Why We Fight (2005)

Why We Fight explores exactly that: as a nation, why are still fighting? Piecing together archival footage from everything from Eisenhower to news coverage of the March 19, 2003 bombing of Iraq, Jarecki frames a picture of the United States with it's own public documents, personas, and new media materials; his exploration of the profitability of war and the puppet string manipulations that he claims dictate the United States leave the viewer struck with the distinct feeling that something is rotten here.Beginning by asking the question that many Americans asked after 9/11, "Why do they hate us?" Jarecki presents a case strongly suggesting that that is exactly what the war hungry, corporate American government wants you to ask. Not only does it downright accuse the American government of being in bed with the corporate defense and weapon industry, it also speaks to a lack of general understanding of the United States history, implying that ignorance makes for easy control. Gore Vidal even states in the film, "We live here in the United States of Amnesia. No one remembers anything before Monday morning. Everything is a blank. They have no history." And by using plenty of close-up, eye level shots in various interviews with elected government officials and experts, the viewer can not deny that Jarecki establishes credibility with both the natural, framing of the shots and the shear notoriety of the individuals interviewed. Sound plays a huge role in this film; the diegetic war sounds in the archival footage and the one on one personal interviews with Iraqi citizens resonate in the viewer's mind long after the credits. Jarecki also incorporates quite a bit of intentional juxtaposition with his nondiegetic sound choices, playing poignant songs and instrumentals while crosscutting back to footage of war and death.This film left me sad and angry and once again questioning the state of this country, which, since of the release of this film in 2005, has only gotten more complicated. Adding undeniably emotional interviews with the father of a 9/11 victim and others and shots of children suffering after bombings in Iraq, Jarecki adds a personal element to the film that sticks with the viewer. Overall, the film is engaging, worthwhile, and thought-provoking, but good luck holding on to hope for the future after watching it.

It angered me, because it exposed a lot about our government that I was unaware of. I always knew that 9-11 and the Iraqi war weren't entirely related, but I think I never actually thought of it as much until this movie. As an American I think I hold that opinion that most citizens of any nation hold and that is to support your country no matter what. After seeing this, I will still support my troops simply because they are not all are enlisted as a financial gain for college, etc. What got me the most was the father that lost his son, talking about the bomb dropped in his son's name that had nothing to do with 9-11. That also enraged me to know that our government pulled another Gulf of Tonkin excuse again, and pretty much tried to trick us....again. It's exhausting thinking about how dishonest our government has been over the past 60 years with all the wars we have been in. Sometimes I wish they would just say that they want more land or oil, or whatever it is they are fighting for. Instead they recruit more troops to fight under false pretenses. It's not fair, because sometimes it seems like we are treated like children or we are under some type of dictator government. If we don't support the government we are considered treasonous, but if we do then other countries see us as stupid American's because we have no idea what the government is really doing. This movie really brought that all to light, and I recommend to it to our nation, our allies, and our enemies.

Part of the problem with this documentary is that it uses selective information to support its pre-existing intent. There were even several times when I thought the film was produced by duplicitous Frenchmen. For example, the film does not adequately explain the role of the United States, and most especially that of the US military, in providing the lion's share of the defense of Old Europe over the past half century under NATO cover. This very long and colossal American commitment, which inexplicably continues today, fifteen years after it should have ended, allowed Old Europeans the freedom to evolve a very different view of military matters than did Americans -- sort of like children don't begin to comprehend all the sacrifices made by their parents on their behalf. I myself spent a total of fifteen years of my life in Old Europe, including West Berlin during its darkest days, as a professional American soldier, and I very rarely enjoyed any of it. On the contrary, while the Old Europeans were soaking up boatloads of American tourist dollars, I, with two university degrees and four language fluencies, was usually considered a paid servant of the privileged Old Europeans. The fifteen years I spent in other regions of the world were immeasurably more rewarding and worthwhile, both to me and to my nation. Almost all of the problems I encountered elsewhere in the world had direct Old European roots.Furthermore, it is today well known among American military circles that one of the largest defense contractors in the world doing major business inside the United States today, with an astounding 23 different major facilities, is a German-French consortium that seeks to make up in the United States what profits cannot be made from stingy Old European governments. The French government, which did not have to place anything on the line in Cold War NATO when it was needed most, is today a major shareholder in that Continental defense consortium, which also sells major advanced military hardware to countries like China -- sort of like the free-riding French and the Germans playing both ends against the middle, as usual to their enormous benefit. Such little known matters have long been facts of life for knowledgeable Americans, facts which make the overall picture about "American militarism" enormously more complicated than the average observer might imagine.The net result is that Old Europeans do, in fact, want a very powerful US military, but only one on their tight leash, using weapons they manufacture and sell, and only to defend Old European interests - as their free lackey that keeps on giving and giving. Everything else the US does as a fleeting temporary single superpower on the world stage can be routinely condemned, safe in the knowledge that their citizens do not know the whole story, nor do they care to know the whole story as long as they are safe and secure and with the knowledge that a responsible adult America never returns their criticism. (For cowardly Old Europeans, the US is the safest whipping boy in human history.) A major Old European political task since 1990 has been to somehow create situations and/or fears which require the US to continue carrying the burden of conventional Continental defense long after the Old Europeans should have assumed all of that requirement alone, plus finally stepping up to their just responsibilities in the Third World and most especially in the Africa they so ruthlessly exploited.American military leaders know that Old European and American self-interests began diverging dramatically as soon as the Warsaw Pact imploded in 1989, and that they can no longer count on continental Old Europeans to make an equitable contribution to their mutual defenses, regardless of that anachronism still inexplicably called "NATO", other than just enough embarrassing tokenism to earn them a seat at the American military command table in a tail-wagging-the dog tragicomedy – mainly to impress their citizens back home. Due to very different and evolving self-interests, such a "mutual" concept has become for the US solely a one-way street, with everyone else except the British playing silly little vote-getting games for their individual domestic consumption. However, major internal demographic changes rapidly taking place in the United States, plus external political changes rapidly evolving in Asia, will inevitably wean the Americans away from a knee-jerk commitment to defend Old Europe and force their government to view other regions of the world as justifiably of much greater importance in the coming century. Old European and American interests are gradually and inexorably diverging, and will inevitably continue to diverge at ever greater speed. Old Europe was the last century's story; to knowledgeable Americans the Continent is rapidly becoming ancient history no longer germane in today's world. It is long past the time for the Europeans to begin standing on their own feet, without the "permanent" American crutch, and whipping boy.Most naive Americans still think they have "allies", but this is mostly a political illusion. Everyone loves the underdog fighting his way up, but everyone always loves to hate, and blame, the Top Dog - and most especially one that never bites back. As long as America remains the Top Dog, she must always be fully prepared to go it alone, wherever and whenever necessary. A rising China, not Old Europe or America, will irreversibly alter global dynamics, and soon, while Old Europe continues its long, slow, inevitable, self-made decline. Until the US relinquishes its title as single superpower, it must responsibly assume that it has no friends, and that literally everyone is a potential enemy. Such natural human stories have been repeated a thousand times throughout the history of mankind. And most American military students know well the story of the British Empire."Why We Fight" is worth viewing, but only if the viewer knows and keeps the whole in proper perspective and understands the film-maker's intent.

This is an appropriately titled documentary (ironic also) that delves into what Eisenhower called the "military-industrial complex", in his farewell address. While George Washington's farewell address involved warnings about political polarization of the country, the avoidance of entanglements with foreign nations and the idea that morality in government is required; Eisenhower warned about the ever increasing of power of the complex relationship between the military, the Congress and the military private sector, and the problems associated with having and supporting a standing army. He warned about the ever increasing resource allocation in the face of no visible or clearly defined enemy. A self perpetuation cycle that takes all other expenditures with it. This process seems to have started with WWII and even with Eisenhower's warning, has continued unabated for the past 50+ years, culminating in the current situation we are in (Iraq). During this time the expenditure was justified by the giant, looming Soviet threat (which collapsed of its own bloated weight). Since 1991, the military-industrial complex has been searching for a new "nemesis". They tried Panama, Iraq I, Yugoslavia, Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq II. The current war is proof enough of the intentions of the this complex : to get more money appropriated by the Congress (for more expensive, newer, and "better" weapons), by "proving" to their constituents (through fear and misinformation) that they is a phantom danger which requires more money for defense. It is nearly impossible to tell the head from the tail of this unit. All the elements have almost fused into a giant entity.It is funny to think that WWII signaled the start of this entity, while also going against Washington's warnings (US first becomes entangled in NATO in 1949) and leading towards our current polarized and unmoral political situation. The problem with this complex is that is does not what is best for the country, but what is best for itself. This is not moral. Senator Byrd made that point when the Congress voted to give the executive branch the right to invade a foreign nation without provocation; that there was no debate, no look at the consequences of their actions. There was only silence. It's interest leads the country into situations that allocated many, many resources that could be used internally (Eisenhower had a cost list of what he could do locally with funds allocated for bombers, tanks, missiles, etc). Senator Robert Byrd also made the point that the US military budget from a few years ago was larger than the other 18 members of NATO combined and China. This movie tries very hard not to be a one-sided story. It gets some of the constituents of this entity to speak in their own words. The movie does not point fingers at political parties but rather at institutions and individuals. I don't know how people cannot acknowledge the truth in this movie. Whether or not what this movie's message appeals to your political thought or not, you cannot deny the truth no matter how much it doesn't benefit one's situation. You can ignore it, pin it on a patsy, or try to deny it, but you cannot hide from it. It would seem the movie would end on an pessimistic tone, but this is not true at all. It is very encouraging. This complex should be responsible to us. They are working with public (tax) money and Congress is full of our elected representatives, responsible to the people who elected them. We don't like what is going on, then we must do something about it. Freedom is not sitting at home watching your ass get fatter while eating fast food and drinking a beer. We need to get off our asses and make them listen to us. If they are not satisfying us, we get ones who can. Oh, where is the next George Washington ?? That is exactly what we need right now. It is funny how much his name is used to justify things he wouldn't have supported (also see God). Oh well. History will record this time as the end of the Republic and the rise of the American Empire. Sic semper tyrannis.-Celluloid Rehab