Filmmaker Eugene Jarecki tackles a big question. It takes the name from Frank Capra's propaganda series "Why We Fight". It uses Dwight D. Eisenhower's Military Industrial Complex speech as the launching point culminating in the George W. Bush's Iraq War. It looks at the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war, the concept of blow back, and Dick Cheney's Halliburton military contracts.The question may be too big. A smaller question of "Why We Fight in Iraq?" is a better option. This is a movie with a lot of talking heads. Some are more compelling than others. Some of them make very broad assertions that are dubious. One guy claims that Japan was ready to surrender but Truman deliberately dropped the bomb to threaten the Russians. There are other claims that are broadly true but lacks the nuance of a real discussion. This is a documentary with a left wing view point and may be fittingly named after a WWII propaganda series. It's also not much in terms of investigative reporting. It's a retread of plenty of anti-war material.

Why We Fight explores exactly that: as a nation, why are still fighting? Piecing together archival footage from everything from Eisenhower to news coverage of the March 19, 2003 bombing of Iraq, Jarecki frames a picture of the United States with it's own public documents, personas, and new media materials; his exploration of the profitability of war and the puppet string manipulations that he claims dictate the United States leave the viewer struck with the distinct feeling that something is rotten here.Beginning by asking the question that many Americans asked after 9/11, "Why do they hate us?" Jarecki presents a case strongly suggesting that that is exactly what the war hungry, corporate American government wants you to ask. Not only does it downright accuse the American government of being in bed with the corporate defense and weapon industry, it also speaks to a lack of general understanding of the United States history, implying that ignorance makes for easy control. Gore Vidal even states in the film, "We live here in the United States of Amnesia. No one remembers anything before Monday morning. Everything is a blank. They have no history." And by using plenty of close-up, eye level shots in various interviews with elected government officials and experts, the viewer can not deny that Jarecki establishes credibility with both the natural, framing of the shots and the shear notoriety of the individuals interviewed. Sound plays a huge role in this film; the diegetic war sounds in the archival footage and the one on one personal interviews with Iraqi citizens resonate in the viewer's mind long after the credits. Jarecki also incorporates quite a bit of intentional juxtaposition with his nondiegetic sound choices, playing poignant songs and instrumentals while crosscutting back to footage of war and death.This film left me sad and angry and once again questioning the state of this country, which, since of the release of this film in 2005, has only gotten more complicated. Adding undeniably emotional interviews with the father of a 9/11 victim and others and shots of children suffering after bombings in Iraq, Jarecki adds a personal element to the film that sticks with the viewer. Overall, the film is engaging, worthwhile, and thought-provoking, but good luck holding on to hope for the future after watching it.

Ever since Michael Moore brought us the dramatic documentary of Flint Michigan versus General Motors, nonfiction film seems to have gone downhill. This important movie contains one fundamental message: the United States has evolved into a military/industrial/political empire based on the development, production, and marketing of war technologies. In effect the US has built upon the Soviet model by using the power of capitalism to take the command economy to a higher level. But the message of the film is confused with overly dramatic editing and music (the advertising model), cute but distracting subplots (a kid joining the army, an angry dad's growing cynicism), ahistorical sequences and cutting that left me amused but confused. There's no substitute for developing a story and clearly telling it, and when the story is as important as this one, there's no excuse for substituting drama for straightforward narrative. Finally, as an expert in information architecture, I was especially disappointed to see not one graph or table demonstrating the relative and absolute growth of the new imperial military economy. Someone needs to tell this disturbing story clearly, with the facts laid out, letting the drama of an unfolding global disaster express itself.

This is an appropriately titled documentary (ironic also) that delves into what Eisenhower called the "military-industrial complex", in his farewell address. While George Washington's farewell address involved warnings about political polarization of the country, the avoidance of entanglements with foreign nations and the idea that morality in government is required; Eisenhower warned about the ever increasing of power of the complex relationship between the military, the Congress and the military private sector, and the problems associated with having and supporting a standing army. He warned about the ever increasing resource allocation in the face of no visible or clearly defined enemy. A self perpetuation cycle that takes all other expenditures with it. This process seems to have started with WWII and even with Eisenhower's warning, has continued unabated for the past 50+ years, culminating in the current situation we are in (Iraq). During this time the expenditure was justified by the giant, looming Soviet threat (which collapsed of its own bloated weight). Since 1991, the military-industrial complex has been searching for a new "nemesis". They tried Panama, Iraq I, Yugoslavia, Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq II. The current war is proof enough of the intentions of the this complex : to get more money appropriated by the Congress (for more expensive, newer, and "better" weapons), by "proving" to their constituents (through fear and misinformation) that they is a phantom danger which requires more money for defense. It is nearly impossible to tell the head from the tail of this unit. All the elements have almost fused into a giant entity.It is funny to think that WWII signaled the start of this entity, while also going against Washington's warnings (US first becomes entangled in NATO in 1949) and leading towards our current polarized and unmoral political situation. The problem with this complex is that is does not what is best for the country, but what is best for itself. This is not moral. Senator Byrd made that point when the Congress voted to give the executive branch the right to invade a foreign nation without provocation; that there was no debate, no look at the consequences of their actions. There was only silence. It's interest leads the country into situations that allocated many, many resources that could be used internally (Eisenhower had a cost list of what he could do locally with funds allocated for bombers, tanks, missiles, etc). Senator Robert Byrd also made the point that the US military budget from a few years ago was larger than the other 18 members of NATO combined and China. This movie tries very hard not to be a one-sided story. It gets some of the constituents of this entity to speak in their own words. The movie does not point fingers at political parties but rather at institutions and individuals. I don't know how people cannot acknowledge the truth in this movie. Whether or not what this movie's message appeals to your political thought or not, you cannot deny the truth no matter how much it doesn't benefit one's situation. You can ignore it, pin it on a patsy, or try to deny it, but you cannot hide from it. It would seem the movie would end on an pessimistic tone, but this is not true at all. It is very encouraging. This complex should be responsible to us. They are working with public (tax) money and Congress is full of our elected representatives, responsible to the people who elected them. We don't like what is going on, then we must do something about it. Freedom is not sitting at home watching your ass get fatter while eating fast food and drinking a beer. We need to get off our asses and make them listen to us. If they are not satisfying us, we get ones who can. Oh, where is the next George Washington ?? That is exactly what we need right now. It is funny how much his name is used to justify things he wouldn't have supported (also see God). Oh well. History will record this time as the end of the Republic and the rise of the American Empire. Sic semper tyrannis.-Celluloid Rehab