Entry details

Younghusband
Author

Younghusband

Date

June 7th, 2006

Tags

, ,

Comments

17 Comments so far.
Add yours.

The Fog of War Filmmaking

Why We Fight

Eugene Jarecki’s documentary Why We Fight, which attempts to capture a holistic view of the American “military industrial complex” is an interesting piece of work, a mixed bag if you will. The film asks a (seeminingly) simple question about the militarization of American society, and introduces numerous diverse topics without delving deep into any, resulting in a tangled mess of innuendo interwoven with the imagery of injured children and dead bodies.

Many of the topics he brings up are important, but in his attempt to take a “holistic” approach, things are rushed and he treats them with an unfortunate stridency. I pray that people watching this film have other sources of information, because this film isn’t telling the whole story. Maybe it is the curse of watching movies when you are a “specialist.” I felt like how a doctor must feel when watching a film about a hospital directed by someone who has never studied medicine (“100cc’s of WHAT!?”).

Though there were numerous topics that I was unsatisfied with the coverage, I thought his approach on the issue of congressional districts and defence contractors was bang on. There is a systemic problem there that needs to be fixed. Chuck Spinney makes an appearance (and drops the only F-bomb in the movie!) and watching a magician front for Halliburton is pretty ludicrous.

The main messages of the movie seems to be that democracy “lost out” to capitalism (huh!?), America is an empire (surprise surprise!) and empires inevitably fall (to paraphrase FP, file that one under “Pope still Catholic”). Yet there is an interesting vignette of a retired NYPD sergeant who was for the War in Iraq and feels “lied” to by the administration. He asks himself if he was morally wrong to support the war, and decides “no” because the decision could only be made with the available information at the time. I wish the director had learned from the interviewee’s ability to remember context.

Comments to this entry

snow
June 7, 2006
3:28 pm
"that democracy "lost out"Â? to capitalism"

What would democracy look like without capitalism? A mess like the Palestinian territories? Bolivia and Venezuela, poor and getting poorer? India in the past, with its sectarian violence and socialistic bureacracies and extreme poverty (capitalism is the only thing bringing any real hope to the place these days)? It seems that without capitalism, democracy means chaos, poverty or destruction (almost always poverty and sometimes the other two), so why do leftists such as this film maker endlessly spout the same old tired bs?
IJ
June 7, 2006
4:43 pm
"Wikipedia":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-industrial_complex says that US President Eisenhower included in a final speech before leaving office: _Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction... The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist._

Restrained imperialism? When the UN was first created after the disastrous WW2, we had essentially five imperial powers in the global, Westphalian, system - China, France, Russia, United Kingdom and United States. The five were coaxed into the UN system by making them permanent members of the new Security Council and giving each a veto. The new political rule sets therefore didn't apply to them. The economic rule sets were agreed at Bretton Woods - but later destroyed.

Sixty years since the UN was formed. When should the five be subject to independent checks and balances by the UN?
alec
June 7, 2006
6:08 pm
I don't think democracy is viable without some level of capitalism. That being said, a lot of succesful countries (France, Germany, Scandanivian states, Canada, etc.) do not leave the majority of basic human services to market forces like the United States. In fact, we are the exception to the rule, where the government has basically allowed the deleteration of the health care and education system to the point where it is acceptable to outsource such necessities to the private sector. Also, I do not think it is leftist garbage to have some conflicts with capitalism. It is one of the better systems, but that does not mean it is not flawed or free of rational discourse about the subject.

My opinion of the film was the following: I left with no new knowledge and I was not entertained. If you enjoy quotes about the military-industrial complex and the rise of think tanks on foreign policy over bland stock military footage, this is the film for you. But it does not tackle issues in a very indepth or frankly, intelligent manner. This is post-9/11 liberal backwash at it's most best.
Curzon
June 7, 2006
7:24 pm
Alec: that is one hell of a broad brush you're using. The US is in many ways highly regulated, it just depends what sector at which you look. Europe has a bigger social safety net and a better public transportation (but the shoe needs to fit -- large scale public transportation would be imposible with a population as dispersed across a country as large as the US). Also, don't confuse socialist countries such as North Korea with Sweden (arguably the most socialist country in the Western world). Sweden may have high tax rates, but they also have a functioning free market, big corporations, and a robust legal system. Japan is highly capitalist in some respects but also highly socialist. When it comes down to any nation has certain rules, regulations, and a role for government. More important than "capitalism" is how political economies work and the rule of law.
Curzon
June 7, 2006
7:51 pm
I just saw the preview. YH, I have no idea how you sat through 90 minutes of that drivel.

Chalmers Johnson is easily my lease favorite so-called "scholar" alive today. "We have 725 military bases in 140 countries." Beyond that he got the facts TOTALLY wrong (unless if you define a peanut stand a "base), we are there by invitation. If the government of any country ever asks us to leave, we're outta there (see: Philippines, France). If anything, we're an Empire by invitation.
Younghusband
June 7, 2006
8:58 pm
We made it a *War Studies Movie Night* and I went with some of the troops. I came away with the impression that he had not "studied" the issues enough, at least not in any "academic" sense. Issues that are clearly separate were overlapping in his explanation, which only confuses the issue and incites conspiracy theory. This mixed with emotional "human side of war" footage shrouds the issues even more. Yes, war _is_ hell, we've covered that already! And yes, in international politics you can be friends one day and enemies the next. The US did _not_ invent this!

People need to play more Risk.
alec
June 7, 2006
11:59 pm
Curzon: Regulation is irrelevant to the argument -- regulations can exist in a functioning free market. If you are speaking of regulations such as tariffs that say, protect domestic steel, then yes, they do inhibit the free market. And I'm not confusing any countries: it is entirely possible on the economic/political spectrum to have a country with relatively free markets while having the government responsible for several services. Norway, Sweden, and Canada are prime examples. The mistake seems to be the belief that government monopolies on universal public goods (health care, education) leads to a command economy, at least within the American perception.

My point was so: capitalism / free market model is the basis for almost all functionality in American society, and this has severally influenced the American political mentality. If you are looking for examples for the privitization of the American government, I point you towards the plans to privatize Social Security, the sourcing of what were once typical government functions to consulting firms, the school voucher program, etc.

Anyway, we're stumbling upon an issue that is deserves it's own topic. In the ideal, capitalism is a subsidirary of Democracy, but in America, it seems that democracy has become a branch of capitalism and the economy in general.
snow
June 8, 2006
1:26 am
Alec, all of the European countries you mention are fundamentally capitalist with a socialistic welfare state piled on top. Capitalism is the engine driving those trains. And the US is still a welfare state to a great extent, as well. It is far from being the wild and free open market that its supporters and detractors claim. The US is highly regulated and socialistic ideas abound. Fortunately, many Americans have an entrepreneurial attitude to life and there is a strong belief in freedom, so it may feel as if more is possible there (at least economically).

Nowhere did anyone say that capitalism wasn't up for criticism. Of course it must be criticized and continually tweaked so as to be more effective, but there seems to be a strong tendency in the arts to just reject capitalism outright and to claim that it causes most of the problems in the world. If anything, capitalism is one of the few solutions that often actually works. Many of those socialistic ideas practiced by European countries may work in the short-term, but they have long-term consequences (eg. welfare). And the US has welfare, medicare, a very expensive education system and an eventually bankrupt pension system.
alec
June 8, 2006
1:36 pm
bq.What would democracy look like without capitalism? A mess like the Palestinian territories? Bolivia and Venezuela, poor and getting poorer? India in the past, with its sectarian violence and socialistic bureacracies and extreme poverty (capitalism is the only thing bringing any real hope to the place these days)? It seems that without capitalism, democracy means chaos, poverty or destruction (almost always poverty and sometimes the other two), so why do leftists such as this film maker endlessly spout the same old tired bs?

Well, I implied this to mean that no government system is basically legitimate without capitalism. And actually, the amount American government spends on education and 'welfare' as a proportion of budget is far less than any other nation, while on services such as health care we pay far more as citizens of other Western nations.
moorethanthis
June 9, 2006
12:36 pm
The film deals with the militarisation of American society - the title references Frank Capra's original WWII propaganda series, implying that a similar effort is underway today to maintain the country at a permanent war footing. This is what Eisenhower meant in his speech where he warns against "the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex."

To my mind, it was the personal stories that made the film. The vignette of the NYPD sergeant that YH mentioned is the most interesting of the lot - having lost his son in the WTC, he saw the Iraq war as a revenge mission, and asked the military to write his son's name on a bomb (which they did). In the interview, you then see his hurt and outrage as he realises that the administraion painted the Iraqi regime as accomplices in 9/11, when in fact they were nothing of the sort.

Jarecki could definitely have separated out the issues a bit more, and even got rid of some. In the end, though, I found it far from incoherent, and a good critique of militarisation as an end in itself.
snow
June 9, 2006
4:42 pm
As far as the Eisenhower reference is concerned, it is certainly not a cut and dried warning about the military-industrial complex that many on the left claim nowadays. Reading it over, it is unclear, but to my mind, points more to the fact that the real enemy at the time was the Soviet Union rather than some military-industrial complex that could turn on us. The section is unclear, therefore I think that its a dubious claim to say that Ike was warning of the dangers. It is not at all clear that that is what he is saying.
IJ
June 10, 2006
9:28 am
Snow argues: _Reading [Eisenhower's warning about the military industrial complex in the US], it is unclear, but to my mind, points more to the fact that the real enemy at the time was the Soviet Union rather than some military-industrial complex that could turn on us._

Some governments take a completely different view from their predecessors; that is their right. However on international treaties, "US, UN and International Law":http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/un/generalindex.htm
snow
June 10, 2006
1:14 pm
IJ, I'm not sure of your point in that last point. Do you mean that later governments did turn the military-industrial complex into something that has turned against the best interests of the American people? Is that what you mean? How is the link related to what I said about Ike's speech that referenced the military-industrial complex? Looks like an interesting site, but it seems to be filled with articles of a negative viewpoint towards the US. I'm always suspicious when someone says that we're controled by the complex or the oil giants, etc, as to me, most of those ideas are dangerously close to conspiracty theories fingering the Jews for runnings everything. In terms of Big Oil, they have far less influence than many people assume and I assume that the same is true of the CIA and the military-industrial complex.
snow
June 10, 2006
2:42 pm
Decided to re-read the Ike speech and yes, he does warn about the possibility of unwarranted influence of the military-industrial complex, but he also warns just as strongly about the influence of government contracts on research and such. He was worried about the influence of the military and that of the government, just as much. He definitely believed in a strong military, but was worried that their power might become overbearing to some degree,so warned to remain vigilant to this. In this way, he certainly makes sense, but leftists take this to mean he was against a strong military 'machine' and that's not true. And what they seem to ignore, is Ike's strong warnings about the power of government contracts, in other words, the power of the government. This also makes plenty of sense to me, despite the fact that I do generally support the government, though I think it's power and influence should be decreased by quite a bit. Many leftists, however, decry the military-industrial complex and yet are all for bigger and more intrusive government, in the form of more regulations and taxes.
moorethanthis
June 12, 2006
8:39 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-industrial_complex

"The term military-industrial complex usually refers to the combination of the U.S. armed forces, arms industry and associated political and commercial interests"

The role of government in the M.-I.C. is a foregone conclusion. Eisenhower was warning that several institutions - government, the military, and the business establishment - could find that the interests of all groups was best served by ever-increasing funding of and reliance on the military, which is exactly the situation that Jarecki describes.

The remark about "leftists" doesn't make any sense, unless you infer that "rightists" (or anyone taking the opposite political position) would want a limited government. This is not true, as can be seen from the huge increases in centralisation and government spending under the Reagan and Bush Jr. administrations.

The reason I admire the Eisenhower speech was because it treated citizens with a sense of responsibility - it asked them to do things for themselves, a feature of classic conservatism that I admire. Unlike the "do what I say or bad things will happen" warnings of the War on Terror, it was a warning that demanded people assert their authority over their government, instead of surrendering it.
snow
June 13, 2006
1:41 am
But Ike was also a strong believer in a powerful military, one that was always ready for action. He was correctly concerned about abuse of power. Unfortunately, many (leftists) have used his statements to further their own anti-military agendas and use it to pummel Republicans while remaining relatively quiet when a Democrat is in office.

Ike warned about the potential for the abuse of power, but his statements have often been misused for partisan ends. Things never change no matter who's in power, and when things are tinkered with, such as the walling off the CIA from the FBI as a means to curb their power, then you get screw-ups like 9/11.
Eye Dream Awake » Blog Archive » Why We… What?
June 13, 2006
7:25 am
[...] Younghusband gives a specialists perspective on last year’s award winning documentary about perpetual war, Why We Fight. It’s worth a full read, but here is the short version: Don’t believe everything you learn from movies. You’ll get most of the important stuff wrong. [...]