Watch Why We Fight For Free

Good concept, poorly executed.

Expected more

What a freaking movie. So many twists and turns. Absolutely intense from start to finish.

It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

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.

Just three days before his time as President was to end, Dwight D. Eisenhower gave his farewell address to the nation; and in it, he warned us all of a potentially grave threat within the very bowels of the United States government: "In the councils of government, we must guard against unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military/industrial complex."It is those words of the great five-star general who had helped lead America to victory over Nazism in World War II that are at the heart of writer/director Eugene Jarecki's compelling documentary WHY WE FIGHT. The film takes its title from the seven-part series of films made by director Frank Capra in the 1940s to boost troop morale during World War II. But unlike Capra, Jarecki gives us a penetrating look at the dangers to our democracy and our freedom that can become a reality en if the alliance between the two unholy pillars of defense and industry are allowed to swamp our nation. Jarecki interviews members of Eisenhower's own family, as well as political heavyweights like Arizona senator John McCain, right-wing pundit Bill Kristol, and former CIA official Chalmers Johnson, and what we are witness to is the way the military/industrial complex, combined with right-wing think tanks, has come to shape American foreign policy, and in more than a few ways the thinking of the American people themselves, in ways that over the last sixty years have had catastrophic consequences for our nation. As an example, we look at the CIA's covert involvement in the overthrow of Iranian president Mohammed Mosadegh in favor of the Shah, which gave birth to the rise of the Islamic extremist movement; and we also see our involvement with both Osama Bin-Laden and Saddam Hussein during the 1980s, which led us to the quagmire of present-day Iraq and the horror that erupted on September 11, 2001. The 9/11 aspect is detailed in an interview with a former New York cop who lost his son in the World Trade Center, and then lost his confidence in the government when the connection between Saddam and 9/11 was found out to be false.The staggering power of the military/industrial complex, as detailed by Jarecki, reaches all the way into the halls of Congress and, in more than a few cases, right to the front doors of the American people as well. It is a frightening thing to know--and it is inevitably something that right-wing pundits will certainly attack Jarecki for in WHY WE FIGHT. But a lot of the ammunition Jarecki uses for his arguments comes from exactly some of those same neo-conservatives themselves in the film. Even more, Jarecki shows how, after the debacle of Vietnam, the government sought to control what the media could show about America's war efforts (no soldiers in coffins or body bags) in order to keep support for American military activities high among the public at a calamitous cost to the nation.WHY WE FIGHT is a terribly sober and complex film that offers no easy answers, because none exist. And yet, as it comes to its end by returning to Eisenhower's famous farewell address, it reminds us that while a strong military may be needed, its influence in America at large needs to be kept in check in the future, lest we fall into the same militant attitude that destroyed past superpowers, many in our own lifetime.

President Dwight Eisenhower warned us that we must be vigilant against the military-industrial complex taking over our country. Why We Fight, a film that won the 2005 Grand Jury Prize at the Sundance Film Festival, shows the price we are now paying for failing to watch over our leaders.Eisenhower warned that we would suffer disastrous consequences if a non-military man became President. We not only have that, but we also have a contractor in the Vice-President's office.The military -industrial complex has corrupted Congress to the point that they are willing accomplices. In addition, Think Tanks are now setting policy for the government. The American people were carefully mislead into a war that serves no purpose other than filling the coffers of American business and we will suffer for years because of it.It is not only the wasted money and wasted lives, but also the loss of our status as a Great Nation. We are heading down the path of Rome and, like Britain, France, and the Soviet Union before us, we will fall.I hope it is not to late to repair the damage, but I fear it is.

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