Why We Fight?: Historicizing the American War Machine
Ira and I just watched Why We Fight an excellent BBC-produced documentary about U.S. militarism and the rise of the military-industrial complex. Although the film won the Grand Jury Prize at the 2005 Sundance Festival and was directed by an American, Eugene Jarecki, I don't think it has had a very high profile in the States. Maybe it hit some of the art-house theaters and I just missed it. With the recent attacks on PBS, I suppose it won't be screened there anytime soon.
That's a shame, because it really deserves a large audience. Ira found it less emotional and more analytic than Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, a film with which it will undoubtedly be compared.
I hope Why We Fight comes out on DVD soon, as I'd like to screen it in one of my American Literature and Culture classes. Jarecki's project is to historicze America's post-WWII militarism. The film, which takes it title from a series of Frank Capra-directed propaganda films from 1942 that were used to really support for the war against Nazi Germany, features a useful prologue featuring footage of President Eisenhower's farewell speech. It's always good to remind people that it was a Republican president and a 5-star general, not a 'libreal pinko peacenik,' who first warned about the dangers of a militarized economy.
An aside: I didn't know that Ike opposed dropping the atomic bomb on Japan. The film contrasted Eisenhower's anti-bomb position with Truman's decision to bomb Hiroshima and then Nagasaki. Was Truman really such a hawk. The film suggested that Truman deliberately ignored Japanese attempts to surrender so that he could drop the bomb and send a message to Stalin. Readers who are more knowledgeable in military history: Is this an accurate?
In short, the film was very disturbing for a variety of reasons that I won't go into now. What seemed clear from the interviews was that the Bush Doctrine and its policy of pre-emptive strikes will continue after this administration leaves office.
One final note: Jarecki's previous film was The Trials of Henry Kissinger, a film that I believe was based on Christopher Hitchens' book. I'd love to hear Hitchens' response to this film. Why does Hitchens believe Kissinger should be tried as a war criminal but Rumsfeld, Cheney, and company were right to invade Iraq? Surely he would have to concede with one of the film's key points: the Iraq war was never waged on behalf of the Iraqi people.
That's a shame, because it really deserves a large audience. Ira found it less emotional and more analytic than Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, a film with which it will undoubtedly be compared.
I hope Why We Fight comes out on DVD soon, as I'd like to screen it in one of my American Literature and Culture classes. Jarecki's project is to historicze America's post-WWII militarism. The film, which takes it title from a series of Frank Capra-directed propaganda films from 1942 that were used to really support for the war against Nazi Germany, features a useful prologue featuring footage of President Eisenhower's farewell speech. It's always good to remind people that it was a Republican president and a 5-star general, not a 'libreal pinko peacenik,' who first warned about the dangers of a militarized economy.
An aside: I didn't know that Ike opposed dropping the atomic bomb on Japan. The film contrasted Eisenhower's anti-bomb position with Truman's decision to bomb Hiroshima and then Nagasaki. Was Truman really such a hawk. The film suggested that Truman deliberately ignored Japanese attempts to surrender so that he could drop the bomb and send a message to Stalin. Readers who are more knowledgeable in military history: Is this an accurate?
In short, the film was very disturbing for a variety of reasons that I won't go into now. What seemed clear from the interviews was that the Bush Doctrine and its policy of pre-emptive strikes will continue after this administration leaves office.
One final note: Jarecki's previous film was The Trials of Henry Kissinger, a film that I believe was based on Christopher Hitchens' book. I'd love to hear Hitchens' response to this film. Why does Hitchens believe Kissinger should be tried as a war criminal but Rumsfeld, Cheney, and company were right to invade Iraq? Surely he would have to concede with one of the film's key points: the Iraq war was never waged on behalf of the Iraqi people.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home