See this man? Not a big fan of the military/industrial complex. None for him, thanks.

Just saw Why We Fight at a sneak preview. The filmmaker, Eugene Jarecki, was in attendance. First off, see this film. If for only two reasons. One, a clear explanation of the complicity of Congress in the military/industrial complex. For example, each state manufactures a different part of a stealth bomber. That way, if anyone wants to stop funding it, there’s not a single congressman without a reason to fight back. Two, he lays out one of the clearest origin timelines for the Iraq war, starting in 1950’s Iran.

Okay, I suppose you could find all that on the internet if you wanted, but what Why We Fight delivers in spades is context. Iraq becomes, in the context of Grenada, Chile, Lebanon, etc., business as usual, with an emphasis on the business. The clearest answer I draw (your results may vary) to why we fight from Why We Fight is because it’s damn, damn profitable.

“When war becomes that profitable, you’re going to see a lot more of it.”
-Chalmers Johnson, ex-CIA

The creepiest suggestion of Jarecki’s collection of pundits from various sides, historical footage, and personal narratives (from a cop who lost his son on 9/11 to a broke kid looking to join the army) is that the military/industrial complex so presciently foretold by Eisenhower in his farewell address (which is the glue that holds the film together) is so entrenched that even when the current administration is out of office nothing. will. change.

At least, that’s my interpretation. Jarecki himself is a bit more positive than that. He’s charming in person and very thoughtful. I asked him about why we, as a culture, seem so reluctant to ask why when it comes to things like, y’know, getting into a war and such. Basically I suggested that maybe we don’t particularly want to know. But he has more faith in the American public than I do, which I find impressive given that he’s apparently spent more time with them than I have.

Jarecki. He looks friendlier in person.

He finds that the loss of faith in mainstream media, which came to a head in roughly the same time frame as the war, suggests a hunger for the truth. He finds the labelling of red and blue states to be dismissive and ultimately counterproductive (not to mention misleading). And in the end, it’s a lack of faith in the American people (or is it a lack of respect, or both?) that really seems to be at issue here.

If the powers that be really believe in their reasons for going to war, should they not have faith in their constituents to present them with those reasons? It shows a lack of respect to not allow for the debate that must come from honest disclosure. I think that circumvention, which is made into an attractive option by the culture that comes from a military/industrial complex grown wild, is a major concern of the film, and is perhaps the most corrupting outcome of not heeding Ike’s warning.

See this memo? It basically says if we piss off Japan enough, maybe they’ll bomb us or something.

Or maybe people are stupid and selfish and need to be lied to to get into even the most noble of efforts.

Be warned, or perhaps encouraged, this is a film that sparks debate. I had an argument with my mom for about two hours, and that was just from trying to describe the film. But I think that debate is needed now more than ever. So go see this movie with someone you really disagree with.

Drops Feb. 10th in most cities.