Film "Why We Fight" Essay (Essay Sample)

Name
Course
Instructor
Date
Why we fight- Eugene Jarecki
In the film Why we fight, Eugene Jarecki explores explanations as to why American young men and women are sent to war. Equally, the filmmaker intends to convey the message that there has been a change in portrayal of American war interventions since WWII. It is as though America now engages in "Good Wars" unlike the past where there was military adventurism. It is simply in the interest of self-serving corporate America that there are increased wars operations. Preoccupation with military technology and action is a common feature in American psyche but the documentary focuses on anti-war efforts. There are differences to the period after the WWII and during the Cold War, as Americans cannot give definite answers for the reasons why the country goes to war, despite growth and strengthening of America’s military establishment over time. This essay focuses on the military-industrial complex depicted in Why we fight, highlighting on the interplay of political rhetoric, demonization, corporate interest, foreign policy and politics.
Through highlighting on the Military-industrial Complex (MCI) as coined by Eisenhower, the film also focuses on related ideological, political as well as economic forces leading to increased military operations overseas leading to the war in Iraq. Since the governments have not been forthright with informing the American public, political leaders have misled the public on American war efforts abroad. Military action has been used to influence the world through maintaining political dominance of the American hegemony. Nonetheless, the level of corruption in the war machine means that no person can single handedly tackle the power wielded by the system. As such the voters need to pressure politicians to be more accountable for there to be changes on the influencing power of the military-industrial complex.
Political rhetoric has been one of the tools through which to rally Americans to the need for war efforts. In order to gain acceptance with the public, politicians have relied on fears of the American people about the need to improve security measures by engaging in war. To highlight on this point, Jarecki uses the testimony of past American presidents as well as the statements of members of Congress. The political angle to the military-industrial complex cannot be ignored when focusing on American military strategies. The War on Terror is a case in point, where the nation rallied for the War on Iraq based on political rhetoric that Saddam Hussein was culpable in spreading terror and owning weapons of mass destruction. However, President George Bush distance himself from linking the 9/11 attacks to Iraq later on, which was surprising given some Americas initially felt that the war was justifiable (Jarecki).
The use of demonization is another strategy employed to misguide the public on American military role oversees. In the case of Saddam Hussein, before the Gulf War he was seen as an ally and the CIA also provided help to counter Iran influence. However, the invasion of Kuwait alarmed American policy makers. There was fear that with Saddam Hussein’s stay in power American interests would be threatened it became necessary to demonize the Hussein regime. Essentially, demonization poisons peoples mind similar to propaganda to the extent that people readily believe what the government tells them. The need to maintain America’s influence means that her citizens are not warned about the possible unintended impact of overseas wars.
One of the contentions issue is on the cost of American foreign operations and impact on the American economy. In particular, the war on Iraq in 2003 has been controversial because of increased military allocations to cater for war efforts despite mounting debt pressures on the American economy. In the film, the director touches on the ties between corporate America and military operations. For instance, Dick Cheney, the then Vice President in the Bush administration had interests in Halliburton an oil company with ioperations in Iraq (Jarecki). The US taxpayers financed war efforts with firms like Halliburton getting a share of contact money. It is noteworthy that corporate interests of private and public listed companies did not feature much during debates on America’s war efforts.
Jarecki concludes that America goes to war because it is lucrative, as there are relations between the Pentagon, politicians, media and defense industry (Wiltz N.03). The argument for this phenomenon is that there has been gradual change towards increased military spending, after initially falling following the Vietnam War. The arms industry has grown rapid since then, as increased military build up has ensured that companies in the arms industry get special consideration. Jarecki emphasizes the business angle to increased war operations by interviewing a bomb factory worker who confesses to have little liking for the job (Wiltz N.03). In any case, the revenues of companies in the arms industry dwindle when there is peace, and politicians have at times resulted to demonizing American enemies to limit and avoid cuts in military budgets.
Increased defense spending may at be times politic in congressional districts as well the political jobs (Crowdus 35). At the same time, think tanks which influence public policy have got influence more than ever before, but still can not be held accountable by the public. The intricate interplay of various factors influencing the military industrial complex are multifaceted and almost invisible that the public cannot understand misrepresentations in the media. Thus, to further warn on the dangers ...