
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
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
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
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
Curzon
June 7, 2006
7:51 pm
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
People need to play more Risk.
alec
June 7, 2006
11:59 pm
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
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
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
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
IJ
June 10, 2006
9:28 am
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
snow
June 10, 2006
2:42 pm
moorethanthis
June 12, 2006
8:39 am
"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
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