of an expanding army, such as that

of the British, French, and American forces. The clones fight under the pretense of good faith, or

good war ideology, and are central to maintaining control over dissent. Much like foot soldiers in

Vietnam fighting for liberation, some soldiers inevitably realize the possibility that their action

against enemy combatants places them as the aggressive and draconian force.

The narration for the opening scenes of episodes, which describes the details pertaining to

the battle’s consequences and the sacrifices needed for the war’s outcome, is a throwback to

WWII movie reels that highlight soldier and social sacrifices needed for victory. The rendering

of the dystopian circumstances pertaining to war leaves the viewer with a feeling of anxiety. As

narrated in the opening scene of the “Clone Cadet” episode, “Clone Troopers unite! As war rages

on in the galaxy, the Clone Army strives for victory against the evil army of the Separatists.

Bravery! Valor! Unity! The life blood of victory! On the battlefield and in space! It all begins on

the planet Kamino. Bred to be perfect soldiers, these cadets must first be subjected to intense

physical and mental training before going off to war!” Along with this narration, the viewer is

exposed to visuals of the clones’ physical sacrifices: gunship explosions, mortar attacks, and field

charges that end with the clones being decimated by machine gunfire, reminiscent of the opening

battle scene in Saving Private Ryan. The scene’s narration acts as a semiotic mechanism that

promotes masculinity and sacrifice of country, supported by intense animation displaying the

heroics of war.

War as a Popular Culture Influencer

Much like in Vietnam, in The Clone Wars, the wars take place on unfamiliar terrain. Most

of the collateral damage is inflicted on the planets’ inhabitants, displacing large populations and

devastating the environment. The episode reflects a semiotic message of total war theory, where

war is waged through all necessary avenues to capitulate the enemy at any cost. However, much

like in contemporary wars, the war between the Republic and Separatist forces does not occur on

the industrialized planets where decisions are made by senators, arms manufacturers, and

banking clans resembling that of the military-industrial complex. Instead, most personal

sacrifices are made by the clones, who are treated as marginalized byproducts of war. This

marginalization reflects contemporary military personnel, who are traditionally recruited from

marginalized, poor, and underrepresented classes of society. The clones’ experience fighting wars

in remote alien planets is exacerbated by their concurrent exposure to environmental damage and

loss of life. Hence, the clones’ experiences with combat in distant lands is indicative of young

American foot soldiers fighting an enemy combatant they know nothing about; both must wrestle

with the psychological aftermath of having caused havoc, environmental damage, and social

displacement.

Much like real war, The Clone Wars represents billions of dollars’ worth of property

damage and millions of lives lost and displaced. To better understand this, one must compare it

to the devastation of the Vietnam War. As Boggs and Pollard describe,

The torturous legacy of U.S. military involvement in Indochina produced the following:

at least 3 million killed, nine thousand of fifteen thousand hamlets destroyed, virtually all

urban areas devastated, 25 million acres of forest destroyed, nearly a million orphans left,

vast ecological ruin caused by the most lethal bombing campaign in history, and 20

million gallons of deadly herbicides sprayed. Aerial terrorism, barbaric search-anddestroy

missions, totalitarian “pacification” programs, and ecological warfare added up to an

unparalleled war of attrition waged relentlessly by the U.S. war machine under three

presidents.

The 1977 release of Star Wars came at the heels of America’s first major military defeat during

the Cold War. The capitulation of American forces in Vietnam brought with it social and political

discontent and distrust of government rule. As explained by George Lucas, “It was really about

the Vietnam War, and that was the period where Nixon was trying to run for a [second] term,

which got me thinking historically about how do democracies get turned into dictatorships?

Because the democracies are not overthrown; they’re given away.” For Lucas, the Vietnam War

represented a key aspect of American social life. As the first generation to be exposed to the

influence of war in popular media, Lucas’ generation experienced a pop culture renaissance,

including the mass proliferation of comic books.

George Lucas was part of the post-WWII generation whose central media themes

featured war. As explained by Taylor, “Lucas later remembered growing up in a world where the

war was ‘on all the coffee tables’ – in Time, in Life, in the Saturday Evening Post, in Living

Technicolor.” For Lucas, the TV represented a gateway into the realm of war theory via the

socializing mechanism of new media. This socializing influence of war resonated with

Americans’ anxieties during the Cold War, including social constructs pertaining to school

curricula, propaganda films, and fears of global annihilation. As supported by Taylor, “His year

of schoolchildren were the first to be shown the civil defense training film Duck and Cover

(1951). Imagine seeing this at age five: not just a cartoon about a clever turtle who hides in his

shell when the atom bomb drops, about also two schoolchildren who, ‘no matter where they go

or what they do, are always trying to remember what to do if the atom bomb explodes right

then.’” Hence, Lucas is a product of his environment, intaking the American social values

pertaining to war. However, these social values had a differing effect on Lucas.

For the teenager from Modesto, California, war included an alchemy of genres, involving

comic books, war films, firefights, explosions, masculine heroics, and speed. In the 1950s,

Modesto was a true piece of Americana. Lucas’ fascination with war films, hot rods, and car

culture encouraged artistic expression with masculine overtones. Though war films were filled

with semiotics pertaining to American ideals of democracy, heroics, and masculinity, for Lucas,

they also fueled his intrinsic creativity by favoring his graphic style of learning and narration.

War films, much like comics, use action in lieu of dialogue. According to Jay Jones,

Lucas’ challenges with spelling and writing were alleviated by his visual style of learning. Jones

concluded that “comics were ‘storytelling through pictures,’ he said, and pointing out that it was

in comic books where he first learned ‘strange facts’ and exotic vocabulary… words and images

working together to propel the action forward, with little time for speeches or soliloquies.” Lucas

understood the significance of being able to tell a story based on action sequences and images,

much like his favorite painter Norman Rockwell. As examined by Taylor,

The 1950s and 1960s centered around the communist threat, and the next war, featured

war movies, each one a repolish of legendary heroics on the ground and – increasingly –

in the air. The Damn Busters (1955), 633 Squadron (1963), Tora, Tora, Tora (1970) –

These were the movies Lucas would record and splice to create the ultimate dogfight, a

25-hour reference reel that would form the basis for all the special effects of Star Wars.

In a different manner, Cold War society influenced Lucas by materializing his creative genius

through his recontextualization of war. Instead of fear, apprehension, and anxiety, Lucas saw

artistic potential as an avenue for self-reflection and social commentary. Lucas began his journey

within the confines of a society marred by war as articulated through popular culture, factors

which would inspire Star Wars, and later, The Clone Wars.

For Lucas, pop culture in the form of comic books, TV series, and historical literature

became the mediums through which he nurtured his fascination. As explained by Jay Jones, “He

also amassed an enormous collection of Landmark books, a series of histories and biographies

written for younger readers. ‘I was addicted to them.’… ‘I used to love to read those books. It

started me on a lifelong love of history… As a kid I spent a lot of time trying to relate the past to

the present.’”28 Within this statement lies the foundation of Lucas’ use of history, mythology, and

war to critique American cultural values and ideological beliefs about war as an agent for conflict

resolution. It also supports this analysis of The Clone Wars as a critique of post-9/11 imperial

mandates for the War on Terror, including how appropriations of previous conflicts translated

into American social values toward war.

The double irony of The Clone Wars is how Lucas used his characters to influence

political history and meaning. The original Star Wars movie celebrated the independent rogue

character who defies authoritarian rule through the Rebel Alliance to bring about personal

freedom. In contrast to President Reagan’s combative response toward the USSR as the epitome

of an “evil empire,” as well as the second Bush administration’s “Coalition of the Willing,” The

Clone Wars underlines the conservative ideological exchange for a future war bent on conformity

through terror containment.

In this study, The Clone Wars is contextualized through background understanding of the

American relationship with war. The premise of this thesis is to examine how an animated show

acts as an agent in providing a dialogical platform for shared political, social, and cultural

commentary on the production of war and its relationship to post-9/11 policies of imperialism.

Emphasis is placed on war as an agent of conflict and change; more specifically, it is a byproduct

of American cultural exceptionalism, reflecting a socially accepted medium for global conflict

resolution. As expressed by Sweet, “Such widely understood myths as the American Dream, the

Wild West, American exceptionalism, myths deeply ingrained in the collective imagination of

U.S. American society, shape the way people think about national identity, party affiliation,

individual opportunity, and justice.” American cultural values pertaining to war are shaped by

semiotic renderings in media and pop culture that demonstrate the necessary attributes required

of a soldier-citizen.

Media Influence and Pop Culture

For many Americans, their cultural belief systems are reinforced through media

pertaining to war. Now more than ever, due to technology and multimedia platforms, cultural

beliefs about war are being processed earlier and more repetitively. In an age when children’s

literature content is diminishing, pop culture and media platforms are, for many, a primary

medium of historical knowledge and cultural relativism. As an animated series with historical

and contemporary social commentary, The Clone Wars places young audiences into a

multigenerational dialogue. As explained by Sweet, “Popular Culture depictions of war are an

important voice in ongoing cultural discourses regarding foreign policy and international

relations, providing an opportunity to probe the dialogic interactions at the heart of responsive

understanding and cultural meaning-making.”

The Clone Wars, as a dialogical agent in the cultural production of war, expanded its

media relevancy to American war policies and their effects on society. This relationship

establishes The Clone Wars’ relevance to social constructs pertaining to war. Hence, The Clone

Wars gives an alternate lens of war via a pop culture media interpretation reflecting American

beliefs toward war. As expressed by Geertz, “But whatever the level at which one operates, and

however intricately, the guiding principle is the same: societies, like lives, contain their own

interpretations. One has only to learn how to gain access to them.” As a cultural production of

war viewed through an entertainment lens, The Clone Wars animated series allows for

understanding of American belief systems, ideals, goals, hopes, and fears.

One must often look outside to understand the inside of their own society, as shown in the

anthropological study by Clifford Geertz focusing on Balinese cock fighting. Geertz’s study

revealed sociocultural dynamics related to Balinese masculinity, class, family structure, and

village power structure. Drawing on his ethnographic work, this study analyzes The Clone Wars

and its central theme of war to reveal American social, cultural, ideological, and political

constructs, exposing key patterns of American beliefs and ways of life. This is best described by

Geertz, who writes, “But the idea remains theoretically undeveloped; a more profound corollary,

so far as anthropology is concerned, that cultural forms can be treated as texts, as imaginative

works built out of social materials, has yet to be systematically exploited.”32

One of the paramount features of media’s influence is directly correlated to American

capitalist and military cultural values. As explained by Boggs and Pollard, “TV networks, for

most Americans the main sources of ‘news’ and commentary, typically follow a uniform,

formulaic (pro-military) line, with alternative voices confined to the wilderness. Media culture is

both a conduit and enabler of military power, which seems to give Americans a special pride and

sense of identity.” Hence, media’s propaganda narratives are consumed as forms of

entertainment, solidifying The Clone Wars as an exchange of social dialogue.

The question remains, however—who makes the “sacrifices” when it comes to war? As

The Clone Wars will demonstrate, the sacrifices are personal, social, and global. The importance

of war’s effects on society is best analyzed by MacMillan, who argues, “As a historian I firmly

believe that we have to include war in our study of human history if we are to make any sense of

the past. War’s effects have been so profound that to leave it out is to ignore one of the great

forces, along with geography, resources, economics, ideas, and social and political changes,

which have shaped human development.”34 The Clone Wars provides an arterial vein to

understanding war’s consequences in society. By viewing the series with a critical lens, one can

extract the series’ images, dialogue, and commentary as representations of American society.

WWII and The “Good War” Ideology

At the concluding scene of Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of The Clones, Master Yoda is

seen looking out of a military gunship to view the accumulating clone troopers embarking on a

soldier’s journey into the galactic outer rim. The clone troopers’ mission is to provide support to

Jedi warriors whose identity has been altered by war. The Jedi have had their role changed from

independent peacekeepers to military generals bent on conforming to geopolitical mandates of

contested trade routes. This changing characterization is viewed by some Star Wars fans as a loss

of agency and the beginning of the Jedi’s downfall. As explained by Silvo and Vinci, this is “a

narrative that encourages a disparaging apprehension regarding individualism and argues that

only when one ‘follows the rules’ and becomes a representative of the institution can individual

action have social and political value.” Yoda’s last scene in Attack of the Clones conveys the

transition of society from peace to wartime. It also introduces the militarization of Star Wars,

shifting from its 1977 inception as a fight for self-determination to a depiction bent on

conservative social mandates, lack of dissent, and conformity.

This changing dichotomy of perceived peace to war and the resulting sociocultural shifts

are best illustrated by Dudziak, who states, “Built into the very essence of our idea of war-time is

the assumption that war is temporary. The beginning of war is the opening of an era that will, by

definition, come to an end.”36 Hence, the idea of war being framed with an end and a beginning

is tied to post-WWII good war ideology reinforcing American cultural beliefs of personal and

social sacrifices that produce the desired results of democracy and freedom.

Much like The Clone Wars, America’s socialization of war is tethered to representations

of WWII good war ideology: good versus evil, social sacrifice, and the relinquishing of civil

liberties to bring about democratic peace and prosperity. The clones are the glue that

accommodates policy mandates and militarized actions. They also represent the Vietnam

syndrome where soldiers make up the largest casualty rates; in the process, they begin to

question their purpose of being trapped in a war of attrition. The war between the Republic and

Separatists reflects geopolitical mandates pertaining to imperialism, the safeguarding of trade

routes, and terror containment. Lucas’ diverse use of previous wars in The Clone Wars and how

they relate to sociohistorical discourse intertwines with his upbringing living in a war

environment marred by a tension between WWII patriotism and Vietnam social dissent.

2. “Good War” Theory: Masculinity and Semiotic Propaganda

No war is celebrated more than World War II. It represented a time in America when

society openly embraced the challenges necessary to mobilize its population. To this day, WWII

ideologies are promoted through film, videogames, and animation. Most of these depictions of

the Second World War are made through masculine images of foot combat, naval explosions, and

aerial dogfights, all combined with a sense of nationalism. The Clone Wars’ appropriation of

WWII through animation provides one of the central elements that enables it to be a

multigenerational platform. More importantly, the redistribution of WWII ideologies reflects

cultural values about how Americans promote war through propaganda based on just war theory.

This is best examined by Boggs and Pollard, who argue, “The war, of course, was one of the epic

moments of U.S. and World history, its consequences still deeply felt. But its meaning for

American culture far transcends such historical specificity and is used today to justify

contemporary wars and the institutionalized military.” Thus, the semiotic use of WWII ideology

in The Clone Wars acts as an introductory element for younger audiences while reinforcing

cultural values in older audiences.

This is best represented in the opening scene of the “Ambush” episode: “A galaxy

divided by war! Peaceful worlds must choose sides or face the threat of invasion! Republic and

Separatist armies vie for the allegiance of neutral planets! Desperate to build supply bases in the

system of Devaria, Jedi Master Yoda travels to secret negotiations on a remote neutral moon.”

This episode's opening line, “A galaxy divided by war! Peaceful worlds must choose sides or

face the threat of invasion!”, exemplifies the WWII narrative of the call to arms justifying the

military invasion on the pretense of establishing peace and planetary agency.

Much like Vietnam, American intervention consisted of political and economic

positioning. The differing cultural ideologies between the U.S. and the Soviet Union led to war

where the U.S. sought to suppress the spread of communist infiltration to underdeveloped

regions.

Despite the unconditional surrender of their enemies in World War II, Americans could

not shake a deep sense of insecurity as they entered the postwar years. They worryingly

faced new villains. Indeed, they helped to create them. Communist devils conveniently

replaced sadistic Nazis and savage Japanese as the new foe. The 1950 McCarren Act, for

example, declared that the world communist movement posed a “clear and present

danger to the security of the United States and to the existence of free American

institutions.”

The following line in the narrative, “Republic and Separatist armies vie for the allegiance of

neutral planets,” is indicative of a rescue response bent on protecting democratic ideals. Good

war ideology is represented by the Republic’s call to support Imperial policies aimed at

protecting Republic trade routes and the expansion of Separatist influence. The last sentence

pertaining to Yoda as the lead negotiator solidifies the transition of the Jedi from mindful

peacekeepers to military policy negotiators.

For Americans growing up in the 1960s, WWII became a staple of war, heroism, and

masculine behavior. The ideologies associated with WWII solidified Americans’ willingness to

accept governmental mandates pertaining to war.

The good-war discourse has been central to the culture of militarism since just Pearl

Harbor, keeping alive public memories of those dramatic history-altering victories over

the Nazis and fascists while going even further, glorifying the entire legacy of patriotism

and warfare, which remains firmly embedded within the American national psyche.

Indeed, the studios have come to cherish war movies for their endless action sequences,

their focus on male heroism, their riveting patriotic emotion, and their consistent

profitability.

The repurposing through media of WWII good war ideology, more than for any other American

war, is crucial in establishing the democracy justification for waging war and in communicating

these nationalist ideologies to a multi-generational audience. As supported by both Daddis and

Longley, Lucas’ use of WWII combat illustrations in The Clone Wars references his generation’s

influences from WWII popular culture themes and narratives.

World War II ushered in the epitome of American warfare. The Baby Boomer Generation

cemented its legacy through media, pop culture, and literature that unconsciously portrayed

cultural values. U.S. House Representative Jeanette Rankin explained, “The war habit comes to

us through long traditions and history and teaching. We are unconscious of how many war habits

we have and our method of perpetuating them. All our history and our music and our art and

literature and family traditions and loyalties are tied up in war.” Conveyed in The Clone Wars

through dialogue, propaganda, Separatist fears, and political rationalizations for waging war, the

good war narrative is used in media platforms to reaffirm historical and generational war

ideology. Lucas’s placement of good war ideology therefore acts as a generational connective

tissue, introducing, on the one hand, good war themes and narratives and, on the other,

solidifying American wartime ideology.

Good War as Method

Good war ideology is used to communicate not only why Americans wage war, but how.

Justifications for waging war—peace, democracy, and freedom—place a higher standard on the

way Americans fight war. In The Clones Wars, America is represented as the Republic, the sole

military complex responsible and strong enough to face the evil Separatists. The characterization

of war between the Separatists and the Republic is one of the primary differences represented in

The Clone Wars and is reflective of both Cold War and current policies aimed at containing

terror. The war to defeat the Separatist forces is characterized by a national, global, and galactic

call to arms. However, the way the war is fought is indicative of a post-9/11 prolonged war

ideology that relies on marginalized soldiers and non-citizens. American ideologies representing

self-sacrifice and democratic values have historically been contrasted with the enemy’s sinister

tendencies.

Good war ideology characterizes American values by the way American soldiers conduct

themselves in battle. This is demonstrated in dialogue and action sequences. The key feature in

America’s manner of waging war is the focus on liberation, adherence to collateral damage, and

regard for life. This is exemplified in the “Shadow of Malevolence” episode, as dialogue between

Anakin Skywalker and a Clone pilot named Match-Stick shows how they prepare to embark on

an offensive attack:

MASTER JEDI: This is an aggressive plan. Are you sure your squadron can complete this

mission?

SKYWALKER: Let’s ask them. Match-Stick! You think our boys can pull it off?

MATCHSTICK: Yes sir! There hasn’t been a mission shadow squadron couldn’t complete!

CLONE PILOT 2: That’s right! Minimal casualties-Maximum effectiveness! That’s us!

MASTER JEDI: I admire your confidence pilots. Even so minimal casualties may not be

enough to prevent you from breaking things.

This exchange articulates the moral rules of engagement that dictate American values of a fair

fight even when going into hostile territory. The action sequences create a sympathizing

mechanism connecting the viewer with challenges clone soldiers endure. In the process, the

viewer is distracted from collateral damage to the environment and population, and from the fact

that the invasion constitutes an act of imperialism. The above dialogue reaffirms American ideals

of fight for the security and safety of others, where the war is fought for the benefit of others and

not the Republic.

The ideology of waging a safe war is further supported in the “Innocents of Ryloth”

episode as Anakin and Obi-Wan develop an offensive plan of counterinsurgency:

OBI-WAN: We need to remember why we’re here. We came to aid the Twi’leks, not

destroy their home. Cody?

COMMANDER CODY: That means we’ll be taking it back the hard way. Minimal destruction

with blasters and droid poppers only. Not rockets or detonators. Check your aim. Keep an

eye on the locals. Am I understood!?

CLONES: Sir, yes, Sir!

CLONE: If we’re here to free the tail-heads, the least they can do is get out of our way.

This dialogue contains semiotic messages supporting good war ideology and masculinity. Much

like in contemporary warfare, the war is fought by a marginalized group, in this case the clones.

The statement of “taking it back the hard way” exemplifies American ideals of heroism, where

taking on an enemy by handgun and blaster to save civilians demonstrates personal sacrifice in

the name of freedom.

In this last example, from the “A War on Two Fronts” episode, Obi-Wan, Master Yoda,

Mace Windu, and Anakin discuss the morality of training insurgents to overthrow the existing,

pro-Separatist government:

OBI-WAN: Indeed. What you’re suggesting would open up dangerous possibilities. And

we must not train terrorists.

ANAKIN: Eh, rebels!

OBI-WAN: How we conduct war is what distinguishes us from others. Funding rebels to

overthrow a legitimate government puts innocent lives at risk.

ANAKIN: We can minimize collateral damage by using arms that mainly affect droids.

MACE WINDU: The least we can do is help them defend themselves, test the tactic while

we’re at it.

ANAKIN: This could be a great new weapon for us.

MASTER YODA: Train and observe. Send advisors we will.

Obi-Wan’s dialogue reflects American social and cultural ideals through the way the Republic

represents itself in war. As it takes place between the most decorated Jedi in the Star Wars

galaxy, the discussion solidifies the Jedi’s changing characterization from altruistic peacekeepers

to military tacticians conformed to policies of imperialism and moral bartering. This changing

dynamic caused by wartime mandates foreshadows the inevitable demise of the Jedi Order. The

Jedi’s plot to train the rebels acts as a commentary on America’s involvement in

counterinsurgencies in Cuba, South America, Afghanistan, and Vietnam. For viewers of The

Clone Wars, the semiotic renderings create an image that places America’s ideals front and center

by establishing rules of engagement and policies of convenience. Thus, The Clone Wars’

depiction of cultural ideals in war-making reinforces social constructs that articulate policies of

war as altruistic and democratic.

I would propose that vision pervade our cultural forms of life in skilled ways that depend

both on the way sight is physically trained and on social positioning. Skilled vision is

certainly ‘sensuous knowledge’ or ‘corporeal’, but it is also positional, political, and

relational in important ways. Because skilled vision combines aspects of embodiment (as

an educated capacity for selective perception) and apprenticeship, they are both

ecological and ideological, in the sense that they inform worldviews and practice.

The Clone Wars’ practice of war-making with a conscience reinforces good war ideology

by centering American values for how war is waged. In the tradition of Bakhtinian theory, The

Clone Wars dialogue and action sequences articulate social and cultural discourse. As explained

by Sweet’s articulation of Barry Brummett, “Discourse – whether in the form of literature,

television, films, or popular music – encourages individuals to ‘confront their lived situations,

celebrate their triumph and encompass their tragedies.’ Discourse, then, equips people to live

their lives in that it often ‘articulates, explicitly or formally, the concerns, fears, and hopes of

people’ and offers a kind of solution to problematic situations or experiences.’”

One of the main characteristics of The Clone Wars that contributes to the cultural

production of war is its placement of the viewer in the theater of the war. This is done in the

opening scene of every episode, which begins with an explosion of action sequences starting

with aerial dogfights followed by clone trooper deployments in hostile terrain. The narration that

follows the action sequences completes the circle by explaining the sacrifices at hand, the

perilous situation, and the reason for war. For instance, the “Jedi Crash” episode opens with:

“The Republic fleet is on the defensive! And pushed to the brink! As war rages on in the

muchcontested outer-rim territories! Chaos! And fear mount as the Separatist army rages on an

epic battle against heavily out-numbered Republic ships! In the far reaches of the quell system!

Anakin Skywalker and his Padawan, Ahsoka, race across the galaxy to aid the Jedi Knight, Aayla

Secura, who is in the midst of a fight for her life!”47 Hence, the narration in the opening scenes of

The Clone Wars is indicative of WWII semiotic renderings, placing the outnumbered

Republic as the saving agent against the evil Separatist forces.

Based on the WWII genre, the narrator’s voice in these opening scenes is sharp and

quick, supported by action shots of previous battles. Semiotically, the films in these narrations

promote masculinity, sacrifice, and social ideology. Nothing exemplifies the Second World War

more than the ideology behind it, which reflects the American social and cultural values of

freedom and democracy—the idea that one is sacrificing themselves for the good of others. The

Clone Wars’ representation of the good war is illustrated in its action and dialogue sequences,

with the former demonstrating the physical representation of American social values and the

latter embodying the reasons why and how Americans decide to wage war.

Lucas’ Anti-war Dissent

The action in The Clone Wars is a byproduct of Lucas’ social and environmental

influence. There is a dichotomy between comics’ critique of social constructs pertaining to race,

sex, and class and the conservative conformist ideology of good war theory. Lucas understood

these social constructs:

Mad (magazine) took on all the big targets – parents, schools, sex, politics, big business,

advertising, and popular culture, using humor to show the emperor had no clothes. This

helped me recognize that just because something is presented to you as the way it is, does

not mean it really is. I couldn’t rely on the world to do it for me. The impact this had on

my world view was enormous. I spent much of my career telling stories about characters

who fight to change the dominant paradigm.

Hence, Lucas’ experience with pop culture demonstrated its primacy as political dialogue and

social commentary. This gave Lucas a future lens into story development, social analysis, and

critique.

Lucas’ influences from post-WWII America—animation, comics, and film—are keenly

represented in diverse formats and dialogues. The moral compass of The Clone Wars is formed

by Lucas’ early childhood questions to his mother about religion as well as reflections about the

connections between life and history. As explained by Jay Jones (2016), “Lucas found himself

wondering ‘What is God? What are we? What am I? Do I function in this, and what’s going on

here?’ They were questions Lucas would struggle with, explore and, with the creation of the

Force in Star Wars, attempt to answer in his films.”49 Thus, Lucas’ paramount element in The

Clone Wars is the characterization that diagnoses the social consequences of war. This duality of

war’s effects is semiotically represented in the opening dialogue signifying the reasons for war,

while the consequences of war and its tactics remain in the background of the dialogue.

A semiotic analysis reveals the planetary invasion as a representation of American

democratic ideals of freedom. However, the action also conveys American cultural ideals linked

to good war ideology. The opening narrative of the “Innocents of Ryloth” episode validates the

ideological reason for the invasion while semiotically linking it to past conflicts. This dialogue

actuates WWII ideals of war leading to liberation, freedom, and the justification for invasion.

The last part of the narrative depicts segments of total war theory, whereby starvation is used to

bring about civilian capitulation and surrender. The implementation of starvation as a technique

in war demonstrates a viable alternative to defeating and demoralizing the enemy. Its

effectiveness was demonstrated by the American government during Native American uprisings

as well as by the British naval blockade of Germany during WWII. Therefore, the dialogue

conveys actions taken by the Jedi representing American ideals of self-preservation and agency.

Through dialogue, Lucas’ recognition of war as an agent of oppression toward sentient beings

calls attention toward war via public discourse. Most animated shows deny viewers the capacity

to critique war’s effects on populations. By creating a dialogue about war’s effects, Lucas is

dissenting against representing good war ideology as pro-American. The focus of war’s effects

on populations is one area that sets The Clone Wars apart from other animated shows utilizing

war action as a pacifying medium.

The continued dialogue in the “Innocents of Ryloth” episode contains racial and class

undertones. As demonstrated in the dialogue, the saviors of the planet are Jedi Knights of the

Republic, who represent white American males with masculine and democratic ideals. This

rescue is due to the planet’s inability to save itself. Hence, the cause for invasion continues to

validate American ideals as altruistic and selfless. However, the real reasons for the invasion of

the planet—the safeguarding of Republic trade routes and establishment of military bases—are

negated, hidden behind the dramatic action of liberation. As such, the rescue serves as a direct

correlation to good war theory and the current War on Terror. The development of media

narrating Americans as heroic saviors is supported by Sweet, who writes, “Interpreted as cultural

myth, the Star Wars films reinforce the familiar U.S. American cultural tropes of rugged

individualism, good versus evil, and the potential for redemption.” Hence, American good war

ideology stems from narrating actions for the benefit of others, in this case indigenous

populations being held for ransom against imperialist forces. In addition, the use of the Jedi

places commentary on America’s use of special forces against a greater number of enemy forces.

The Republic sending its best Jedi contributes to a critical lens stemming from Lucas’ moral,

religious, and historical compass.

Good War Ideology: Masculinity and the Socialization of the American Soldier

The Second World War ushered in a wave of creative propaganda. Post-WWII

propaganda then aimed to contain Communist infiltration and influence. Beginning with the

introduction of television, America’s youth, particularly boys, represented the target audience for

the diverse media articulating WWII heroics, masculinity, and war. As supported by Longley,

“Multiple levels of the masculine conception appealed to young men…, even those who had

reservations about the war. These included… the effect of media such as movies, television,

books, and music. All these reinforced virile beliefs regarding service, especially in the face of

the Communist threat, and helped push many young people into the military.”51 Like the Clone

Trooper, American youth experienced life through a Cold War lens articulating ideology that

mandated certain social behaviors pertaining to war. The use of popular culture media as an

avenue for advertisement is also supported by Daddis, who writes, “The Pulps extolled the

benefits of military service, and how it could promote social advancement, yet openly venerated

working-class ideals and their value to proving one’s manhood.”

The end of the Second World War brought the capitulation of the evil Nazi empire and the

beginning of the Cold War threat, which initiated social mandates articulating war preparedness.

The central commodity in waging war, and one taken for granted, is that of citizen soldiers.

However, American policy targeted women as the best means of containing Communist

infiltration. Aside from manufacturers producing consumer goods aimed at women’s

housekeeping, government officials encouraged procreation as a primary defense against

Communist infiltration. Government officials believed that women represented the weakest point

for infiltration, so these policies aimed to keep women content with house cleaning and child

rearing. This policy ushered in the Baby Boomer Generation. As explained by May, “The focus

on population planning emerged during World War II. At first, planning was geared to domestic

needs, particularly the ideal of the postwar family. A 1943 pamphlet stated that ‘victory cannot be

won without planning… Planned Parenthood … can be made to mean that more healthy children

will be born to maintain the kind of peace for which we fight.’” During the Baby Boom era

(1946–1964), Americans gave birth to 78.3 million children, a generation with primary accounts

of WWII narratives that influenced the largest cohort of Americans ever born to good war

ideology. This cohort, as will be discussed later, inherited the Cold War battle in the rice fields of

Indochina.

One can argue that the Baby Boomer Generation was socially bred as an agent of

suppression and as a deterrent for future Communist infiltration. This generation of Baby

Boomers, especially those brought up by military families, represented the core of good war

ideology that stipulated adherence to government mandates and distrust of dissent. Longley’s

account of small town America’s experience with the Vietnam conflict sheds further light: “The

people in Morenci, however, never publicly challenged the policies of the US government, rarely

publicly challenged the capitalist system as the root cause of US involvement in Vietnam or

government collaboration…. In part, their silence related to the dominant political culture of the

country and region, but… despised the antiwar movement as un-American.” Hence, the Baby

Boomer Generation is cemented as representing the dichotomy of nationalism versus

selfdetermination. The Clone Wars’ semiotic use of WWII battles scenes, coupled with Vietnam-

era clones fighting in alien environments as foot soldiers, stimulates a multi-generational

connection.

The Clone Wars’ semiotic renderings of WWII fight scenes play into a generational

redistribution of masculinity, ideology, and exceptionalism. The Baby Boomer Generation’s

indoctrination into good war ideology developed through a central social artery targeting young

men’s patriotism and masculinity. As Longley describes, “Throughout the country, the political

culture, strongly influenced by the Cold War, bombarded young men on a daily basis with

messages about their duty to their country, especially in the face of the Communist menace that

threatened to destroy their way of life and enslave their families.”55 For younger generations, The

Clone Wars acts as a socializing agent to understand good war narratives and masculinity.

For Americans whose parents fought or lived during the Second World War, media such

as films, comics, and literature worked to doubly reinforce good war ideology. For the

generation of Americans growing up in a post-WWII society, Baby Boomers represented the

target audience for main street media’s proliferation of WWII narratives. As reinforced by Boggs

and Pollard, “The good-war discourse has been central to the culture of militarism since just after

Pearl Harbor, keeping alive public memories of those dramatic history-altering victories over the

Nazis and fascists while going even further, glorifying the entire legacy of patriotism and

warfare, which remains firmly embedded within the American national psyche… The studios

have come to cherish war movies for their endless action sequences, their focus on male heroism,

their riveting patriotic emotion, and their consistent profitability.” Lucas’ appropriation of WWII

opening narratives thus functions as the primary generational connection and introduction to The

Clone Wars.

The Clone Wars hides behind a Cold War façade of good versus evil and public consent,

while the animation and character dialogue act as mechanisms of critique. However, the political

mandate inherent in the series articulates a new “wartime” that is based on historical nostalgia

and social apathy toward the War on Terror. As expressed by Dudziak, “If we abandon the idea

that war is confined in time, we can see more clearly that our law and politics are not suspended

by an exception to the regular order of things. Instead, wartime has become normal time in

America.”57 Americans’ understanding of war hinges on past WWII ideologies that reinforce

good war social constructs.

Younger audiences come to learn who the bad guys are and what they do, thus producing

a cultural value system based on good war ideology as to why we fight wars. For adults, these

images and dialogical renderings conform to American cultural value systems based on past

historical timelines. As Hall writes about cultural identity, “The first position defines ‘cultural

identity’ in terms of one, shared culture, a sort of collective ‘one true self’ hiding inside the many

other, more superficial or artificially imposed ‘selves’, which people with a shared history and

ancestry hold in common. Within the terms of this definition, our cultural identities reflect the

common historical experiences and shared cultural codes.” In this instance, WWII is central to

Americans’ psychological and cultural understanding of self-identification, providing a

conscientious rendering of the beliefs for which Americans choose to wage war. As Boggs and

Pollard explain, “In Cinema as in politics World War II hovers over the landscape more than a

half-century after the final surrender... This is part nostalgia, part historical remembrance, part

continued search for a ‘good war’ to gratify the national psyche.” In recent American history, this

ideology was supported by President George W. Bush’s comparison of the 9/11 terrorist attacks

to Pearl Harbor and the nation’s defense to that against Nazism and Fascism. In The Clone Wars,

a good war premise is employed to save the Republic from the evil Separatist forces.

The Clone Wars’ storyline enforces cultural values representing how Americans see

themselves in a global conflict. Sweet describes further: “’How we conduct war is what

distinguishes us from others.’ A clear parallel to Just War Theory… Obi-Wan gives voice to the

Jedi Order’s moral commitment to fight war in as humane as possible... The Separatist war

efforts seem to have no moral center. The Separatists research biological and biogenetic

weapons, torture with abandon, use civilian populations as shields, kidnap and attempt to

conduct experiments on Jedi infants.”60

Dissent: Gender Politics in Wartime

War is intolerable! We have been deceived into thinking that we must be a part of it. I say the

moment we commit to fighting, we already lost. —Duchess Satine.

Unlike the Jedi’s adherence to wartime mandates and Democratic ideals, women

represent the epitome of wartime dissent. The Clone Wars demonstrates the shift in Jedi ideology

from independent peacekeepers to wartime generals, where the Jedi are poised to represent the

American ideals of truth, justice, and freedom. These ideals are manifested not by their dialogue

but through heroic physical actions. For instance, in the episode “Voyage of Temptation,”

ObiWan Kenobi articulates his rationale to the Duchess of Mandalore for the use of military

force as a primary form of protection. The Duchess, however, refuses military imperialism of her

planet:

THE DUCHESS: We oppose the war on humanitarian grounds.

OBI-WAN: The strongest defense is the swiftest and decisive offense.

THE DUCHESS: I remember a time when Jedi were not generals but peacekeepers. OBI-

WAN: We are protectors, we fight for peace.

THE DUCHESS: What an amusing contradiction.62

The dialogue in this episode displays good war ideology as expressed through the Jedi’s

fight for the greater good. It shows how the Jedi have been reappropriated to exemplify

conformist ideals that deny their original purpose of providing peace through self-reflection and

analysis. Gender dynamics are also evidenced by Obi-Wan’s masculinity and his inability to see

the Duchess’ point of view. Their discussion of war and peace reveals a dichotomy where the

Duchess’ use of reasoned dialogue in favor of non-violent peace represents the feminist point of

view, while Obi-Wan’s response is indicative of American masculine cultural beliefs pertaining

to wartime mandates. The power dynamics are represented by American patriarchal constructs

pertaining to war, where its decisions and outcomes are relegated to men. In this instance, the

Duchess represents antiwar dissent while Obi-Wan conforms to good war ideology.

The Clone Wars pays tribute to the tradition of American women providing the primary

voice toward wartime dissent. As expressed by Hoganson, “The apparent reverberations from

one time period to another point to the need to study not only the way in which gender beliefs

have been brought to bear in specific policy debates, but also the process of transforming ideas

about gender and war from one generation to the next.” One of the major obstacles with the good

war concept is that it represents a pro-government and pro-military ideology, negating any form

of dissent.

Women’s representation in The Clone Wars is aligned with historical references to the

women’s peace movement, anti-war dissent, and personal agency. The historical record

demonstrates women being the central dissenting voice, going against pro-war masculinity. As

explained by Sweet, “Women’s antiwar protest has a long and storied tradition in the United

States. From the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom to the National

Committee on the Cause and Cure of War, to Women Strike for Peace, to Code Pink the presence

of the feminist antiwar movement provided a counterpoint to aggressive foreign policy.”64

Women featured in The Clone Wars—Padmé, Duchess Satine, and Ahsoka Tano, among several

others—are relegated to providing most of the dissent. However, it is their unwillingness to fall

in line with masculine social constructs pertaining to war that gives the women their agency.

Gender roles in The Clone Wars provide a continuum for women leading the charge

against masculine consensus. This began with Princess Leia Organa, whose first appearance in

Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope shows her recording herself saying, “Help me Obi-

WanKenobi, you’re my only hope,” then discharging the plans to the Death Star into an R2-D2

navigational computer as an act of defiance against the Galactic Empire. Princess Leia’s agency

is represented by her bold actions against a draconian system of oppression led by Darth Vader,

as illustrated by this dialogue between the two:

PRINCESS LEIA: Darth Vader, only you could be so bold. The Imperial Senate will not

stand for this…. when they hear.

DARTH VADER: Don’t act so surprised your highness! You weren’t on any mission ship

this time. Several transmissions beamed this ship by Rebel spies. I want to know what

happened to the plans they gave you.

PRINCESS LEIA: I don’t know what you’re talking about! I’m a member of the Imperial

Senate on a diplomatic mission to Alderon.

DARTH VADER: You are part of the Rebel Alliance and a traitor—take her away!

The major objective for women’s agency lies not only in their pursuit of peace through

diplomatic means, but in going against male directives that dictate their time and place in society.

For women, Darth Vader represents the epitome of patriarchal constructs aimed at denying them

personal agency and self-determination.

The depiction of women being the focus of vocal anti-war dissent is a nod to women’s

contributions both historically and in the platform of the Star Wars universe. Sweet’s analysis of

The Clone Wars as political dialogue traces women’s antiwar dissent to Jeannette Rankin, the

first female senator and sole antiwar voice representing Montana. Rankin’s senate vote opposing

entry into the Great War and WWII resulted in social animosity and death threats. Rankin

continued her antiwar dissent during the Vietnam War and is known as being the navigating light

toward wartime opposition. Sweet’s use of Rankin as a foundational figure clarifies the

progressive stance for women in the Star Wars galaxy. Unlike Princes Leia’s attempt to stop the

war process by destroying the Death Star, Rankin’s argument is closer to that of Padmé, whose

basis for antiwar advocacy lies in withdrawing from war. As expressed by Rankin in Sweet, “The

last ‘war to end all wars’ should have taught us that we can’t end war that way. Wars pave the

way for more war.” The representation of women in The Clone Wars derives from a long

tradition of bold women whose personal and social agency lies in the audacity to run against

masculine constructs dictating war.

Clone War Politics: A Woman’s Business

The difference between men and women’s social standing toward war lies in women’s

use of politics to create a discourse against war. As previously explained, women’s roles during

wartime are contrasted against adherence to pro-war masculinity. As Hoganson explains, “It may

seem unplausible that such seemingly personal phenomena as gender convictions would have

far-reaching political implications, but by stipulating social roles for men and women, gender

beliefs have significantly affected political affairs.” Thus, conservatism places women in

supportive roles that deny them a social point of view. When women decide to partake in the

manly arena of war affairs, they use politics as a platform for dissenting discourse.

The use of political platforms is best illustrated by Senator Amidala’s message to the

Galactic Senate: “The creation of more warriors will not end this war. The financial costs alone

will bankrupt and cripple the Republic. By adding more clones to the conflict, we are only

escalating destruction, not winning the war, which is why we must vote for this resolution, to

promote more diplomacy and to bring an end to this killing and hatred.”68 Senator Amidala’s

speech to the Galactic Senate showcases women’s cross-generational legacy of antiwar dissent,

especially as Amidala’s rancor against war is carried over to her daughter, Princess Leia.

Amidala’s call to end the production of clones provides social commentary not only against the

use of war to settle disputes, but the drafting of large numbers of men to continue the pace of the

Vietnam War.

The debate over the need for more troops to end the war resonates with 1960s antiwar

dissent against the draft, the escalation of the war, and the effects of war on soldiers and the

population. Hence, Senator Amidala’s stance against the Senate’s refusal to relent on clone

development reflects American gender norms of the military industrial complex. Lastly,

Amidala’s advocacy for diplomacy runs against traditionally masculine constructs of war

making. American ideals toward war memory are aligned with a win-or-lose ideology, with the

latter being unacceptable. Instead, Amidala’s attempt at antiwar diplomacy demonstrates a

frustration with war being a mechanism for resolution. This is best exemplified by Sweet, who

writes, “The war habit comes to us through long traditions of history and teaching. We are

unconscious of how many war habits we have and our method of perpetuating them. All our

history and our music and our art and literature and family traditions and loyalties are tied up in

war.”

Senator Amidala’s message calls attention to the notion of women, as the true voices of

Americana, being the primary advocates against the use of war as the dominant means of conflict

resolution. Women continue to be the central figures in producing social discourse that fights for

a world of peace. As Sweet argues, “Amidala’s call for diplomacy and cautious approach to

increased militarism may be the most insightful into what is transpiring politically, but also

perhaps the wisest.”70 In sum, women’s representation in The Clone Wars universe is tied to a

long and neglected history of women dissenting from wartime mandates. One could even argue

that the Star Wars rebellion started out of women’s dissent toward war.

The Dichotomy of Gender Representation through Dialogue

Gender power dynamics in The Clone Wars’ dialogue are central to understanding

women’s agency and social advocacy. Even though women such as Padmé remain vocal toward

ending the war, women’s agency remains tied to patriarchal sanctions. This is exemplified in a

dialogue between Duchess Satine and Obi-Wan-Kenobi.

SENATOR PALPATINE: Let us commit our military might to defending the Mandalorian

people.

DUCHESS SATINE: Defending? You mean to occupy our home. You would trample our

right to self-determination.

SENATOR: We mean to save your people.

DUCHESS: You will turn our planet into a military target, which will bring the war to us.

Mandalore must remain neutral.

OBI-WAN: Satine, as your friend, I don’t think you should make any decisions in this state

of mind.

DUCHESS: This state of mind? And what state of mind would that be, precisely?

OBI-WAN: What I’m saying is, any person would be hysterical by now, but…

DUCHESS: Hysterical!? The Republic is attempting to force its will upon innocent people.

OBI-WAN: I only meant that – frankly.

DUCHESS: I’m surprised you’re not hysterical. Perhaps if more citizens got hysterical,

they’d be more inclined to speak up when the Republic tramples on their rights.

OBI-WAN: Rushing in like this is foolhardy.

DUCHESS: Ironic words from a man who spends his days running hither a yon, wielding

his lightsaber with deadly force as if on a crusade. Why should I listen to someone who

so frequently relies on violence? In my opinion, you’re the one who’s foolhardy.

The Duchess’ refusal of her planets’ occupation by Republic forces shows her unwillingness to

compromise her status as an antiwar agent. Meanwhile, Obi-Wan’s attitude toward the

occupation of the Duchess’ planet exemplifies his willingness to adhere to wartime mandates.

The irony of the dialogue is that it exposes Obi-Wan’s loss of agency. Though Obi-Wan’s status

as a Jedi Knight is based on his ability to adhere to a higher moral agency and exercise critical

judgment, his adherence to wartime mandates suppresses his moral authority. As explained by

Sweet, “For every representation of the Jedi Knights as wagers of peace striving to adhere to a

higher moral calling, another reminds viewers the Jedi are mired in the midst of a prolonged war.

No matter how hard they fight to maintain their moral center, the physical, psychological, and

spiritual costs threaten to undermine their ethical responsibility.” On the other hand, the Duchess’

animosity over the loss of planetary self-determination shows her as possessing higher morality,

critical thought, and self-determination.

Secondly, the dialogue between Satine and Obi-Wan exposes gendered power dynamics.

The Duchess’ animosity over the decision to occupy her planet is exacerbated by Obi-Wan’s

inability to recognize the occupation as a steppingstone to war, and by his patriarchal assertion of

her “hysteria” being caused by her having the unstable mind of a woman. Unlike men’s tantrums,

which are seen to be charged with masculinity, women’s dissent is historically translated as an

act of mental instability or disorder. The Duchess’ final remark that “war is allowed by not

enough people being hysterical” echoes post-9/11 issues of prolonged war causing social apathy

about war. In this dialogue and throughout the series, gendered power structures are revealed,

where women’s agency lies in rebutting men’s masculinity and the Jedi’s social privilege stems

from their rank and male gender. It seems ironic that the Jedi are represented as using the Force

to understand all living things and bring balance, but remain aloof when it comes to

understanding masculinity’s impact on women’s self-determination.

Gendered power dynamics as represented through dialogue are also evident in the

“Senate Spy” episode, which depicts Anakin’s refusal to allow Padmé to partake in an

undercover mission:

PADMÉ: Someone has to find out the truth.

ANAKIN: Someone does, just not you.

PADMÉ: Why not me?

ANAKIN: Because it’s going to be dangerous. Whoever takes this mission will be putting

their life at risk.

PADMÉ: I’ve been in many tough situations before. It never seemed to bother you. I never

stopped you from facing danger. You’re constantly getting shot at!

ANAKIN: I’ve been trained for that. It’s very different from spying on a traitor.

PADMÉ: You mean I can’t handle the mission?

ANAKIN: I mean I’m not going to let you do it.

PADMÉ: You’re not going to let me!? It’s not your choice to make. It’s mine.

ANAKIN: Lucky for us you’ve already decided to refuse.

PADMÉ: Actually, I’ve just changed my mind. You’ve convinced me that it’s vital to learn

what Clovis is doing. I accept the mission. ANAKIN: Even though I’m telling you not to.

PADMÉ: Don’t take it personally, Anakin. Duty comes first, especially in wartime.

Anakin denying Padmé’s personal agency shows his adherence to patriarchal social constructs.

The significance of this dialogue is best understood when considering its effect on younger

audiences, particularly young women. One can argue that the Star Wars franchise, written

through a male lens, is inevitably marked by traditional gender constructs. McDowell writes,

“The point is that the cinematic product of Lucas’ imagination, whether intentionally or not,

reflects deep hegemonic currents in modern American culture by defining the women in the

narratives from the male perspective.” However, I must slightly disagree with McDowell; I see

Princess Leia’s characterization, of ridiculing men and raising her voice when she either did not

agree or needed to be heard, as echoing Padmé’s vocal disagreement with Anakin. The dialogue

between Anakin and Padmé demonstrates to young women that they will have to stand up

against masculine social constructs if they want to live a life outside men’s power structure.

Anakin’s attempt at controlling Padmé’s actions is a precursor of Anakin’s anger toward

what he cannot control, foreshadowing his fall from grace and rise as a Sith Lord. For young

women viewing The Clone Wars, Padmé’s dialogue with Anakin provides social discourse by

representing women going against traditional male social constructs. As Mayer writes, “In her

essay ‘How to build a man,’ Ann Fausto-Sterling tells us that ‘men are made not born’ and that

we ‘construct masculinity through social discourse.’ Male behavior depends on existing social

relations and on the social code that predetermines these relations. Therefore, the expression of

masculinity will depend on the image that men have of themselves, relative to women,

community, society, and the nation”

Ahsoka Tano and Female Combat Agency in The Clone Wars Universe

Much like Princess Leia in the original Star Wars movie, The Clone Wars’ use of a female

protagonist provides greater female representation. Still, women’s representation remains small

in comparison to men. In the original Star Wars movie, Princess Leia held double duty as both a

combatant and a diplomat, risking her life by acting against Darth Vader. As Leia escapes from

Imperial forces with the help of Han Solo and Luke Skywalker, she is seen blasting her way

alongside Luke and Han. Throughout their escape, Leia ridicules Luke and Han for their poor

escape plan:

LEIA: Aren’t you small for a storm trooper?

LUKE: Oh, the uniform. My name is Luke Skywalker and I’m here to rescue you.

LEIA: You’re who?

HAN: Can’t get out that way!

LEIA: Looks like you managed to cut off our only escape route!

HAN: Maybe you’d like it better in your cell your highness!

LUKE: Is there any other way out!?

HAN: We can’t hold them off forever!

LEIA: Some rescue! Did you have a plan for getting out? (Leia then reaches and takes

Luke’s blaster and starts firing away at the storm troopers.) HAN: What are you

doing!?

LEIA: Someone has to save our skins! Into the garbage fly-boy!

HAN: I’m either going to kill her or begin to like her!76

Princess Leia’s dissent toward the Galactic Empire is central to women being represented

in combat roles by taking up arms. Unlike Padmé, Leia is not concerned with stopping a war or

advocating for peace. Rather, Leia is attached to her terrorist plot to end Imperial colonial rule by

destroying the Death Star as an agent of tyranny. Princess Leia is not only rebelling against

conservative Imperial forces, but against draconian social constructs aimed at suppressing

women’s self-determination. Though Princess Leia was the first female combatant to be depicted

in the Star Wars universe in 1977, in the chronology of the Star Wars universe, Leia picks up the

torch from Ahsoka Tano.

Ahsoka Tano’s combat training took place under Anakin Skywalker, who later becomes

Darth Vader. In The Clone Wars, she is a Padawan-learner, or Jedi in training, though she also

holds the rank of general and partakes in all frontline battles. Ahsoka is seen leading clones into

battle, where she quickly learns that her combat decisions have life-or-death consequences. As a

Jedi-learner, Ahsoka is taught to know her place, especially when it comes to asking questions

pertaining to the reasons for war. Until The Clone Wars, the Jedi possessed agency in

determining all matters, whether political or not, and held sway to go against unfair policy

mandates. Ahsoka senses, however, that the war and its militarization of the Jedi could lead to

the demise of the Jedi Order.

The lack of transparency about the war and its side effects of death and destruction cause

Ahsoka to begin asking questions. She remarks, in a dialogue with Anakin Skywalker,

“Truthfully, I don’t understand any of it. I know the Separatists are evil, but all anyone argued

about was banking deregulation, interest rates, and, well, almost nothing about why we’re

fighting the war in the first place.” Ahsoka questions why she is not being taught anything

about the production of war or the reasons for it. This questioning stems from her realization that

being a Jedi rests with possessing a higher moral character. In a later episode, after she helps

imperialize a planet, Ahsoka looks around at the devastation and begins to ask questions about

the conduct and purpose for the war.

CAPTAIN REX: Something wrong?

AHSOKA: As a Jedi, we were trained to be keepers of the peace, not soldiers. But all I’ve

been since I was a Padawan is a soldier.

REX: Well, I’ve known no other way. Gives us clones all mixed feelings about the war.

But without it, we clones wouldn’t exist.

Ahsoka’s agency stems from her resentment toward the Jedi Order for failing to teach her about

the causes for war. Her questioning provides social commentary about gender and war politics,

since as a general, she is one of the primary female combat leaders. The fact that Rex did not

know anything about the causes or reasons for war places her in the same realm as a foot soldier,

running central to conservative military mandates of following orders without delay or question.

As a woman in frontline battles, her contribution does not materialize into military mobility, thus

providing commentary on gender constructs pertaining to the military. As explained by Nagel’s

study on masculinity and nationalism, “Despite their bravery, sometimes taking on traditional

male military roles, and despite the centrality of their contribution to many nationalist struggles,

it is often the case that feminist nationalists find themselves once again under the thumb of

institutionalized patriarchy once national independence is won.” In the end, Ahsoka’s realization

of the Jedi’s adherence to military mandates causes her to leave the Jedi Order.

Ahsoka’s return to the Republic following her leave is crucial to the development of

women’s agency in the Star Wars universe. Because of her lack of faith in the Republic’s politics,

Ahsoka takes up arms with Lady Bo-katan of Mandalore, a female bounty hunter. Much

like Princess Leia, Ahsoka realizes that unchecked politics and lack of dissent would lead to the

demise of the Republic and the Jedi Order:

AHSOKA: So that’s it? You’re going to abandon Bo-Katan and her people?

OBI-WAN: Ahsoka, surely you understand this is a pivotal moment in the Clone War. The

heart of the Republic is under attack.

AHSOKA: I understand that, as usual, you’re playing politics. This is why the people have

lost faith in the Jedi. I had too, until I was reminded of what the order means to people

who truly need us.

OBI-WAN: Right now, people on Coruscant need us.

AHSOKA: No, the Chancellor needs you.

OBI-WAN: That’s not fair.

AHSOKA: I’m not trying to be.

This dialogue between Ahsoka and Obi-Wan demonstrates Ahsoka’s independence from

gender confines that would dictate her agency based on her being a female Padawan. As a tribute

to other Star Wars women, Ahsoka is the first to realize the effects of war on the Jedi Order.

Much like Jeannette Rankin and Princess Leia, Ahsoka sets out to take matters into her own

hands while alienating herself from her former colleagues. The process of seeking agency inside

a patriarchal social structure during wartime is captured by Hoganson, who writes, “Politics is

modified war. In politics there is struggle, strife, contention, bitterness, heartburning, excitement,

agitation, everything which is averse to the true character of women. In circular fashion,

women’s exclusion from partisan politics made that activity seem all the more manly, and the

manly character of politics made it even harder to push for inclusion.” Thus, Ahsoka’s

independent action outside the Jedi Order’s political mandates validates women seeking resolve

outside social constructs of gender.

The attack on Coruscant by Separatist forces and the Jedi’s urgency to defend it—added

to the fact that Coruscant had never been attacked—places social commentary on America’s

reaction to 9/11. Though Coruscant is the Republic’s home planet, where all decisions of war are

made, the population of Coruscant lives in absence of war and its side effects of death,

destruction, population displacement, and imperialism. Coruscant is illustrated not as a planet at

war, but a planet that delegates war. The use of a marginalized clone army without any social or

family ties exacerbates the disparity between the war’s effects on other planets’ populations and

those of Coruscant.

Obi-Wan has an urgency to uphold wartime mandates and defend Coruscant while

Ahsoka challenges him in favor of defending the planet of Mandalore from the brink of military

occupation and social unrest. Ahsoka asserts her agency and fights against the Jedi Order by

calling out Obi-Wan’s adherence to following singular political mandates rather than viewing the

war through its side effects of social suffering stemming from the Republic’s footprint of

imperialistic control. Hence, women’s agency is conveyed when they create discourse against

the status quo of masculinity and war:

PADMÉ: A peaceful solution is the only way out of this morass of war. ANAKIN:

That’s not my role, Padmé.

PADMÉ: Why not!? Why isn’t it your role? Aren’t you a Jedi? Isn’t it our duty to speak

our minds to advise the chancellor?

The tug of war between good war ideology and women’s antiwar dissent is represented by

Padmé. Despite being front and center in the war, Anakin lacks knowledge about the internal

reasons for fighting the war. For the good war ideology to run a successful course, one must

ensure the public remains oblivious to its geopolitical aims and does not ask the right questions.

Hence, Anakin’s agency resonates from following orders. Padmé’s knowledge is followed by

Ahsoka’s questioning of the war, which places her as an outsider:

SENATOR AMIDALA: Members of the senate. Do you hear yourselves? More money, more

clones, more war. Say nothing for fiscal responsibility, what about moral responsibility?

Hasn’t this war gone on long enough?

FELLOW SENATOR: Senator Amidala, are you suggesting we surrender to the Separatists.

SENATOR: You did your part, Representative. Senator Amidala is the problem. FELLOW

SENATOR: I thought age might temper her idealism.

Thus, dissent—questions pertaining to policies, reasons for waging war, or war’s effects—runs

counter to good war ideology by creating interference and masculine backlash in wartime.

The tradition of female leadership opposing wartime mandates and masculine social

constructs remains firm in the Star Wars universe. Perhaps no other pop culture media is as in

tune with female agency via dissent than Star Wars. One can argue that women represent the

foundation of the Rebellion, beginning with Ahsoka’s fortitude against the Jedi’s failure to view

war as a destabilizing agent leading to their inevitable demise, followed by Princes Leia’s

leadership in terrorizing the Death Star. Also notable is Gen Erso’s advocacy in gaining access to

the Death Star plans by invading an Imperial base, as illustrated in Rogue One:

What chance do we have? The question is “what choice?” Run, hide… plead for mercy,

scatter your forces. You give way to an enemy this evil with this much power… and you

condemn the galaxy to an eternity of submission. The time to fight is now! Every

moment you waste is another step closer to the ashes of Jedha. Send your best troops to

Scarif. Send the Rebel fleet if you have to. You need to capture the Death Star plans if

there is any hope of destroying it… Saw Gerrera used to say… one fighter with a sharp

stick and nothing left to lose can take the day. They’ve no idea we’re coming. They’ve no

reason to expect us. If we can make it to the ground, we’ll take the next chance. And the

next. On and on until we win…or the chances are spent.

The trajectory of female dissent and leadership follows a tradition of rebellion against masculine

social constructs pertaining to war. Women’s willingness to take up arms, such as Ahsoka,

provides social commentary on women’s agency being tied to not only war, but dissent against

social constructs limiting women. This idea of women being historically tied to conflict and

change is supported by Hoganson:

To better understand international relations, wrote Iriye, historians must examine

domestic cultural arrangements, including the customs that help maintain social order.

Because gender has been of great importance in allocating social roles and shaping ideas

about power in more countries than just the United States. It stands to reason that gender

should be recognized as a cultural arrangement with significant implications for the

conduct of international relations in a range of different context.

The importance of understanding women’s contributions, both historically and in social

settings, is to gain access to an untapped resource of female contributions with the potential for

consequential world change. The Clone Wars’ contribution to female representation in pop

culture media allows social dialogue where people, in particular young women, are enabled to

view the semiotic representations as a resonating element for critical thought and analysis.

McDowell explains, “As Margaret Miles and Brent Plate argue, ‘how we see the other effects the

way we treat the other. Film, as a medium of mass reception, promotes, negates, and generally

alters our perception of identities, especially with regard to gender, race, ethnicity, and

religion.’”86 Hence, female representation in The Clone Wars universe contributes to the social

discourse by placing women in battles against masculinity, patriarchy, tyranny, imperialism, war,

and social constructs that limit their personal agency and self-determination.

3. Grunts and Clones: An Expendable Commodity

Theirs not to reason why, theirs but to do and die. No nation that maintains fighting

services can afford to revoke that rule of experience. Where soldiers begin to question the

rightness of the cause for, they are fighting, armies soon collapse. —Heinz Guderian,

Panzer Leader.

The Clone Wars is about a war of ideologies fueled by human clones. One of the principle

social commentaries of The Clone Wars, the Republic’s use of clones is their primary means of

waging war against the Separatists. Unlike the Separatist’s use of a droid army, where loss of life

is not equivalent to human life, the Republic’s response is to use human clones for their ability to

think critically. However, the biological manufacturing of clones for the exclusive use of war

denies clones agency, making their use similar to droids. The social commentary attached to the

use of clones places heavy questions on American values pertaining to who fights the war and

where soldiers fit inside the morality of war.

One of the central human connections to war is the loss of loved ones as soldiers. The

symbolic loss of soldiers in war is the cultural signifying glue that places soldiers’ sacrifice as

indicative of the nation’s sacred ideals, myths, and ideologies. Hence, the socialization of the

soldier’s death in war is one of the primary avenues where war’s past and present create

ideological meaning for warfare.

However, the connection between loved ones, society, and war is denied to clones. A

good majority will never see the Republic’s grand cities where the fates of their lives are

discussed. Clone troopers’ role in combat, stemming from the Republic’s need of soldiers,

signifies the Vietnam War’s use of class structures to wage war. The commonalities are based on

the draft, the representation of marginalized communities, soldier anxieties pertaining to

questions of morality and agency in war, and the battles taking place in foreign territories.

Lastly, clones, in lieu of having an actual family, establish family bonds through their shared

sacrifice, purpose, and life and death experiences in war. Like in contemporary wartime, soldiers

rely on shared experience as a coping mechanism.

Clone Trooper Marginalization

The social commentary on the use of clones to wage war is based on a loss-count

metaphor, where clone deaths signify the means for fulfilling the Republic’s wartime mandates.

Clones represent the most marginalized segment of society but make up the highest combat

mortality rate. Their biological development renders them as a social byproduct, or a form of

commodification for waging war, which places clones on an equal platform to the Separatists’

droids. The Republic casts clones outside of the main society, denying them any familial

connection or validation in combat. The clones’ social development thus represents American

democratic ideologies, where clones are bred to fight under the ideological pretense of waging

war as a liberating and pacifying medium. Clones’ social development is laced with American

values pertaining to good war theory: democracy, freedom, and masculinity, as illustrated in a

dialogue between Captain Rex and clone trooper Cut Lawquane,

CAPTAIN REX: What if I’m choosing the life I want? What if I’m staying in the army

because it’s meaningful to me?

CUT LAWQUANE: And how is it meaningful?

CAPTAIN REX: Because I’m part of the most pivotal moments in the history of the

Republic. If we fail, then our children and their children could be forced to live under an

evil I can’t well imagine.

The emphasis here is on the war being one of the most meaningful moments in the Republic’s

history, akin to WWII, where American society raced to partake in one of the greatest challenges

in history. The war also presented an opportunity to test men’s masculinity. Captain Rex’s

argument of a Republic loss having draconian consequences represents a threat to democratic

ideals, much like American ideals of fighting an evil empire in favor of a future supported by

freedom. The dialogue between Cut Lawquane and Rex demonstrates the dichotomy of war in

society: Rex represents the masculine call to arms, while Cut chooses personal agency by asking

whether one should have a choice not to fight in war. The dialogue between Cut and Rex also

adds social commentary to the 1960s’ social fight to refuse a war that no longer made sense to

many soldiers fighting the war. The dialogue thus produces an unconscious account of American

ideals toward war, self-agency, and citizens’ responsibility to the Republic.

Patriotic Dissent: Should I Stay, or Should I Go?

Clone agency is a theme throughout the series. The epitome of a good soldier is Captain

Rex, who follows orders first and asks questions later. He is the primary advocate of clones; his

advocacy, however, usually comes after a mission goes bad or when he must account for the loss

of clones. Much like foot soldiers in Vietnam, clone agency is represented by clones asking

questions about what the war means after realizing that their life has no other purpose but to die

on the battlefield. The clones realize that no one in the Republic will know of their contribution

or that they ever existed. This dichotomy between a patriotic clone who follows orders and a

clone searching for war’s meaning is represented in the following dialogue between Clone Fives

and Captain Rex regarding clones following negligent combat orders:

FIVES: This is about more than just following orders.

Captain Rex: It is. It is about honor.

FIVES: Where is the honor in marching blindly to our deaths? It is not our call. We are

part of something larger. We're not independent of one another. I’m sorry. I can’t just

follow orders when I know they’re wrong, especially when lives are at stake.

CAPTAIN REX: You will if you support the system we fight for.

This dialogue showcases Captain Rex as the soldier’s soldier, willing to follow wartime orders

even when they are not favorable to their chances of survival. The narrative gives insight to

American ideals by illustrating the clone soldier’s apprehensions with adhering to masculine

norms by supporting the Republic’s policies of enemy engagement. The focal theme is that of a

true patriot following the Republic’s mandates first and foremost, even at the expense of his

agency, life, and moral objections. Fives, meanwhile, represents the complexities combat soldiers

encounter when faced with challenging wartime directives.

Jedi Agency and the Fall of the Republic

Despite being trained in self-reflection, the Jedi are also affected by the dictates of war.

One of the main arguments from Star Wars fans pertaining to character development in the

prequel film trilogy is the Jedi’s loss of agency. As explained by Silvo and Vinci, “What is

significant is that the Empire is representational of a general cultural paradigm that assimilates

and oppresses the expressive autonomy of the individual and that it is the dominant force that the

highly-individualized protagonists of the original trilogy risk their lives to destroy, hence

valorizing individualism and expressing a deep anxiety regarding the institution.” This is crucial

to understanding The Clone Wars as the militarization of Star Wars. Like the clones, the Jedi

adhere to policy mandates about safeguarding Republic trade routes and fuel reserves to prevent

the Separatists from damaging the Republic’s ability to wage war, including the production of

clones.

The Jedi’s agency is exchanged for a sense of liberty at the cost of total war, planetary

invasion, and violent resolution. This loss of the Jedi’s agency is best explained by Dave Filoni:

“He knows, frankly, that the Jedi of the time have lost their way and that it’s going to be a path

that very few of them are going to be able to walk out of The Clone Wars and into whatever the

future may hold. Basically, they’re all going to have to pay a price for their own role in the

violence and the destruction and the things that have happened in the galaxy, which turns out to

be true.” The Jedi’s dilemma occurs within the broader public dialogue of whether it is worth the

consequences to follow the response of war instead of using one’s agency to ask questions

against the war.

War requires a mechanism to nurture cultural and ideological support. The Clone Wars’

dialogue and action sequences provide social commentary by juxtaposing questions related to

past and current wars. As explained by Hall, “Culture, it is argued, is not so much a set of things

– novels and paintings or TV programmes and comics – as a process, a set of practices.

Primarily, culture is concerned with the production and exchange of meanings – the ‘giving and

taking of meaning’ – between the members of a society or group.”92 Thus, the Jedi’s personal

agency is set aside in times of war in favor of policy mandates that favor adherence to war. The

question being asked by Ahsoka, of not understanding the true reasons for war, provides social

commentary on the lack of questioning about past and current war policies and their effects on

society, and whether war should be supported.

Clone Fatalities: A Byproduct of War and Social Conditioning

The sacrifice of a soldier is the epitome of a masculine death, lending gravitas to

nationalist ideologies. But what happens when a war is fought by a clone army, or a droid one? Is

the connection to the soldier severed, disintegrating the personal relationship with war? Does

waging war with the use of clones, as marginalized soldiers, create apathy toward the war? These

are some of the questions The Clone Wars asks of their viewers. How is the loss of life, so central

to the fabric of society, changed when wars are fought by a marginalized class of people?

The clones’ importance in waging war is illustrated in the opening narration of every

episode. For instance, the “Rookies” episode begins, “Clone forces rally! As the war escalated on

the Outer Rim, Jedi Knights are spread thinly across the galaxy! Many new clones are rushed

into service to support their Jedi generals! Unfortunately, because of the relentless demands of

battle, many new clones must join the struggle before their intensive training has been

completed! These clones, manning a vital network of tracking stations, are all that stand between

the Republic and invasion.”

In The Clone Wars, clones are manufactured on the planet of Kamino from DNA

extracted from a warrior, the bounty hunter Jango Fett. The Kaminos live in laboratories, where

clones begin life in tubes. From their initial stages of life, clone socialization is central to war.

Every stage of clone upbringing is focused on creating a super-soldier. Clones are negated any

individuality—names, personal items, and agency—to create a less empathetic and more

efficient soldier.

Part of this socialization process consists of dehumanizing enemy combatants by

constructing alien beings as the “other,” signifying their image as a threat. This perspective is

best expressed by Wetmore, who writes, “Edward Said commented that ‘The great modern

empires have never been held together only by military power.’ What is necessary over and

above force is ‘imperial perspective’ defined as ‘that way of looking at a distant foreign reality

by subordinating it in one’s gaze, constructing its history from one’s own point of view.” The

purposeful socialization denying attachment runs through a history of humans waging war. The

“othering” produces a psychological message where soldiers are disconnected from empathy and

critical thinking, a message which is a byproduct of human engineering that evolved over

millennia due to its effectiveness at waging wars. As described by Taliaferro and Beck, “The

stoic philosopher Epictetus (c. 50–120 CE) is especially clear when he admonishes his followers

to realize that the people they love are human beings who will die, and to see that inevitably as

part of their relationships… They wanted us to avoid these emotions not through repressing or

disguising our feelings, but through avoiding what they saw as unwise or compulsive

attachment.” Thus, soldiers’ conditioning is tied to teaching soldiers to lack empathy or emotion

so that they may follow through on combat objectives.

The central agent in producing apathy is the loss of life in war films. In The Clone Wars,

loss of life is represented by clone troopers receiving the brunt of casualties, which occur in

quick action sequences, often in the background, where clones are killed in direct enemy fire,

mortar explosions, or gunship explosions. Much like contemporary soldiers, clones are able to

wage war because of social constructs that promote racial differences as key features in the

ability to construct the enemy combatant.

In these action scenes, the clone’s combat conveys American masculine ideals of sacrifice

and duty. Although The Clone Wars does discuss the death of soldiers, most action sequences are

filled with clones taking the brunt of casualties while the protagonist, usually a

Jedi, remains without injury. This psychological disconnect is what the stoic philosopher

Epictetus meant. However, the disconnection centered on soldiers is mutated via pop culture

mediums into social apathy and emotional detachment from death and war, giving the viewer a

false representation of war’s consequence. More importantly, viewers’ understanding is

constructed unconsciously, with the rationale that clones, being made for war, are expected to die

with the acceptance that they represent a marginalized byproduct of war.

Combat Deaths and Clone Wars’ Dialogue

Although a neglected element in mediums pertaining to war, death is central to discourse

in The Clone Wars. Lucas’ use of death as a rite of passage is a central feature in the Star Wars

franchise, beginning with the symbolic death of Obi-Wan followed by that of Darth Vader.

Unlike many other animated shows dealing with war, The Clone Wars makes a conscientious

attempt at understanding war and death via its character dialogue. This is best supported in “The

Deserter” episode, which includes dialogue between a clone deserter, Cut Lawquane, and

Captain Rex.

CAPTAIN REX: So, what was it? What made you decide to leave the Corps? CUT

LAWQUANE: Shortly after the battle of Geonosis, our troop transport got caught between

two Separatist gunships. They fired at us with everything they had. We crashed. Most of

us were dead or severely injured. So, when they (the Separatists) started working their

way through the wounded, killing us off, I knew there was no hope. I ran. It still haunts

me.

REX: I’m sorry.

CUT: It’s the day I felt my life didn’t have any meaning. Everyone I cared about, my

team, was gone. I was just another expendable clone waiting for my turn to be

slaughtered in a war that made no sense to me. Can you understand that, Rex? REX:

I’ve been in countless battles and lost many brothers. They were my family. My

home.

The above dialogue showcases a soldier’s experience with combat, death, family, and PTSD.

Cut’s experience with the loss of his fellow clones gives new meaning to the war. Rarely

mentioned in pop culture media, much less an animated series, the psychological effects of war

on soldiers provides commentary on values pertaining to masculinity, the effects of combat,

soldier animosities about the costs of war, and whether the loss was worth it. Death dialogue

lends empathy to clone experiences, contributing to a complex understanding of war.

Clone Trooper Ideology and Socialization

Cut Lawquane’s dialogue with Captain Rex resembles a therapy session, where Cut

shares a personal experience that runs contrary to masculine portrayals of war. Instead, Cut

questions the war and the loss of his fellow clone soldiers. This very act of questioning is key to

realizing one’s self-determination. In their development, the clones’ overriding feature is their

ability to be adaptable even while following strict protocol. As explained by a Kamino to

ObiWan, “Clones can think creatively. You will find that they are immensely superior to droids.

We take great pride in our combat education and training programs… You will find they are

totally obedient, taking any order without question. We modified their genetic structure to make

them less independent than the original host.”

Clones are humanoids whose support of war is central to their adolescent development,

having been primed with a military socialization as future soldiers. The clones’ purpose is based

on the Republic’s ideologies of freedom, democracy, and personal liberty. As such, the clones’

upbringing mirrors American adolescents’ upbringing. For Americans, the socialization of war is

tied to a life of media filled with war and an education system reliant on concepts of nationalism.

In this light, the American concept of masculinity is linked to the reasons for waging war.

The Clone Wars acts as an instructional medium reproducing behavior that is deemed

socially admirable. This dynamic is best explained by Hall, who writes, “Meanings also regulate

and organize our conduct and practices – they help to set the rules, norms and conventions by

which social life is ordered and governed. They are also, therefore, what those who wish to

govern and regulate the conduct and ideas of others seek to structure and shape.” In this manner,

the social development of a clone trooper shadows American investments in media and

educational platforms geared toward socializing a generational cohort for war through images of

sacrifice, order, and ideology. As supported by Tiffin and Lawson, “The curriculum must analyze

and deconstruct popular knowledges produced through television and culture industries, and be

organized around texts and images that relate directly to the communities, cultures, and traditions

that give students a historical sense of identity and place.” The Clone Wars’ main themes and

character relationships produce meaning bent on supporting American ideals, underscoring how

wars are fought and supported via a class structure.

Class distinctions are supported by using clones to wage war. The Kaminos’ biological

advances that make clones more obedient reveal their developmental fault line. As humanoids,

clones represent a marginalized class of soldiers reflecting the class representation of foot

soldiers in Vietnam. Instead of droids, the Republic’s use of clones is based on their ability to

adapt to various environments and follow strict protocols. The semiotic link between clones and

Vietnam-era foot soldiers thus carries social commentary about clones’ experiences with combat

mirroring that of foot soldiers in hostile alien environments. Both the clones and soldiers were

raised in sterile environments steeped in ideologies defined by social constructs of war. Once

outside of their socially constructed environment, clones, much like American teenage soldiers,

are shipped out to various parts of the galaxy to fight an ideological war against an alien

combatant.

Clones’ social development of war begins from birth. Being born into a Republic whose

ideologies are centered on war creates a point of entry into understanding American pop culture

mediums that act as socialization mediums toward war. As Lucas explained in an interview with

Alijean Harmetz, “Film and [other] visual entertainment are a pervasively important part of our

culture, an extremely significant influence on the way our society operates… People in the film

industry don’t want to accept the responsibility that they had a hand in the way the world is

loused up. But, for better or worse, the influence of the church, which used to be all-powerful,

has been usurped by film.” The representation of war in American culture follows gender norms

of masculinity for why and how Americans view their relationship with war. The Republics’ use

of clones is dependent on the idea that they are sentient beings capable of critical thinking and

adaptability to war scenarios.

Clones constantly compare themselves to their droid advisories used by the Separatists,

claiming that they are not “clanking and mindless droids.” The irony is that clones’ biological

manufacturing and social development renders them, just like droids, as a commodified means

for waging war. As Sweet argues, “This depiction of individuals who think and act of their own

accord, who recognize they are not unthinking automations like the enemies they often face and

yet ultimately possess little or no self-determination is one of the most tragic points brought to

light by The Clone Wars.” Thus, the clones’ sole purpose is to wage war for a Republic that

denies them citizenship to the society for which they are fighting. This places social commentary

on America’s use of immigrants, non-citizen soldiers, and soldiers from marginalized

communities to fight wars. The clone thus represents the marginalized soldier, who, despite being

absent from society and therefore expendable, still fights to uphold its cultural ideologies. On the

eve of the 2007 Tournament of Roses parade, George Lucas addressed the 501st troops that would

serve as the stormtroopers accompanying his parade float. “’The big invasion is in a

few days,’ he said, deadpan. ‘I don’t expect all of you to make it back. But that’s ok because

Stormtroopers are expendable.’ The legion roared in its approval.” Thus, the clone’s sole purpose

is to fight, follow orders, and die in the field of battle. For that, they need to be an expendable

commodity.

Project One Hundred Thousand

An appeal to patriotism can befog the clearest issue, and those who are most imbued with the

sense of duty to country are, and are bound to be, the easiest to deceive and to silence. Soldiers

are not trained to explore the truth behind international disputes, and if they try to wrestle with the

resulting questions, they are likely to become incapable of performing their task. There is a place,

and a need, for the military philosopher in the study and guidance of war, but a profoundly

reflective mind does not fit easily into the service itself. —Heinz Guderian, Panzer Leader.103

Nationalism is a key feature in the social fabric of the Republic, where ideologies of

peace, democracy, and freedom are the focal means of waging war. The connection to

contemporary American wars occurs through the development of clones as a marginalized

commodity for waging war who must practice self-denial and social detachment. The greatest

obstacles to waging war are social buy-in followed by soldiers’ death, the latter of which is the

primary connective tissue for national ideologies transmitted to future generations. The focal

point for citizens and soldiers becoming invested in war is connection to their loved ones, which

gives the war meaning. That is why, during times of war, communities rally together to write

correspondence to soldiers.

The manufacturing of clones to wage war denies them any form of familial connection,

contributing to their marginalization. This marginalization is indicative of contemporary

American recruitment practices where soldiers are found in economically challenged areas.

Marginalized communities are targeted for their working-class structure and minimal education

attainment, qualities that make them ideal targets for recruitment. This is exemplified in a scene

in Apocalypse Now where the character Willard (played by Martin Sheen) begins assessing his

crew:

WILLARD: The crew were mostly kids. Rock ‘n’ rollers with one foot in their graves.

(Willard looks around and askes the tall African American soldier his age.) How old are

you?

CLEAN: Seventeen.

WILLARD: The machinist, the one they called Chef, was from New Orleans. He was

wrapped too tight for Vietnam. Probably too tight for New Orleans. (Willard continues to

look around and spots another soldier.)

WILLARD: Lance, from the forward 50s. Was a famous surfer from the beaches south of

L.A. To look at him, you wouldn’t believe he’s ever fired a weapon in his life. (Willard

looks back to the African American youth named Clean.)

WILLARD: Mr. Clean was from some South Bronx shit-hole, and I think the light and the

space of Vietnam really put the zip on his head.

The paramount question in The Clone Wars is what happens when wars are no longer

dependent on drafts, where citizen-soldiers are replaced by a marginalized group of people—

non-citizen clones—who are bred to fight wars? Is the social buy-in the same? To better

understand this, compare The Clone Wars with the Vietnam War in the former’s representation of

clones as the sub-class of people used to wage war. American ideals are tied to clones’ attrition

rates, masculinity, experiences in foreign environments, and ideological adherence to waging

war. Clones that fail to subscribe to the ideologies of the Republic are seen as defective. The use

of clones is best explained by Sweet, who writes, “In fact, the entire clone breeding and

education process functions with assembly line precision: the clones are grown, born,

educated/trained, and certified for deployment… For all intents and purposes, the clones are

nothing more than interchangeable products being assembled and shipped off to a customer.”

Thus, outside of clones’ development as it relates to battle preparation, nothing is known of their

educational attainment, or if any emphasis is given to their understanding of the histories,

sciences, or laws that govern their social environment. Lack of education and its relevance to

self-agency is a primary theme of the Vietnam War and American values pertaining to class.

The opening scene to every episode in The Clone Wars includes battle scenes depicting

galactic space fights and planetary invasions, followed by narrative that spells out the causes and

effects of war on the population. Despite the narrative conveying the main themes in the episode,

the constant feature is that of clones taking on heavy attrition rates. Clone casualties function as

an aside, where the clones’ sacrifices are secondary to the action, whether in battles in space with

clone pilots being blown to pieces, during invasions via gunships depicting whole teams of

clones being shot down by anti-enemy weapons, or via heavy bombings and relentless machine

gun fire. As explained by Littmann, “Though it’s a story of conflict and warfare, grand political

concerns about the fate of the galaxy are kept in the background, as the story focuses more on the

action and the relationship among the main characters.” Even though clones make up the highest

number of casualties, clone attrition rates are used as action fillers, especially behind opening

episode narration. The key difference in The Clone Wars is that the clones’ contribution to the

series centers on the meaning of their losses. The duality of clone interpretation falls between

using them as casualties and reframing their losses to assess American values pertaining to the

cost benefits of war.

The Clone Wars’ lens into soldiers’ experiences, combat losses, and challenges with

agency is a throwback to Vietnam, a time when young 17 to 19-year-old men were drafted to

fight a war in a foreign environment amid social dissent over the continued escalation of war.

These soldiers were raised on democratic ideals but fell short of being able to vote or live

independently. Thus, the continued use of soldiers serves as a fueling agent toward war, as

exemplified by Chancellor Palpatine’s advocacy for the escalation of war. As Palpatine remarks,

“Actually, given the recent events, perhaps [the passing of a Senate vote for more clones] is for

the best. How can we justify fortifying our security here in the Senate if we don’t also provide

reinforcements on the frontlines? You see the victory of the Clone army, for now, is the only

thing that can lead us to peace.” Chancellor Palpatine’s pro-war stance via the continual

development of clones lends social commentary to debates about the escalation of the Vietnam

War and the increased drafting of high school and college-aged kids to become soldiers for

wartime mandates.

The clones’ importance to the war is raised in several episodes and opening narratives.

For instance, the “Heroes on Both Sides” episode opens with, “Conflict with no end in sight!

Across the galaxy, the quagmire of war continues. While clone troopers suffer casualties at

alarming rates, the Galactic Senate convenes an emergency session to debate the true cost of

war.” Judging on this narrative alone, one would think that clone attrition rates are the focal

concern for the Senate. However, the issue being debated is the financial cost of clone

development, not the loss of life, the prevention of which may be used as an argument for war

de-scalation. The development of clones despite big losses acts as a cultural signifier, where loss

of life by a marginalized sub-group of clones, rather than citizen-soldiers, makes the clones

expendable commodities. This is supported by Sweet, who argues, “Clone trooper deaths become

so commonplace, so routine, that characters in the program rarely acknowledge the loss....

Clones are anonymous and disposable. Viewers rarely get to know the clone who gets

caught in an explosion or falls victim to a super battle droid’s blaster fire.” Much like in

contemporary American wars, the clone soldiers remain underrepresented in society even though

they are the primary means to wage war. For viewers of The Clone Wars, the message being sent

conveys forms of masculinity that signify death and glory. For viewers, clone deaths reinforce

American ideals pertaining to the costs of freedom.

The complexity of The Clone Wars owes to its social commentary about the attrition rates

in Vietnam, which signified the cost-benefit analysis of war. President Lyndon B. Johnson’s

Project 100,000 exemplifies the use of marginalized sections of society to wage war. As a policy

aimed at drafting African Americans with the premise of giving them an opportunity at

contributing to the war effort, Project 100,000 was intended to enable greater social mobility. As

explained by Appy, “Enlisted ranks in Vietnam were comprised of about 25 percent poor, 55

percent working class, and 20 percent middle class, with a statistically negligible number of

wealthy. Most Americans in Vietnam were nineteen-year-old high school graduates.” With

attrition rates in Vietnam soaring and deferments targeting wealthier white college kids, African

American, poor white, and Latino kids became primary targets for enlistment. Much like the

clones, this section of society came from neglected communities. This is further supported by

Daddis, who writes, “Veteran Michael Clodfelter noted that the men ‘with whom I shared the

Vietnam War were overwhelmingly the sons of steelworkers, truck drivers, mechanics, small

farmers and sharecroppers, men from small towns and rural routes in the South and Midwest or

from big city ghettos.’”111 These soldiers’ understanding of war and the world were shaped by

pop culture media, early school curriculum, and family military legacies. In essence, this is why

marginalized segments of society produce a more compliant soldier who is willing to follow the

orders and ideologies of war.

The Second World War’s effect on the Vietnam generation’s indoctrination into

patriotism, as well as the recruitment of marginalized communities, is illustrated in the film

Platoon by Charlie Sheen’s character Chris:

I guess I have always been sheltered and special, I just want to be anonymous… Live up

to what Grandpa did in the First World War and Dad in the Second. I know this is going

to be the war of my generation. Well, here I am: anonymous all right, with guys nobody

really cares about. They come from the end of the line, most of ‘em, small towns you

never heard of—Pulaski, Tennessee; Brandon, Mississippi; Pork Bend, Utah; Wampum,

Pennsylvania. Two years’ high school’s about it, maybe if they’re lucky a job waiting for

‘em back in a factory, but most of ‘em got nothing.

This scene shows the willingness of some clones, such as Captain Rex, to follow orders, and

others who question the war, their marginalization, and their lack of agency.

The concept of soldier adherence to combat initiatives in wartime is paramount. As Appy

writes, “Critical thought can also lead to various forms of dissent: desertion, rebellion, outright

mutiny. Soldiers who question the meaning or purpose of the war they are ordered to fight might

avoid combat, shirk their duties, or join with others to resist orders.” The production of clones

being tied to their ability to follow commands without question is conveyed in the “Carnage of

Krell” episode during dialogue between General Krell, Captain Rex, and a clone trooper, Dogma.

CAPTAIN REX: Why General? Why kill your own men?

GENERAL KRELL: Because I can. Because you fell for it. Because you’re inferior. REX:

But you’re a Jedi. How could you?

KRELL: I am no longer naïve enough to be a Jedi. A new power is rising. I’ve foreseen it.

The Jedi are going to lose this war, and the Republic will be ripped apart from the inside.

In its place is going be a new order, and I will rule as part of it.

DOGMA: How could you do this? You had my trust, my loyalty. I followed all of our

orders, and you made me kill my brothers!

KRELL: That’s because you were the biggest fool of them all, Dogma. I counted. on

blind loyalty like yours to make my plan succeed.

The focus here is on betrayal. Dogma’s upbringing to defend the Republic and fight for its ideals

channels the moral dilemma many Vietnam-era soldiers faced when challenged to either defend

good war ideologies of democracy or to follow their personal morality. For Dogma, the dilemma

rests on whether to use his personal agency and go against his socialized upbringing, like

Captain Rex, or to follow suit because of unflinching support for what he believes to be true.

This dichotomy is best represented by Appy’s use of Tim Obrien’s experience with serving in the

Vietnam War: “These doubts were fueled by a feeling of indebtedness to his family, town, and

country. It had been a happy and comfortable childhood, and Tim felt that he ‘owed something’

in return. ‘I’d lived under its laws, accepted its education, eaten its food… and wallowed in its

luxuries.’ Though he resented the form of service demanded of him… he feared the

consequences of resistance.” Thus, Dogma’s socialization, which centered on serving the

Republic’s ideals, hindered any form of critical thought or dissent. In the process of

indoctrination, the Republic had given Dogma life, shelter, and education, but denied him

personal agency in exchange for a censored consciousness.

The dialogue between General Krell and the clones highlights the dichotomy between

one clone’s agency in questioning orders and other clones following their socialized faith in the

Republic’s ideology. In this episode, Captain Rex finds Krell’s abusive leadership and suicidal

tactics difficult to follow. After losing a good majority of his squad when following Krell’s plans,

Rex plans a coup to relieve the general of his command. In the process of apprehending Krell,

clone-soldier Dogma warns Krell of Rex’s plan, only to find out that General Krell is

fighting for the Separatists. Krell’s reputation for accomplishing missions had come at the

expense of heavy clone casualties. The use of clones as exposable commodities is represented by

the above dialogue between Krell and Dogma, which mirrors commentary on the Vietnam War

where frontline soldiers realize their predicament and begin questioning objectives. The moral

challenge lies in going against the expectations of the dominant society. For many clones, the

cause of protest was whether the unreasonable tactics that resulted in loss of life were justified.

Fratricide: “One that Murders or Kills his or her own Countryman”

In many instances in The Clone Wars, fatigue combines with feelings of betrayal and lack

of agency, resulting in fratricide of fellow clones and high-ranking officials. The abovementioned

“Carnage of Krell” episode ends with the arrest and death sentence of General Krell.

GENERAL KRELL: You’re in a position of power now. How does it feel?

CAPTAIN REX: I said, “On your knees.”

KRELL: It feels good, doesn’t it? But I can sense your fear. You’re shaking. Aren’t you?

What are you waiting for?

REX: I have to do this.

KRELL: You can’t do it, can you? Eventually, you’ll have to do the right thing. (General

Krell is suddenly shot in the back, and abruptly falls to the ground dead.)

CLONE DOGMA: I... I had to. He betrayed us.

The act of fratricide illustrates the complexity of war. On the one hand, Dogma’s reason

for killing General Krell exposes the vulnerability, marginalization, and innocence of the clones.

Dogma represents the betrayal in war, where clones’ actions in support of war are contradicted

by wartime policies and personal ambitions. Krell did not see the clones as capable of having

individual agency or being able to formulate a plan of dissent, using these things to exploit the

clones. Clones fall prey based on their youth, inexperience, and innocence in not knowing the

focal causes of war. Rex’s inability to shoot Krell shows his loyalty to the Republic, but also

exposes his patriotic duty as a form of weakness. The action of fratricide places social

commentary on the Vietnam War’s dependence on ideological indoctrination holding firm. The

consequences of realizing the truth are exacerbated by soldiers’ experiences with losing fellow

soldiers and placing themselves in the line of fire based on these ideals. As explained by Appy,

“The intentional murder or ‘fragging’ of U.S. troops by other American soldiers may have

accounted for 5 to 10 percent of friendly fire deaths. The frequency of friendly fire casualties

added to the grunts’ sense of vulnerability.”

For younger audiences, The Clone Wars’ dialogue on fratricide offers an analysis of war’s

effects on soldiers’ personal, moral, and ideological injuries. The theme of fratricide in Vietnam

is also supported in media, such as the film Platoon, which is based on writer and director Oliver

Stone’s personal experiences in Vietnam. At the end of the film, the protagonist Chris Taylor

shoots his commanding officer, offering retribution for previous acts of violence on soldiers and

the Vietnamese population. The scene is explained in the Platoon script: “Barnes orders the rest

of the platoon to retreat and goes back into the jungle to find Elias’s group. Barnes finds Elias

alone and shoots him, then returns and tells Chris that Elias was killed by enemy fire.”118 Here,

Captain Barnes resembles General Krell, both of whose draconian leadership placed many

soldiers’ lives at stake. Much like clones, soldiers in Vietnam were placed in a moral dilemma to

either follow orders or exercise their agency and be branded a traitor.

The theme of fratricide, as one of the greatest moral challenges to comprehend, conveys

to younger audiences of The Clone Wars a message about the complexities of war. Dogma’s

action is laced with a sense of empathy, as he had truly believed in the prescribed reasons for

why he fought the war. The series displays clones wrestling with inner questions of why they are

fighting the war, one that fails to resemble the social constructs of democracy. Such contradictory

ideologies are exemplified by Reagin and Liedl’s assessment of the Vietnam War: “An

undeniable lesson emerged (that many Americans still seek to deny): The U.S. military did not

lose the war because the American people lost patience on the home front or because antiwar

protestors stabbed the military in the back... Thus, the U.S. military lost the Vietnam War not

because it was betrayed by the people but because its leaders betrayed the ideals of the people.”

Though fratricide materialized from a diverse set of circumstances, the feeling of betrayal over

wartime directives proved to be a major cause. Dogma’s circumstance speaks volumes toward

unwrapping the complexities represented in The Clone Wars.

Order 66: War’s Effect on Soldier Agency

In 1942, President Roosevelt authorized Executive Order 9066, initiating the forced

removal of Japanese Americans from their homes, properties, and communities. Japanese

Americans found themselves in internment camps located in deserted, hostile, and aggressive

terrain. President Roosevelt’s solution to possible dissent toward wartime policies resulted in the

elimination of Japanese Americans from the social sphere, thereby extricating a potential threat.

With Order 66, Chancellor Palpatine finds his wartime policy via the elimination of the Jedi as

possible sources of opposition. Therefore, Order 66 provides social commentary on the effects of

wartime ideologies that emphasize the elimination of all “other” viable threats of dissent. This

elimination of dissent, along with strict adherence to policy, results in actions taken with strict

prejudice, not only against enemy combatants, but those resembling the enemy. Order 66

establishes fascist control over the galaxy via its treatment of perceived enemy combatants,

mirroring war policies aimed at eliminating social fears by racially targeting perceived enemy

combatants suspected of potential dissent or antiwar discourse.

Order 66 represents the tragic and ironic end to the Republic, the demise of which is

sealed by the Jedi’s inability to question wartime mandates and the clones’ complete loss of

agency. Up until this point, as generals leading the clone army, the Jedi had upheld military

mandates. The irony lies in the Jedi’s use of clones under a patriotic and democratic social

structure to fight a war based on socialized ideologies of peace and freedom, only to realize that

the Republic’s use of force was aimed at serving its own special interests, not the deliverance of

self-determination. This irony is represented in a dialogue between Ahsoka, Darth Maul, and the

clone trooper Jesse:

JESSE: You’re wasting your time. I won’t tell you anything.

DARTH MAUL: How charming that you actually believe that statement to be true. Clones,

bred for combat. All part of the plan.

JESSE: What plan? What are you talking about?

MAUL: The plan: The only plan that matters. Not even I was made aware of its grand

design, but I played my part. (Darth Maul looks outside a window and observes

clones going after Jedi, fighting, and dying in battle.) MAUL: Look at them so

blissfully ignorant.

AHSOKA: Care to tell me what this is all about?

MAUL: Oh, no, no. You are the one that I wish to speak with. Were you not cast out of

your order?

AHSOKA: I left voluntarily.

MAUL: Yes, but you were motivated to leave by the hypocrisy of the Jedi Council. We

were both tools for greater powers.

AHSOKA: I’m here to bring you to justice.

MAUL: Justice is merely the construct of the current power base. A base, which, according

to my calculations, is about to change.

In leaving the Jedi Council due to the Jedi’s loss of agency in favor of wartime mandates, Ahsoka

kept her intuition, much like Jeannette Rankin and her warnings of war. She remained closed off

by the Jedi’s deferral to wartime policies. Darth Maul’s critique of the clone army,

meanwhile, shows the fragility of the individual foot soldier’s willingness to follow orders, even

when reversed against their commanding Jedi generals. Clones are trained to favor wartime

directives, not to question authority, and it is this lack of agency that gives The Clone Wars its

heaviest social commentary. Order 66 results in the mass genocide of the Jedi Order, where only

a select few manage to escape, such as Obi-Wan, who ends up on the planet of Tatooine.

Order 66 therefore provides social commentary by conveying the clone’s inability to

garner individuality and psychological agency due to the policies and effects of war. As

explained by Sweet, “On the other hand, the clone troopers find themselves trapped in a form of

slavery; forced to further a political agenda that is not of their own choosing, they fight and die

for the Republic cause.” By exemplifying the effects of war on the clone soldiers, including the

exacerbation of policies that condition soldiers to negative, racist stereotypes that dehumanize

enemy combatants, Order 66 begins to resembles the My Lai Massacre. American foot soldiers,

whose training regarding enemy combatants consisted of racial othering, found themselves

desensitized by the enemy’s use of social hiding within all aspects of the population. As

illustrated by Longley, “Expecting heavy resistance from a Viet Cong battalion reported in the

area and having been told that all friendlies would be gone, the unit landed. Already incensed by

the loss of several of its men to snipers and booby traps, a platoon, led by Lieutenant William

Calley, began slaughtering the locals just beginning their daily routines. For four hours, soldiers

murdered, pillaged, and burned the hamlets, ultimately killing more than 500 civilians.”122

The clones’ lack of agency in Order 66 acts as a corollary to the My Lai incident, where

the use of marginalized soldiers following strict military mandates of “search and destroy”

overlooked the psychological consequence of war. One can argue, in the space of political

discourse, that the fall of the Republic rested with adherence to wartime mandates and the

resulting lack of personal agency. The Galactic Empire, meanwhile, rose out of strict obedience

to wartime policies and lack of dissent. The clone army led by the Jedi, therefore, illustrate the

complexities behind the fall of democracy. The Republic’s use of a clone army, or marginalized

soldier group, coupled with a lack of agency and dissent, exacerbates the chances that soldiers

would fall prey to the harsh conditions or wartime policies.

The effects of war on soldiers’ ability to question wartime mandates is also represented in

the film Apocalypse Now. Willard is reading a letter by Captain Kurtz, played by Marlon Brando,

to his son describing his actions toward killing innocent Cambodians:

I have been officially accused of murder by the army. The alleged victims were four

Vietnamese double agents. When absolute proof was completed, we acted. We acted like

soldiers. The charges were unjustified. They are, in fact, and under the circumstances of

this conflict, quite completely insane. In a war there are many moments for compassion

and tender action. There are many moments for ruthless action. What is often called

ruthless, but may, in many circumstances, be only clarity. Seeing clearly what there is to

be done, and doing it directly, quickly, awake.

For clone troopers under ideological indoctrination, the effects of combat, including reduced

decision-making ability, are exacerbated by following strict mandates pertaining to enemy

combatants. As Sweet describes, “The ambivalent frame as a form of narrative that invites the

audiences to explore the boundaries between conflicting positions—entreating the viewer to

grapple with how to bring clarity to a morally murky position.”

Search and Destroy Clones: Experience with Hostile “Others”

War does not come with a guarantee! No soldier gets the promise of safety, survival, or victory!

But men, I guarantee you this. Every member of this clone youth brigade will have its moment.

And it is that moment when you are no longer a cadet. You are a soldier. You have the best

training in the galaxy, but no one can train you for the moment you look death in the eyes. What

you do then, and the soldier you become…. that is up to you. —Crasher.

Their actions based on indoctrination into ideology, the clones are sent to remote planets

to lay waste to alien populations and environments, inflicting social displacement and

psychological injury. The animated action in The Clone Wars depicts invasions in a Blitzkrieg

fashion, where narration and semiotics erase critical thought by placing the viewer in a mental

state of numbness. Another central component to The Clone Wars is the social commentary on

clones’ feelings about their actions and the war. For instance, the “Carnage of Krell” episode

contains this dialogue between Captain Rex and a clone trooper:

CLONE: We did it! We took Umbara.

CAPTAIN REX: What’s the point of all this? I mean why?

CLONE: I don’t know sir. I don’t think anybody knows. But I do know that someday this

war is gonna end.

REX: Then what? We’re soldiers. What happens to us then?126

In this episode, the clones had forcefully taken the planet of Umbara, displaced its populations,

and placed them under Imperial rule. This action of forceful takeover inflicts clone troopers with

questions of whether they are fighting a war of liberation or subjugation, similar to Vietnam-era

contradictions. As Appy writes, “Told they were in Vietnam to help the people, soldiers found

widespread antagonism to their presence. Told they were there to protect villagers from

aggression, they carried out military orders that destroyed villages and brought terror to

civilians.” In depicting troopers destroying villages and towns and displacing populations of

alien beings while fighting enemy combatants they knew nothing about, The Clone Wars

provides social commentary about the Vietnam War. One of the central commonalities in fighting

foreign enemy combatants is that clones, much like Vietnam soldiers, fail to empathize with their

enemies’ right to self-determine, instead fighting a war based on ideology.

Considering social dissent over severe casualty rates, General Krell’s tactics mirror those

of American General Westmoreland’s policy of search and destroy. Search-and-destroy missions

consist of sending out platoons of soldiers to flush out enemy combatants by invading foreign

landscapes and villages. As explained by Appy,

An American soldier, nearly overcome by heat, fatigue, and anxiety, slogs through rice

paddies, elephant grass, and jungle ravines. Or he edges his way through Vietnam

hamlets, on constant alert for signs of trouble. He has been sent out to find the enemy, but

the enemy is not to be seen. The grunt knows the enemy is most likely to appear when he

– the American – is most vulnerable, most exposed, the choicest bait: moving down an

open trail into an ambush or across an open field toward a wood line full of

wellentrenched guerrillas. He begins to feel that the whole war is a booby trap waiting to

explode at his feet.

Search-and-destroy missions resemble combat policies for clones aimed at flushing out alien

enemy combatants. Under the direction of General Krell, clones followed orders that placed

them in unfavorable situations, much like American soldiers in Vietnam. For young American

soldiers, searching in foreign environments to destroy the enemy exposed soldiers to increased

ambushes, mines, and booby traps. In this tactical approach, clones become disposable

commodities positioned in hazardous situations, an approach based on policy objectives and not

life objectives. This is further supported in “The General” episode in a dialogue between Captain

Rex, clone troopers, and Fives about General Krell’s tactics. In this scene, clones are protesting

to Fives about being placed in a hazardous situation:

CLONES: We have to look at other options. It’s going to be a meat grinder down there.

CAPTAIN REX: Fives... It would help if you’d ease their minds.

FIVES: Oh, you mean coax them into following another one of Krell’s suicide missions?

We lost a lot of men last time.

REX: Krell may do things differently, but he is effective in getting them done. He’s a

recognized war hero.

FIVES: He may have had some victories, but have you seen his casualty numbers? More

troopers have been killed under his command than anyone else.

REX: That’s the price of war, Fives. We’re soldiers. We have a duty to follow orders, and,

if we must, lay down our lives for victory.

FIVES: Do you believe that? Or is that what you were engineered to think?

REX: I honor my code. That’s what I believe.

This difference of opinions between Captain Rex and Fives shows the distinction between

following orders and using personal agency to question what is morally wrong and unsafe. Fives

argues for his fellow grunt clones, whose sole purpose is to follow orders without questioning.

Like many grunt soldiers in Vietnam initiating search-and-destroy missions, clones’ defective

fibers stems from their moral compass that comes from being human. Unlike Fives, Rex is the

epitome of a soldier’s soldier. The main outlier with Rex is that, unlike many clones who are

secondary characters, Rex is a main character and is given more agency in his thought process

and dialogue. This allows a connection to viewers and places his pro-Republic discourse as more

fundamental rather than representing a rogue clone unwilling to do his patriotic duty. This

dichotomy between obeying orders and following one’s moral imperative requires viewers to

think critically and choose sides.

The complexity of The Clone Wars lies in conveying these dichotomies to a younger

audience that will wrestle with these moral imperatives and cultivate meaning out of combat

narrative. The soldier’s upbringing and combat directives are best explained by Sweet, who

writes, “At the same time, the life of a clone trooper is one that lacks any significant autonomy

and self-determination; a clone is born and raised to serve as combat soldier. The tension

between self-identity and self-determination, explored through several recurring troopers

possessing a strong sense of autonomy, mirrors one of the significant problematics of the human

reproductive cloning controversy. To what degree is a clone her or his own person?” In depicting

the clones’ agency, The Clone Wars places social commentary on soldiers’ socially developed

ideologies, asking whether or not self-agency is needed in the field of battle. The challenge for

viewers will be to overlook Captain Rex, who represents an authoritative voice as a main

character, and think critically to follow a dissenting clone soldier.

Clone troopers are sent out to various planets to defend contested trade routes and to

uphold the Republic’s ideologies of democracy and freedom. The clones’ upbringing is isolated

and sheltered; no clones leave their planet of Kamino until their training and indoctrination are

complete. Although the average age of clones is not known, one can guess that it is between 17

and 19 years. For clones, the only reality of the galaxy, is what they have been socialized to

think. They know they are fighting an evil enemy in the Separatists, and they know that they are

fighting for the Republic, even though a good majority will never live long enough to set eyes on

the planet that has paid for their existence. In this way, there is similarity to the Vietnam War’s

use of 19-year-old foot soldiers, who like clones have never seen anything outside their respected

communities and are socialized by American ideologies of democracy and freedom. Once basic

training is completed, soldiers are sent to a foreign and hostile environment to fight an alien race

for a country that barely knows of their existence. Like clones, soldiers will be denied the

opportunity to set eyes on their capital city. Thus, search-and-destroy missions will place clone

troopers in situations that test their agency, moral aptitude, and humanity.

Introduction Summaries The year 1975 marked the capitulation

Students also viewed