Why We Fight by Eugene Jarecki

[Makalakumu]

This movie is probably one of the best I've seen in a long time. It was everything Michael Moore wished he could make and I think that this one has broad bi-partisen appeal. Watch this if you have time...it is well worth it!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3787578650617448322&q=Iraq+fighting

The film describes the rise and maintenance of the United States military-industrial complex while concentrating on wars led by the United States of the last fifty years and in particular on the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. It alleges that every decade since World War II, the American public has been told a lie to bring it into war to fuel the military-economic machine, which in turn maintains American dominance in the world. It includes interviews with John McCain, Chalmers Johnson, Richard Perle, William Kristol, Gore Vidal and Joseph Cirincione. The film also incorporates the stories of a Vietnam War veteran whose son died in the September 11, 2001 attacks and then had his son's name written on a bomb dropped on Iraq, a 23-year old New York man who enlists in the United States Army citing his financial troubles after his only family member died, and a former Vietnamese refugee who now develops explosives for the American military.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_We_Fight_(2005_film)

 

[Cryozombie]

I counter this with a request you watch the episode of "Band of Brothers" entitled "Why We Fight".

Sure... its "entertainment"... but IMO still reasonably true.
​

 

[Makalakumu]

I counter this with a request you watch the episode of "Band of Brothers" entitled "Why We Fight".​

Sure... its "entertainment"... but IMO still reasonably true.​

I've already seen it. I grew up with that stuff...

And from what I've seen and from what I've been told, much of it is just propaganda.

The reality is that Eisenhower lived this stuff and HE was the one who warned us about our present situation. This movie is inspired by him...a Republican.

 

[Cryozombie]

And from what I've seen and from what I've been told, much of it is just propaganda.

Ohhhh... So we DIDN'T free the Jews in Europe. Thats just propaganda. My bad.

The politcal ********, propoganda, spin on reasons, etc aside... WHY WE FIGHT is that when we do somthing like liberate a Nazi concentration camp, or destroy a rape house or whatever else we do... Not the ******** reasons we are given. I wont defend our "leaders" reasons for taking us into stupid wars in the first place... but when they do somthing like that it reminds us of the REAL Reasons we need to fight.

 

[Cryozombie]

Oh, and I dont care if it was insipred by a republican, a democrat or a Liberatarian...

They are all lying sacks of politics and deceit.
​

 

[Makalakumu]

Ohhhh... So we DIDN'T free the Jews in Europe. Thats just propaganda. My bad.

The politcal ********, propoganda, spin on reasons, etc aside... WHY WE FIGHT is that when we do somthing like liberate a Nazi concentration camp, or destroy a rape house or whatever else we do... Not the ******** reasons we are given. I wont defend our "leaders" reasons for taking us into stupid wars in the first place... but when they do somthing like that it reminds us of the REAL Reasons we need to fight.

That isn't what I was talking about. Some things are worth fighting for. Most aren't. Check the movie out and let me know what you think.

BTW - Roosevelt knew about the Holocaust and he didn't get us into the war because of that. Not that stopping that was a bad thing mind you...

 

[Makalakumu]

After taking a little break from this CZ, I see your point. However, I'm hoping that you can see mine.

I think we have to take the good with the bad whenever looking at stuff like this. For example, we need to remember that as we went out to liberate these concentration camps, we constructed and threw people in concentration camps of our own making.

Films like the one you cited are meant to show the US in the most positive light. The sole purpose of this is to increase our nationalistic fervor. In the entire history of nations, this has never been a good thing.

Anyway, if you get a chance, watch the movie I posted. It truly is profound and you will have no doubt why it won so many awards when you are done.

 

[Cryozombie]

Ok, let me restate my meaning, maybe a little more clearly.

I dont care for the BS that the government does, its resonings, or any of the ******** it so called leaders do. But when, in the course of those actions, we do things like liberate the Jews, Destroy the rape houses etc... it gives validation to why we fight, DESPITE the political bull. There was one of those propaganda emails floating around at one time about a father asking his son what he would do if saddam was killing his neighbors and he said he would shut the curtains and not watch... then he openes the curtains and saddam is on his porch and there is no one left to help him... and I'd buy that. Not specifically about saddam, but in general.

Thats MY take on why we fight. I dont care for the politics behind it, I care for the results we get. And yes, I believe there have been and are conflicts we did not beliong in...

​

 

[crushing]

This movie is probably one of the best I've seen in a long time. It was everything Michael Moore wished he could make and I think that this one has broad bi-partisen appeal. Watch this if you have time...it is well worth it!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3787578650617448322&q=Iraq+fighting



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_We_Fight_(2005_film)

I saw this movie in the theater. I agree that it was well worth it. I think I've mentioned this movie on MT previously. However, I disagree that it is a movie that Michael Moore wished he could make. Michael Moore could have made a film like this, but chose not to.

EDIT: Here is the reference to the film in an earlier discussion. http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=532895

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Eisenhower was a political soldier not a warrior. He commanded a training unit in WWI after West Point and went right to the top. He was very good at what he did and WAS instrumental in winning the War. I mean no disrespect to the man but he was never "in the trenches" so to speak. He was a bureaucrat and his politics reflect accordingly. Read any bio on Patton to find that out. MacArthur, Bradley and Patton are better sources to go to for "why men fight". Ike may have authority to speak on "why we (as nations) go to War". "Why we fight" is about being a soldier. Theyre two different things. Some people will never understand that.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,211214,00.html

We did not come here for democracy; we did not come here for oil. We came here for each other. If you cannot understand that, I am sorry, but I can explain it no further.

 

[Makalakumu]

It should be titled "why we go to War". "Why we fight" is about being a soldier. Theyre two different things. Aparently some people will never understand that.

I think that they are part of the same system. There are no self-evident truths. Even the "will to serve" can be abused. The desire to do good and give something back to the country has been perverted by the abrogation of the ability to determine the enemy. Thus, the military industrial complex saddles the goodwill of men to the will of the war machine.

Eisenhower called this the strapping of humanity to a cross of iron.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

You dont understand what being a soldier is..thats obvious.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

http://www.afa.org/magazine/oct2004/1004keeper.asp

President Dwight D. Eisenhower would be amazed at the way in which his term “military-industrial complex” has been abused. For example, Bill Moyers recently contended on his PBS show that the military-industrial complex was made up of those who “call for war ... and then turn around and feed on the corpse of war.”

Ike coined the term in his 1961 farewell address to the nation, but with a very different purpose. He warned about the potential influence of a large complex, but his larger point—elaborated below—was that America was “compelled” to maintain an extensive, effective standing armaments industry. Critics forget that part.

The address was short—only 1,900 words—but Eisenhower made two explicit points: The Cold War was caused by communist aggression, not the greed of US defense contractors, and the existence of the military-industrial complex was vital, not insidious.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1974/sep-oct/bause.html

accusations against the MIC

It seems that to explore the MIC adequately we must consider those characteristics of the complex that most of its critics ascribe to it. To do this we must deal with the idea of conspiracy, the element of secrecy, the subject of preparation as confrontation, the level of defense spending, war profiteering, military retirees in industry, the size of the complex, the lack of control over it, and the evaluation of the MIC as “institutionally rigid.”

Conspiracy. American history is replete with the writings of many who see conspiracy at every turn. Richard Hofstadter, in his Paranoid Style in American Politics (1965), used the phrase “paranoid style” in describing the grand theories of conspiracy of those persons who have obvious feelings of persecution. The perception of the person evidencing this approach to life sees an amorphous group of agents who have a design upon the resources of the land and its people. The paranoid stylist sees his role as being unselfish and full of deep patriotism, quite righteous, and morally indignant. The rhetoric of the conspiracy claimants has been labeled for what it is. No evidence has been produced to substantiate a de facto conspiracy. To label as “conspiracy” a concern about national security says more about the perceptions of the accuser than it does about the situation. Honest differences amongst all elements of the MIC are as varied as the general population. People connected with the complex are among the strongest advocates of détente, SALT, and a smaller voluntary military.

Secrecy. The question of secrecy looms large to many when matters of a military nature are discussed, and perhaps it will loom even larger as a result of present domestic problems in government. Since those outside the complex do not possess information and often question the credibility of information provided by the military or the government, questions are raised as to the validity of considered threats. The secrecy game is insidious because it can be used so simplistically as to invalidate any discussion. Critics will have to decide how valid the annual posture statements of the Secretary of Defense are. There are very few areas that are not available for public discussion. Size of forces, amounts of arms, contractual developments, and relative strengths are in the public domain. Internal efforts within the Department of Defense evidence not only awareness of this concern but positive steps to raise the level of public understanding and discussion. The broad accusation of a conspiracy of silence and secrecy can be substantiated in some few situations but cannot be supported as a blanket accusation.

Confrontation. Often the claim is made that military preparation leads necessarily to confrontation, that a force in readiness is a force anxious to exercise its war muscles. It seems that certain elements feel that they are the only ones who want a state of peace. Is there not a legitimate place in the world for a maintenance of peace? The notion of a complete trust system, wherein one can accept in faith the idea that a state system or even an international system can bring peace and a cessation of hostility, does not equate with any picture of man in either modern ethical systems or ancient ones. Biblical understanding of man usually places man in two worlds (often pictured, as in the language of Augustine, as two cities): the city of God, founded on love and trust of God and our fellowman, and its earthly opposite, the city of Man, founded symbolically by Cain. Cain’s city always has with it some aspect of the venom of his original fratricide. God’s city is a trust system; man’s city a distrust system. There is ample history to substantiate the latter. The logical corollary for a system designed to maintain peace and deter aggression is the vocation of military service. Can reason suggest that the role of government is to withdraw from the protection of its people? All forms of power, whether sexual, economic, political, or military, have potential for misuse. But to isolate one form of power without relating it to its function and its need in an imperfect world seems less than responsible.

Defense spending. Another rather obvious fiction is the concern voiced by many that the defense budget has loose purse strings and a runaway percentage of the economy. The claim has been made that it has less control and less scrutiny than other programs emanating from Washington. This myth is just not true in fact or practice, past or present. The defense budget receives more scrutiny, not less. Systems analysis, planning, programming and budgeting systems, and other tools of cost analysis have been applied more in the Department of Defense than in any other government activity. The number of military personnel has been decreased from 3,547,000 in 1968 to 2,199,000 in 1974, and the defense budget from 12 percent of the gross national product in 1954 to 5.9 percent in 1973.

Furthermore, one’s consideration of cost must relate it to the total American economy. Complexes surrounding education, medicine, farm products, transportation, etc., derive their support from several levels of government (state, county, and municipal), whereas the military budget is drawn totally from the federal coffer. The subject of our national commitments and our national responsibility to the world at large needs balanced study before the United States exits from the international arena. Recent struggles in the Near East and the accompanying energy crisis reinforce the significant global role of the United States today.

War profiteering. Accompanying the controversy over the runaway defense budget was the contention, always renewed in America during and after wars, of the making of enormous war profits. A spiraling inflation, together with the high cost of sophisticated weaponry and the ever increasing cost overruns, easily substantiated the general distrust of an anguished and long-suffering nation. The popular image presented in numerous volumes and articles on war profiteering was finally put to rest with more extensive audits by the General Accounting Office in the Defense Industry Profits Study of March 1971. The study shows, among other things, that thirty-two large defense contractors selected at random who did more than ten percent of their total business with DOD made basically the same profit as thirteen contractors, also randomly selected, who did less than ten percent of their business with DOD.

Military retirees in industry. A corollary to the profiteering myth is the idea that the number of retired military participating in second careers with war-making industries is excessive or, even worse, is another symptom of the evils of the MIC. Calculations drawn from a study made by Senator William Proxmire indicated that only eight percent of the officers, colonel through general, were employed by the 100 largest defense industries. Even high estimates place only forty percent of all retired military in the defense and aerospace sector of the economy. It hardly seems wrong or a necessary evil to expect persons with specific skills and developed vocational roles to pursue a second career in an area where they have background and experience. When questions of proportionality, level of entry, and diversification of employment are thoroughly analyzed, the evidence gives very little that is conclusive. Early fears in this area, inflamed by rhetoric and exaggeration, have subsided with each new study.

Size of MIG. If the former fictions and exaggerations are accepted, there still needs to be some consideration given to the problem implicit in any core of interest as large and powerful as that associated with the MIC, but these concerns and implications could well be leveled against any other big complex. To isolate them as an evil in one area without relating to all structures is an argumentum ad hominem and adds little to thoughtful discourse.

Lack of control. Critics frequently point out that the concern for national security which unites military, industrial, and governmental security planners lacks any kind of countervailing force in the social order. This seems to neglect the fact that there are numerous and strong countervailences within the complex. Not only do we find a variety of views within the military itself but also we find independent groups within government (Senate, House of Representatives, National Security Council, etc.) and outside government (RAND Corporation, Brookings Institution), all of which have had impact in trying to keep expenditures down, reduce procurement, and develop decision-making processes for a time of restraint. Again, it is important to note that systems analysis, planning-programming-budgeting systems, as well as other means of relating costs to effectiveness, have been pioneered in government by the Department of Defense. Would that other complexes were able to make judgments in social and educational areas as effectively.

Rigidity. Finally, the general accusation is frequently made that the MIC is institutionally rigid. Those who delight in this argument stereotype the military and those associated with it. The discipline of order, regulation, and institutional commitment are symptoms that impede innovation or adaptation. To validate this argument, a critic would have to be aware of the process of change occurring within all facets of the MIC. It seems difficult for persons within the structures to comprehend fully all the changes taking place. To draw a fair comparison, one would have to make a study relating the degree of changes among several complexes, such as the teaching-administration-education complex, the physician-medicine-hospital complex, and other similar interlocking structures. It is very difficult to justify the generality that members of the MIC are any more conservative institutionally than administrators, doctors, teachers, etc.

the facts to be known

Modern technology has had enormous impact on the defense scene. The requirement to understand the complexities of the management of a continuous flow of new systems has created an entirely new atmosphere for the men and women who manage, operate, and maintain current systems. It certainly is not an atmosphere that lacks change. Thus the changing scene has thrust upon persons within the military—and in the MIC as well—the need to be adaptive as well as innovative. The static scene of a “Beetle Bailey” environment is an anachronism in the light of change. The very nature of the demands has a significant influence on the person selected, the kinds of peers he competes with, the continuous education he receives, and the advancement that comes to a person of ability. It is obvious to persons inside and outside the MIC that change in the complex is integral to its life at this stage in history. A maginot-line mentality is a guarantee of failure for the military as well as industrial support systems.

It seems to me that the time is more than past for persons of good will to stop scapegoating the MIC and start affirming the fact that our nation needs and demands cooperation among technology, management, industry, government, and the military to solve the problems of security and deterrence. There is not a MIC conspiracy; arguments as to secrecy have been exaggerated, and public information is available to the seeker; preparation is responsible and does not necessitate confrontation; spending is under control; profiteering is grossly exaggerated; countervailing forces do exist; and the labeling of the MIC as institutionally rigid is not accurate.

Our nation deserves the best from all its people. We need to assess myths, fictions, inaccuracies, proper proportions, facts, and realities of all segments of life, including the military-industrial complex. We need to examine our dreams and fantasies and know them for what they are. There is plenty of room for discussion and honest difference of opinion to choose among national priorities and concerns. There is not room for responsible persons of good will to dismiss the need for the MIC, to disregard the nature of men and nations, and to distrust a team effort whose service to the nation has been demonstrated in every period of our history.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

And seeing your such an Ike Fan

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1106/boot.php3

FOR A RETIRED Army general, Eisenhower pursued a remarkably misguided defense policy. Generations of liberals have celebrated his warning against the "military-industrial complex," but they ignore how he reduced defense expenditures: by cutting the size and readiness of costly conventional forces while expanding the relatively cheap nuclear arsenal in the expectation that threats of "massive retaliation" would solve all our defense needs. It didn't work out that way. The existence of U.S. nukes did nothing to avert the French defeat at Dien Bien Phu and the rise of a communist North Vietnam bent on conquering its southern neighbor.


Eisenhower was unfairly accused of presiding over bomber and missile "gaps" with the Soviet Union. What he really did was just as bad — he left the armed forces ill-prepared to fight non-nuclear wars, especially a counterinsurgency of the kind they would face in Vietnam. His infatuation with atomic power also led him to set up the "atoms for peace" program to promote the use of nuclear energy across the world. "No other U.S. policy, no commercial initiative, no theft of technology has done more to accelerate and expand the global spread of nuclear bombs," writes arms control expert Fred Ikle.


Don't get me wrong. There was much to like about Ike. He ended the Korean War and avoided potential conflicts with China and the Soviet Union. He built interstate highways and balanced the budget. But he was no profile in courage when he refused to stand up to the demagogic Joseph McCarthy or to do much to enforce the Supreme Court's Brown vs. Board of Education school integration decision. It was left to the Senate to end McCarthy's reign of terror, and to President Lyndon B. Johnson to desegregate schools.


In the final analysis, Eisenhower was a status quo president who ratified the successful policies of his gifted predecessors — the New Deal and containment. Maybe that's what the nation needed in the 1950s, but it's no reason to celebrate him as a "near great" president (his ranking in a 2005 survey of scholars). And don't get me started on his checkered record as a general.

 

[Makalakumu]

You dont understand what being a soldier is..thats obvious.

What don't I understand? Do I not understand what it's like to serve my country? Do I not understand the comradery that soldiers feel for each other? Do I not understand the "band of brothers" mentality all soldiers feel? Am I incapable of understanding the fact that many of the soldiers in Iraq went to Iraq, even though they disagreed with the war, for the simple reason that they wanted to do their part so that their buddies could come home safe?

I think you "misunderestimate" me.

Claiming that I don't understand these things is like claiming that I don't understand what its like to be human. We ALL understand this stuff. Some of us, however, are aware that these good intentions are being abused.

Let me tell you another story...

When my father was a child, his father would tell him that America was the greatest place on Earth and that, if the bugle sounded, it was God-given duty to serve this country...even die for it, because he owed every freedom he had to it.

This belief was strongly rooted in faith that proclaimed that our system was good, we were the good guys, and that we could trust the system. To people like my grandfather, at the time when my father was a child, there were certain untouchables...people in which whom you could implicitly trust above all else...and the President of the United States was one of them.

According to my Grandparents, during the late 50s and early 60s, there was alot of hope. Despite the fear of the Soviets, the thought that America was good and true and that it would prevail over everything predominated. This utopian faith was one of the grounding principles of those days. The fact that even blue collar average janes and joes like my grandparents shared it shows just how pervasive it was.

When Kennedy was assassinated, this belief began to face some challenges. Johnson took office. He told us of the "Gulf of Tonkin incident" and soon things escalated in Veitnam. At the same time, the civil rights movement really came to the forefront of everyone's minds. For the first time, it became commonly known that there was an entire class of people who had been disenfranchised from the utopian vision that was commonly held. Deep resounding cracks began to appear in the facade and the true divisions in our country reared their heads.

On top of all of this, Vietnam continued. Body bags and the atrocities of war were broadcast into the living rooms of the American people all across the country. People wondered what the hell we were fighting for. When the Pentagon Papers were leaked, the dirty secrets of the war became commonly known...including the lies that got us in the mess in the first place. This, combined with Watergate, eroded the "untouchable" image our Presidency and it caused many people in my parents and grandparents generation to question whether or not we could trust our government.

Thus, the decision to serve in the military, to abrogate your ability to distinguish the enemy and to trust that your leaders would use your good intentions in good faith, was eroded.

The "all volunteer" army was formed largely in response to all of this. People, as a group, couldn't be counted on to "answer the bugle's call" anymore. Thus, the government had to find people that would. The current model of our military functions largely because of its PR campaign. The ideal of serving your country and all of the good intentions behind that ideal have become a product that is sold to a certain segment of our population.

Thus we see exactly what Eisenhower predicted, humanity strapped to a cross of iron. The military industrial complex feeds on the good intentions of those who serve it. It warps the good that all humans want to do for each other and points it at whatever target our country's leaders desire.

You cannot trust these people to do what is good. And I think it is wrong to believe that just because your intention in serving is good that you will end up doing good. That is not at all self-evident.

 

[Makalakumu]

And seeing your such an Ike Fan

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1106/boot.php3

Have you watched the movie? It's interesting to see this POV, but just know that other POVs are out there.

BTW - I think that the inclusion of the interstate highway system in the Defense budget was a revolutionary way to think about actual defense of this country.

 

[Marginal]

And seeing your such an Ike Fan

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1106/boot.php3

So Ike sucked at the whole millitary thinggie because he didn't anticipate tons of US soldiers being tossed into a pointless meat-grinder?

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Dude..grandpa and his stories dont give you any more understanding about being a soldier than reading black belt magazine gives you clout to talk about being a ninja. Sell it elsewhere im not buying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-industrial_complex

The American television series The X-Files displayed a nameless conspiracy of the American government, dominated by the Military-industrial complex's sinister machinations. This conspiracy included everything from tobacco lobbyists to extraterrestrials. Not surprisingly, some conspiracy theorists felt the show was created to disenfranchise their distrust and hide the real conspiracy. In the third season episode of the series, "Jose Chung's 'From Outer Space'" series lead David Duchovny satirizes this reaction amongst conspiracy-thinkers when he calls a writer's search for the truth regarding a bizarre alien abduction as an effort made for "the military-industrial-entertainment complex." It was also the basis of the documentary "Why We Fight."

Funny how everything can be brought around to the x-files. Perhaps we should start a "6 degrees of separation from the x-files" contest for some of these Study threads?