Why We Fight

—1. Overview
—2. Cast and Crew
—3. Photo Pages
—4. Trailers, Clips, DVDs, Books, Soundtrack
—5. Posters (War Propaganda)
—6. Production Notes (pdf)
—7. Spiritual Connections
—8. Presentation Downloads

In 1961, a few days before leaving office, President Eisenhower gave a farewell address to the nation. In it he gave a brief outline of the state of the world at that point in the Cold War. The part of that speech that is most remembered is that he coined the term “military-industrial complex�. He sees the establishment of a standing army and the growth of the armament industry as necessary for that time, but warns against such forces becoming too influential. He said:

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

In Why We Fight, Eugene Jarecki wants to awaken “an alert and knowledgeable citizenry� to what the military-industrial complex has become and how it influences and shapes our nation and our foreign policy. His thesis (as explained in a Q&A on the film’s website) is that since the end of World War II America has been developing into an empire. He views our current situation as both a divergence from and extension of our policies over the last 60 years.

The influence of the military-industrial complex (MIC) does indeed call for an examination. It is no longer a threatening sounding concept; it is the way of life in this country. We have become so used to the MIC that we hardly notice how extensive it is. Jarecki lays out some of the facts that we need to hear to oversee the “meshing� of these giants.

Unfortunately, this film falls far short of what we need to give serious consideration to his thesis, let alone the larger question of the influence of the MIC. While some of the information in the film is truly thought provoking, it is seriously flawed. Those flaws, while not destroying the credibility, certainly raise doubts about reliability.

For example, Gore Vidal speaks of Japan wanting to surrender all summer, but President Truman not accepting because he wanted to use the atomic bomb as a show of power to the Soviets. There is no substantiation offered to this assertion.

Jarecki gives an appearance of balance by including among the talking heads people who support the Administration or work in think tanks that promote some of the ideas that could be deemed imperialism. But overall, it’s clear that his sympathies are elsewhere. That turns the film into another jeremiad against the Bush Administration and the war in Iraq.

I’m no fan of the Administration, its policies, or the war, but by focusing so much on the current situation, Jarecki loses sight of the overall dangers of the MIC. He does include footage of other Presidents of both parties, but it’s clear that his real interest is in the present.

To see how much the war in Iraq is the focus of this film, consider the three real life stories that Jarecki includes in the film. The first looks at Wilton Sekzer, a retired NYPD sergeant who lost a son on September 11. He wants revenge and he wants some way of memorializing his son. When he comes up with a way to get both, he is eventually disappointed because he discovers that his understanding of the war in Iraq was misinformed.

Karen Kwiatkowski was a career Air Force officer (reaching the rank of Lieutenant Colonel serving in the Pentagon in the run up to the war in Iraq.) Because of her disillusionment with the way the intelligence was used, she retired from military life.

William Solomon is a young man who is getting ready to enter the Army. He is going not for patriotic reasons or because he believes in the war, but because he doesn’t think he can get by in the world on his own.

All three of these stories focus our attention on the present situation. The first two pointedly censure the Bush Administration. The third encourages us to see the military as a place of last resort, taking advantage of those without better options.

I’m sure there will be comparisons made with Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11. There is a similarity in that they both take on the Administration’s policies about the military and the war. Moore’s style allows him to be far more outrageous in his attacks on the Administration. With Moore, you go in knowing there will be exaggeration and you will have to pick and choose what you find credible. Jarecki sets out to seem credible throughout, but ends up failing. With Moore, the thesis is clear – get Bush. Jarecki sets up a wider thesis, but ends up settling for getting the Administration. Jarecki may well be a better documentarian, but Moore’s film is far more satisfying in spite of (or maybe because of) its embellishment.

Overall, I find Why We Fight a minor disappointment. I really like Jarecki’s thesis. I’d love to see that thesis thoroughly examined and expounded in such away to call people’s attention to dangers that the MIC poses for our society and our world.

As a pacifist (a position that grows out of my faith and discipleship), I find the MIC, the war, and the policies that support what Jarecki deems imperialism to be a spiritual threat to the world. Why We Fight is an interesting first step at a look at an important issue that deals not only in political questions but also with our spiritual health as a nation and as individuals. If only it had been more.

—1. Overview