What I Watched -- Why We Fight

For starters, I'll voice my frustration with the marketing of this movie. It's really just an excuse to rail against the Iraq war. So why all the promotion of DDE? Sure, he warned against the military-industrial complex, but that's about 30 seconds at the beginning of the movie. After that, it's a brisk march from 9/11 right through to Iraq. Let's try to be honest about our promotion, shall we?

Having gotten that off my chest, I suppose I can talk about the movie. After reading that first paragraph, I'm sure you won't be surprised to know that it's a largely one-sided critique of US actions in the last 10 years, and of the commercialization of war. And now having said that, I can say that the movie made some good points. My thoughts follow - lots of questions, no real answers:

LtCol Karen Kwatkowski commented on the "disconnection of our foreign policy from the average American citizen." Well ain't that the truth? If we didn't hear out it on the news periodically, we wouldn't even know there was a war going on. What would be different if we did know there was a war going on, if we felt it in our everyday lives? Maybe we'd feel more obligated to support the effort because we were invested. Maybe we'd be even more opposed because it was cramping our style. No telling. But either way, it would be a truer test of our support. It's right for us to question, but only if we have the stomach to make the tough, ugly decision, if and when that becomes necessary. I'm not sure we do.

John McCain asked the following question: "Where is the line between a force for good and a force for imperialism?" Shades of gray, buddy, shades of gray. Obviously, this was the answer he was implying, but asking the question that way does make one think a bit about the similarity between the two positions, and how easy it is to slide from one to the other.

The movie digs into Boeing, McDonnell Douglas (now part of Boeing), and Northrop Grumman as the drivers of the commercialization of war for profit. True? Yes. In the US, undoubtedly companies are constantly developing newer, faster, smarter, better technologies. That doesn't mean anyone has to buy it, but they know the military will. Often these corporations have a contract for development even before they make something. But even without a contract, no one wants to tell a grieving mother that her son died because his equipment was out of date. The military will buy the newest products so they don't end up in that position. But what's the other part of the story? Drumroll please.... Other countries are doing the same thing. The US doesn't have the only smarty-pantses in the world, and scientists in loads of other countries are working to develop newer, faster, smarter, better stuff just the same as we are. And now we circle back to the first argument again. No one wants to have to tell grieving kids that their mom died because the other side had cooler, tech-ier gear. And so we continue spending trillions to stay ahead. And we'll keep doing that until we're ready and willing to either massively change strategy or to allow ourselves to fall behind.

The filmmakers vilify the Congressmen who vote to increase defense spending because it will bring jobs to their districts. Is this the wisest way to spend our tax dollars? No. But it's no different than any of the other billions that are spent on pork by our charming government. That's the wonder of politics.

And one last comment. Somebody in the movie - I can't remember whom - was discussing how American power was flaunted by those who "rub their shoe in the face of the enemy." But the guys who are literally rubbing their shoes in the faces of the enemy aren't thinking about foreign policy; they're thinking about staying alive. Maybe they should be thinking a little more about policy and the image they project, but I imagine that there's limited capacity for complicated thought when you're pretty sure you're about to die. Witness The Hurt Locker, The Good Soldiers, and any number of additional war stories told in recent years for a view from the other side.

I guess the point I'm getting at is that the movie seemed to start to ask a lot of questions, but not take them all the way through to (what seems to me to be) their logical conclusions. Duh, this is because it doesn't support the point of view of the movie, and because there aren't really answers and it's all complicated and messy. But still. I was irritated. The end.

Bottom line: interesting, but be prepared to be annoyed by the incompleteness.