"That's a nice-a donut."

Sunday, August 20, 2006

Why We Fight (2006)

With the current "war" and situation in Iraq seemingly getting worse every week, it seems only natural to wondering why we are fighting. And I don't just mean why we are fighting there, but why we fight at all. Director Eugene Jarecki attempts to answer that very question in the provocative, illuminating, very interesting, and aptly-named documentary Why We Fight.

One of the central themes running through the film is that there are outside forces at work that sometimes point the U.S. in the direction of military conflict. It isn't always such a simple matter as does it make sense, does it serve a legitimate purpose, or is it right. Things are rarely that simply, actually. But in fact outside interests, such as Defense Department contractors in the private business and corporate worlds often have as much at stake in the U.S. military as the politicians and the government itself does. Jarecki keeps going back to former President Einsenhower's very prophetic farewell speech in January 1961 where he first introduced the notion of the "military-industrial" complex. As cynical as it might sound, war is often a business more than anything else.

It is this aspect of the film where it is strongest and most sure-footed, as we see plenty of old footage and commentary that provides good support for Jarecki's theories. There are also several ongoing substories. One involves on ground footage from the first day of the Iraq invasion as a quiet, early morning Baghdad awaits its fate; another involves a young adult from New York City who has decided to enlist in the Army. Naturally, it dovetails into a thinly-veiled critique of the current situation in Iraq and the Middle East. It tries to alternate between points of view from both sides of the Bush administration policies, though it clearly falls on the anti-war side, and you can't fault it for that. But these parts aren't as well-focused as the very scary matters of the military-industrial complex.

Another ongoing plot involves a retired New York City police officer, who lost a son in the 9/11 attacks. It is interesting how at first he comes across as a warmongering man out for blood. In the beginning he was all in favor of hitting Iraq - anything to get back for what happened (an opinion that many people in the country shared) - even spending time on trying to get his late son's name on a bomb that would get dropped on Iraq. But his feelings turn towards anger and disillusion as he realizes that he was lied to by our government. The film loses its focus in the later portions of the film, as it strays from trying to understand "why we fight." By the end, it had completely lost sight of its original goals.

I suppose that Jarecki was trying to link back these feelings about the quagmire into a sort of essay on how the military-industrial complex is more powerful than ever today. But he doesn't spend enough time on these matters (for example, only briefly illuminating the criticism of Cheney and the Halliburton contracts) and is never able to fully build the puzzle. It could have been a very good, even brilliant, examination of the United States military and war policies; perhaps even by becoming a multi-part study of the last 60 years, sort of the inverse of its namesake, the propaganda "Why We Fight" informational films from the 1940s. Still, it's a fascinating, thought-provoking film. I'm not sure if did enough of what it could have done. Though I'm not sure whether it will actually succeed in changing anyone's viewpoint, it is not as incendiary as Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, and at the very least it is something that everyone should see.

The Verdict: B.

Michael Bentley 3:01 PM

"That's a nice-a donut."

Sunday, August 20, 2006

Archives