By Amy Nicholson
By Alan Scherstuhl
By Alan Scherstuhl
By Alan Scherstuhl
By Alan Scherstuhl
By Mark Holcombe
By Scott Foundas
By Nick Pinkerton
At once more historically rigorous and psychologically accessible than The Fog of War, Why We Fight assumes our investment in military conflict as being not just financial or even emotional. Expertly drawing from a treasure trove of archival footage and contemporary interviews as it follows the American train of thought from the end of WWII to the start of Shock & Awe and beyond, this Sundance award-winner by self-taught documentarian Eugene Jarecki (The Trials of Henry Kissinger) dares to seek an audience as wide as that for the evening news. Its masterstroke is the characterization of middle-aged New York cop Wilton Sekzer as plainspoken representative of both the U.S. and us--a man whose post-9/11 bloodlust turns to a different kind of rage upon the realization that Iraq's so-called smoking gun isn't even a leaky water pistol.
The 36-year-old filmmaker is plenty wise to preach to the unconverted, though his message wouldn't appear out of place in an activist strategy meeting--or in the classroom. Just as Why We Fight plays like a near-scholarly dissection of what Dwight D. Eisenhower first termed the "military-industrial complex," Jarecki discusses the movie and its issues in paragraphs rather than sentences, talking at points like a veteran professor of American history. We need more filmmakers with Jarecki's ambition and intelligence. But that doesn't stop one from thinking that he maybe ought to run for office.
City Pages:Has the film changed at all in the year since it premiered at Sundance?
Eugene Jarecki: It's sort of a sad statement of the times that, no, we didn't have to make any changes. Except we've kept having to increase the casualty figures that are listed in the movie with regard to the Iraq war, because the body count keeps going up.
CP:The film argues that the forces now at play in Iraq aren't a few years old, or 15, but 50 or 60. Why is that perspective so rare even among progressives in the U.S.?
Jarecki: There's a tendency to lay all our problems at the feet of George W. Bush, to want to see him as taking a radical departure from the traditions of U.S. foreign policy. But Bush wasn't born overnight: He's the product of decades of movement by this country away from its origins and ideals, and toward something more aggressive, more arrogant, more imperial. The Iraq war certainly isn't the first time that the reasons we were given to go to war have turned out not to be the real reasons why we went. Ultimately I think it's a political distraction for us to be obsessed with Bush or any other single figure. The larger forces that the film examines are those--including the military-industrial complex--that are undoing the very fabric of the democracy we're fighting for. It's what Eisenhower meant when he said, "We must avoid destroying from within that which we are trying to protect from without."
CP:What seems to have changed more than anything since, say, the Vietnam War is the volume of protest.
Jarecki: I don't want to sound like a nutcase, but I don't see that at all. In 2003, 10 million people around the world marched in protest even before a single shot had been fired in anger. A lot of us have complained that Americans are apathetic. And it's convenient for those in power to say that we're apathetic, though what we really are is helpless. We live in a complex society that bears a heavy weight on us. Still, that didn't stop hundreds of thousands of Americans from participating in those protests. If you take the analogous year in Vietnam--1963--I think there were maybe 14 Quakers who marched down Fifth Avenue.
CP:Those hundreds of thousands weren't seen much on network TV, which is whereWhy We Fight could best reach the unconverted, right? The film was aired on the BBC in March, and, absurdly, that's how it was deemed ineligible for an Oscar nomination.
Jarecki: I have every confidence that the film, after showing theatrically all over the U.S., will make it to [U.S.] television and reach that audience. As for the Oscar [ineligibility], it seems there's a little bit of jingoism in the Academy's rules. The chief of the BBC talked to me about this. He said, "You know, it's funny that films can't qualify for Academy consideration here in Europe, but they can disqualify." It's just sort of ironic. The only reason we had to go overseas for funding is that the media system here is suffering.
CP:Do you think that if Eisenhower were alive today, his chosen term would be the "military-industrial-media complex"?
Jarecki: In early drafts of his speech, he actually referred to it as the "military-industrial-congressional complex." Eisenhower was keenly aware of the fact that without the acquiescence and collusion of our members of Congress, the aspirations shared by the military and their friends in industry cannot be made manifest. It takes a member of Congress who wants defense jobs in his or her home district, who needs campaign finance funding that only a major corporation can provide. And so in a sense we can look at Eisenhower's warning to our society as being a warning about runaway corporatism--the public good being served by private interests, corporations being given greater license to do what they wish with our public space and our public policy. In his farewell address, Eisenhower said, "The power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded." I don't think anyone--Republican, Democrat, or other--could have said it better.
Join My Voice Nation for free stuff, film info & more!