'Why We Fight' sheds light on 'military-industrial complex'

War is profitable. Therefore, if the powers-that-be have their way, there is going to be more if it. So suggests the documentary "Why We Fight," directed by Eugene Jarecki. Released this summer on DVD, the film is a thought-provoking and timely polemic that explores the "military-industrial complex" and the driving forces that lead us to war. Set against the backdrop of President Eisenhower's 1961 farewell speech warning of corporate interests becoming too intertwined with a standing army, the film shows just how prescient the former five-star general's words were. "Why We Fight" sets out to answer the title question. A series of interviews from people in the street to pundits and politicians reveal just how confused the issue has become. And as the film proposes, the more opaque the discussion, the more blindly black and white the answers become, particularly with regard to the current war in Iraq. Freedom and democracy are popular answers; power and oil emerge as well. But, suggests Jarecki, the bottom line is the bottom line: War greases the economy. The "military-industrial complex" has developed into an amorphous creature comprised of the military, corporations and lawmakers. And that creature needs to be fed. From World War II on, claims the film, US foreign and economic policy has been dependent on having an enemy. Using sound bites from presidents, both republican and democratic, Jarecki plots the growth of the US military, initially in response to communism, then later terrorism. With a steady supply of enemies at the gate, congress has been more than willing to collude with political and corporate war hawks. What was once "security," has now become business–footage of salesmen at a military trade show is particularly revealing. And politicians, unwilling to upset their constituents, keep the industry going. With military equipment being built in every state in the union, and a huge private set of military supply industries from food providers to laundry services, the livelihoods of everyday people are dependent on the armed forces' appetite, much to the detriment of whoever is on the wrong side of "freedom and democracy." To illustrate this point, "Why We Fight" uses war footage and interviews with folks on the receiving end of the US military machine. The footage is, at times, hard to watch. But, that is the director's intention: Corporations get rich, we have jobs and they have dead children. One of the film's more moving moments comes from Jarecki's talks with Wilton Sekzer, a retired New York City cop and Vietnam veteran whose son was killed in the World Trade Center attacks. Wrought with grief and a desire for revenge, he searched to find a way to avenge his son's death. Sekzer remembered that, in Vietnam, he used to get requests to write the names of fallen soldiers on bombs to be dropped on the enemy. And when President Bush alluded to a connection between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks, Wilton got an idea. He emailed all branches of the armed forces and asked if his son's name could be written on a bomb intended for Iraq. His request was eventually granted. Months later, as the president maintained he had never suggested a link between Iraq and 9/11, Sekzer was incredulous. His confusion, his anger and pain, was palatable. Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski of the US Air Force provides another of the movie's stirring interviews. She was in the Pentagon when it was attacked on 9/11. And she talks of being assigned to the Pentagon's Iraq Desk in August of 2002. "I could see that war was going to happen," she says. "The decision had been made and it was just a matter of bringing the American people up to speed.... But the war in Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terrorism. That was a huge leap, a manufactured leap, in order to implement a calculated and pre-developed foreign policy." She discusses how civilians, appointed by the vice president, "hijacked" US defense policy to establish permanent military bases in the oil-rich region, and to qualify US companies for lucrative contracts to rebuild the war-torn country. But her most telling indicator comes when she, a Lt. Col., says she would not let her two sons serve in today's military. Kwiatkowski says, "If you join the Army today, you are not helping to defend this country. You are helping an elite group of people practice a form of economic imperialism." War supporters had their say in the film as well. Richard Perle makes the case for preemptive wars, and argues for what is called the "Bush doctrine." But this comes off as nothing more than Fox News talking points, and hardly helps argue against the film's point of war for money. Critics of "Why We Fight" lambaste the film as one-sided, left-leaning and political. But sometimes the issue is not about left or right, conservative or liberal, it is simply about right and wrong. The film presents testimony and evidence that transcends any simple politically biased analysis and stares the viewer in the face and says: this is what's going on, is it right? Many try to dismiss the film as a mere statement against war in general. And by implication it is. Not because it raises moral objections to war, but, rather, because it sheds light on disturbing trends that are prevalent in today's geo-political world. The most disconcerting facet in the movie may be that the "military-industrial complex" has seemingly become an accepted phenomenon. No one in the film is denying that there exists a sundry relationship between corporations and politicians with the US military. Chillingly, Eisenhower's warning that the military is increasingly becoming a branch of US corporate policy is no longer a warning but a reality. And when a Lt. Col. who was working in the Pentagon when it was attacked won't let her sons join the military, it is not just a canary in the cave; it is someone screaming over a loud speaker. The title is borrowed from Frank Capra's WWII propaganda series meant to whip up support for that war. The 21st century version of "Why We Fight" takes a deeper, more judicious look at the title's question. And as the film tries to enlighten the US citizenry, the words of 18th century English poet William Cowper ring true, "War's a game which were their subjects wise, Kings would not play."