To explain the existential stakes of World War II, the U.S. government produced “Why We Fight,” a series of seven films from Frank Capra, who captured America so incisively in movies like “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” Originally intended for U.S. forces, the films were soon viewed by the public, too.

Eight decades later, in its effort to sell, if not celebrate, military success in Iran, the Trump administration has produced its own video series. But unlike Capra’s earnest efforts, the current work doesn’t offer geopolitical justification for the conflict, appreciation for the sacrifices of U.S. troops abroad or calls for commensurate action on the home front, but instead intersperses footage from military strikes with clips from movies, TV and video games.

Viewers see seamless shifting from real explosions to pop culture touchstones like “Braveheart,” “Top Gun,” “Iron Man” and others as well as video games ranging from “Grand Theft Auto,” “Call of Duty” and even “Wii Sports.”

The White House isn’t defensive but defiant over the imagery. When CNN ran a story about it, White House communications director Steven Cheung took to X to thank the network “for covering all of our banger videos.”

War isn’t a banger video for the 13 U.S. troops who have died so far in the conflict, including Sgt. 1st Class Nicole M. Amor from White Bear Lake. Nor is it for the 12 killed so far in Israel, the 886 in Lebanon or those killed in Iran — many military-related, but also 1,348 civilians, including about 175 people, mostly schoolgirls, hit by what appears to be an errant U.S. strike.

For most of the world, it isn’t the administration’s juvenile videos, but the photograph of these children’s graves dug in orderly rows that is the searing, defining image of this war.

Despite extraordinary efforts by the U.S. military to avoid them, tragic mistakes happen in any conflict. But this one was compounded by President Donald Trump’s reckless rhetoric about the incident, for which a preliminary Pentagon investigation and independent reporting from The New York Times and others suggest the U.S. bears responsibility.

Yet when initially asked about the tragedy, Trump replied: “They’re very inaccurate, as you know, with their munitions. They have no accuracy whatsoever. It was done by Iran.” Later, when a Times reporter asked him why he was the only administration official still blaming Iran, Trump replied “Because I just don’t know enough about it.”

These statements reflect a broader truth about the war: While the U.S. military has generally performed professionally, the administration’s policies have often been based on inaccuracies, are strikingly inconsistent and at times even displayed incoherence.

“The military operational activities, as you would expect given the superlative nature of our military, are going very well,” Daniel C. Kurtzer, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel and Egypt, said in an interview. Kurtzer, now at Princeton University, said that conversely, “the lack of preparation and the lack of understanding about what Iran might have prepared is coming back to haunt us every single day.”

Kurtzer called out Iran’s stranglehold on the Strait of Hormuz, the targeting of America’s Gulf allies and the resiliency of the regime, among other issues. The veteran envoy who advised Republican and Democratic administrations on Mideast issues added that “I think we should not have been surprised.”

And yet, the administration has often been unprepared. Including Trump, who on March 16 said that “They weren’t supposed to go after all these other countries in the Middle East.” Nobody, he continued, “expected that. We were shocked.”

Shocked shouldn’t be the reaction of the commander in chief of the world’s most powerful military and intelligence apparatus. Shocked shouldn’t also be the response of allies, be they regional ones the regime has struck or the NATO or Asia-Pacific ones who didn’t decide to go to war, who were subsequently publicly called on to contribute to opening the strait — a request the president pulled back on March 17, posting on Truth Social that “WE DO NOT NEED THE HELP OF ANYONE!”

This after most NATO nations demurred, resulting in Trump saying, “The problem with NATO is we’ll always be there for them, but they’ll never be there for us.” Actually, the opposite is true: The only time the Article 5 collective-defense mechanism was triggered was by the U.S. after 9/11 and the alliance robustly responded, with several countries also coming to America’s aid in Iraq.

The president alienating allies also had a predictable effect. “We didn’t bring our allies into our thinking,” said Kurtzer. “We are always going to lead a coalition by nature of our power, but you need friends and allies and others to support you.”

For his part, Trump told the Financial Times that “if there’s no response or if it’s a negative response, I think it will be very bad for the future of NATO.”

That might be very good for the future of Russia. It certainly has already benefited more than any other nation from this war with Trump’s de facto confirmation of the Kremlin’s might-makes-right worldview as well as from rising oil prices that bolster its depleted defense coffers and by the administration temporarily lifting some sanctions so Russia can export more oil. Overall, a further weakening of the alliance is precisely what Russian leader Vladimir Putin seeks.

By the day, sometimes by the hour, justifications and objectives of the war have changed. Tragically for Iranians living under a homicidal regime, seemingly gone is the goal of a new governance structure. Gone, too, is Trump’s insistence he would be involved in selecting Iran’s next leader, as well as calls for “unconditional surrender.” The latest inconsistency on requesting allied and even Chinese support in the strait further undermines America’s global standing.

Congress should weigh in on the war through the War Powers Resolution. But a near-complete majority of GOP lawmakers seemed to consider it a victory to avoid a vote. Overall, Kurtzer said, “the least surprising aspect of it is the fact that the Republicans have checked out.” (All four Republican representatives from Minnesota voted with the majority, despite some emerging dissent among party activists.)

Waging war is the commander in chief’s most profound responsibility. The president should have prepared the nation and its allies better by explaining why we fight and prepared itself better by gaming it out. This isn’t a video game.

_____

©2026 The Minnesota Star Tribune. Visit at startribune.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.