Why We Fight

[PopHistorian]

My apologies if this one has come up before and I missed it. Search turned up no direct mention of this film. Anyone seen it and care to comment? The DVD is available for rent, so I'll comment as soon as I get it.

See the trailer: http://www.sonyclassics.com/whywefight/

The preview opens with a video clip of Eisenhower making his famous 1961 warning about the power of the military-industrial complex. It raises the notion that the U.S. really is an empire (725 military bases in 130 countries!), that war is fomented because of the immense profit in it, and floats the idea that this empire will not last forever.

Click "Enter Site" to see more video of Eisenhower, reviews, etc.

The filmmaker is Eugene Jarecki, who made The Trials of Henry Kissinger in 2002. According to IMDB, that film, based on a book by journalist Christopher Hitchens, is a documentary that argues that the former U.S. Secretary of State and Nobel Peace Prize recipient should be tried for war crimes for his role in the overthrow of the democratically elected government in Chile in 1973, the secret bombing of Cambodia in 1969, and U.S. support for Indonesia's 1975 invasion of East Timor, events that led to the slaughter of millions.

Eisenhower reminded me of this quote from The Ra Material:

RA, Session #24, February 15, 1981, pg. 7-8

QUESTIONER: One thing that has been bothering me that I was just reading about is not too important, but I would really be interested in knowing if Dwight Eisenhower met with either the Confederation or the Orion group in the 1950s?

RA: I am Ra. The one of which you speak met with thought-forms which are indistinguishable from third density. This was a test. We, the Confederation, wished to see what would occur if this extremely positively oriented and simple congenial person with no significant distortion towards power happened across peaceful information and the possibilities which might append therefrom. We discovered that this entity did not feel that those under his care could deal with the concepts of other beings and other philosophies. Thus an agreement reached then allowed him to go his way, ourselves to do likewise; and a very quiet campaign, as we have heard you call it, be continued alerting your peoples to our presence gradually. Events have overtaken this plan.

 

[OPINMYND81]

I remember hearing about the film last year and watching its trailer online. Along with Syriana I couldn't wait to go see it.

It's an alright movie, nothing really groundbreaking especially to those who familiar with US politics and foreign policy. Gore Vidal does a couple of interviews in it so that should give you a good idea on which part of the spectrum the film caters to. This is despite the fact that the filmmaker dedicates the film to Eisenhower whom he reveres very much.

The film is centered around Eisenhower's famous Military-Industrial complex speech and how the MIC has managed to take over US foreign policy; basically how Eisenhower's warnings were not heeded. It also has some interviews with some Neo-Cons and some Anti-Neo-Cons and talks about the war on Iraq. One segment deals with a kid who signs up with the army after his mother dies, another segment deals with a grieving father of a 911 victim who wanted to have his son's name written on a bomb that would be dropped on Iraq. That segment is particularly interesting because when he hears about how Bush says Iraq had nothing to do with 911 he freaks out. He says he's from the "old school" where presidents were beyond reproach (just wait till he learns who REALLY killed his son!). It's also sad and irritating at the same time to see him do the moral and mental gymnastics to justify his bloodlust after Iraq even after learning about Bush's admission. Another segment where pilots of a stealth bomber justifies and glorifies dropping bombs on Baghdad is another cringe moment.

The film definitely shows more production value and insight than something like, say, "what I learned about US foreign policy" and it's more tighter and coherent than "Fahrenheit 911." But it's still the same kind of politics for the same kind of Moore/Chomsky/Zinn crowd. Despite the film trying to appeal to be neutral and cater to both sides of the spectrum it still is something that lefties will eat up and right wingers (with the exception of Buchananite libertarians) will shun because it attacks the military and the US. Indeed, a reviewer in my school newspaper wrote about the film and walked out in disgust because it played Johnny Cash's version of Hurt while US troops kicked down doors in Iraq. That and he accused the film of being biased, anti-american, blah blah blah. I doubt others on the right side of the spectrum will disagree with him.

If you can watch it go ahead, its worth a look through, but it's not going to rock your world.

 

[PopHistorian]

OK, I've watched it. I disagree with OPINMYND81 about its potential effectiveness, though, on conservatively minded war supporters. I mean, I don't think there was any clearly "liberal" viewpoint evident. The cameras let Perle, Kristol, McCain, and others speak their minds (spout their STS philosophy in their earnest, trying-to-be-convincing ways) in interviews (they were not bashed from afar nor bashed at all), as well as others with opposing viewpoints. It is pretty well done in terms of being not-heavy-handed, OSIT.

For the people that may not care about how many countries the US screws up nor how many people we kill, they may still be impacted by the portrayal of so little democracy left in the US, the collusion of oligarchies to get their ways, and the tremendous secrecy and dishonesty of gov't and business leadership. Perle even said, with a satisfied grin, that if you think all this will change after the current gov't is out of office, think again, because it is America that has truly changed.

For me, though, watching this kind of thing makes me feel the prison walls, just inches away in all directions. I mean, it is difficult to be reminded of the depth and breadth and detail of sinister calculation that went into what has become The Bush Doctrine, the deliberateness of the lying, the propaganda, the manipulation, the heartlessness, the consciencelessness of the military-industrial-congressional complex (which was the original term and ought to be revived, edited in Eisenhower's speech to avoid offending congress, hmmm). The point was made that there is now a fourth component, and this is important -- think tanks. These are a small number of people (like Project for a New American Century) who really make the policy, outside of the official policy-making apparatus of government, and they are not accountable to voters (as if that mattered anyway).

 

[Mike]

For me, though, watching this kind of thing makes me feel the prison walls, just inches away in all directions.

I had this feeling also, but more so from reading C of Z. We've all been bamboozled big time and bigger than we know. There is no feeling like that of loosing the sense of security when beliefs and understandings are challenged.

What impacted me the most from the film, since a lot of the information I had already delved into, was the part at the end where the father of the son who died on 9/11 expresses his disillusionment, anger, and disbelief with the world he's come to realize. You want to cry with the guy. I think this story of the father's thoughts revisited many times in the film had the most impact on me and the part most likely to affect others.

Another part that stands out in my mind is McCain's reaction to Cheney's phonecall in the middle of filming. Was that an 'Oh ****!' face and reaction or what?:o

 

[PopHistorian]

<< McCain's reaction to Cheney's phonecall >>

He practically leaped out of his seat to take that call. Early on, McCain is shown stating earnestly that "The United States is the greatest force for good in the world," making the neocon argument that the US should be policing the world, because it knows what's best. McCain really bothers me because he, like so many others, is a killer in disguise, a war supporter, a defender of the president, yet he speaks so smoothly and earnestly, I'm certain that a lot of people find him "reasonable" and "trustworthy."

Perle, the Prince of Darkness, was chilling, I thought. He just sat there with his satisfied grin, espousing STS philosophy and telling us it's right. Explaining the Bush Doctrine, "If someone had a gun pointed at you and you knew you could shoot first, wouldn't you? I don't know anyone who wouldn't." Of course, he wants to be the one that tells you someone has a gun pointed at you, wants to hide the reason he knows why that gun is pointed at you, and won't consider if that gun is pointed at you maybe to get your attention or some other reason. You know that reminds me, why doesn't anyone in America ever seem to survive being shot at by police? I think there's a bit of Bush Doctrine in how police seem to conduct themselves.