Did the Bush Administration mislead the American public about the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Did the Administration imply — directly or indirectly — a connection between Iraq and 9/11?
Part VIII starts getting to the real heart of the issue.
Did the media perform its role adequately in the months before the war?
We create our own monsters, both in the realm of psychological fears and in the realm of international relations. Segment VII points out how we created Saddam Hussein, supported him, and were a friend until his invasion of Kuwait.
Hussein was a textbook example of blowback.
Part VII also introduces the concept of a fourth element of the military-industrial complex:
Kwiatkowski summarizes the problems of think tanks perfectly: People making policy who have zero accountability to the public. She then goes on to give a devastating insider view of the lead up to the war in Iraq.
Think tanks — good, bad, or neither?
Part VI begins to discuss the issue of “smart” weapons and just how smart they are.
Segment VI also introduces William Solomon, a New Yorker who enlists as a career move and looks at recruiting methods.
Quotes of the segment:
Was Sekzer’s earlier line of thinking too dangerous for the 21st century? Can we ever have that kind of trust in our leadership? Was it misplaced trust even 60 years ago?
Segment V goes into the core of how the military-industrial complex influences government. The B2 bomber has parts of it made in every state, Chalmers points out, so if someone every tries to cut that program, guess who’s going to protest. Every member of Congress. Indeed, an unnamed Representative goes so far as to say, “God bless our contractors.”
In short, part V shows the depth of the problem. And how worthy of impeachment Cheney is.
What do you think of Cheney and his career path?
Eisenhower was a five-star general, but he was not a gung-ho military man. When the reality of a permanent arms industry seemed inevitable, Eisenhower counted the cost of bombers in terms of school buildings and power plants. The Cold War, and the resulting military build-up, came at a cost of domestic spending, and Eisenhower not only recognized it but commented on it — and warned about the consequences.
Within the first minute of this fourth segment, you’re likely to develop a new respect for Eisenhower. By three minutes, once you’ve heard segments of Eisenhower’s farewell address, you’ll be wondering whether the man was not the world’s last true prophet.
Most disturbing, though, is the footage from the 2003 AUSA Defense Show. The footage from KBR’s booth is absolutely terrifying.
Most striking are McCain’s words: “President Eisenhower was worried about the military-industrial complex. His words, unfortunately, have come true.”
The question of why we fight continues. Kwiatkowski contends, “If you went downtown and asked five different people, ‘Why do we fight?’ you’d get five different answers.” And then we hear from, curiously, four people.
Part three introduces Wilton Sekzer’s idea for what to do in the memory of his son. His idea dates to the Second World War, but I’m not sure what Sekzer thought such an action would do. I think it adds legitimacy to the notion that Sekzer was a normal Joe Blow who initially supported the war.
Part three introduces one of the most intriguing voices in the documentary: that of Anh Duong, who fled Saigon in 1976 and helped develop the bunker buster bomb.
A clip from Bush: Iraq continues to “support terror.” The linking of 9/11 to Iraq in the minds of the American people begins.
Most notably, McCain raises the question of when the United States’ use of force changes from a force for good to a force for imperialism.
The fall of the Soviet Union provided the opportunity to solidify America’s world influence into an empire, Chalmers Johnson argues in part two. “We are the new Rome.”
Part two introduces a number of critical voices in the documentary.
The segment ends with interviews of civilians, discussing one question: “What are we fighting for.” Some of the answers are frightening.
Why are we fighting? What’s your view?
Frank Capra directed a series of seven propaganda films for the United States government giving the reasons for our involvement in World War II. Filled with national stereotypes and glaring omissions of historical fact (i.e., no mention made of the Soviet Union’s attack on Poland; it’s presented as if the Soviet Union came to Poland’s aid), the films were intended to make Americans more committed to the long war that lay in front of them.
In 2005, Eugene Jarecki made a documentary with the same title. This time, it took a critical look at America’s war machine.
It’s available on YouTube, and should be required watching for all. And so, in doing my part to spread the word, I’m going to embed the video here. Call it civic duty, call it padding your posts — it’s good viewing, bottom line. And hopefully we’ll get some debate going here.
Part one covers 9/11 and the resulting questions: “Who did this?” and “Why do they hate us?” It turns out, the government already “knew” the answer to the first question, and it was more than thrilled with the second question, because it is not an analytical question. It’s an emotional question.
If you’re captivated by the first part, you’ll probably want to watch the others in quick succession. I’ll be posting them here daily, so if you watch them all before they get embedded here and something gets your thinking/ranting, don’t forget to come back here to share. Better yet, just wait until tomorrow!
A key figure in the documentary is Wilton Sekzer, a retired New York police officer whose son was killed during the World Trade Center attacks. Why We Fight is, in part, the story of how his view of the war in Iraq evolved. This first part simply introduces the man and his personal tragedy of 9/11.
Chalmers Johnson, professor emeritus of the University of California, San Diego, introduces the concept of blowback in this portion of the documentary. Blowback is defined as “the unintended consequences of foreign operations that were deliberately kept secret from the American public, so that when the retaliation comes, the American public is not able to put it in context, to put cause and effect together.”
Under his name, when Johnson is first introduced is, “CIA, 1967-1973.” This leads one to believe that Johnson was a CIA operative — possibly even a high-ranking official. Someone really in the know. However, the best non-Wikipedia information I can find is that Johnson was “a consultant to the CIA” (source).
Does a consultant deserve the vague title/label “CIA” in a documentary? I’m not sure he does. Still, Johnson makes some striking points.
At the heart of the documentary is Eisenhower’s farewell address — perhaps the most prophetic speech ever given by a politician. In part I we only see an edited version of one portion of the speech. Th
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience.
Indeed — the Second World War required a mobilization of the whole citizenry of the United States that we literally have never seen since. Each and every American had to sacrifice in order to create the machinery necessary to defeat the Axis powers.
Now, we have it ready-made, like boxes of dry-goods at a wholesaler.
Also notable in the documentary is the appearance of John McCain. During the first portion, he says little of any surprise: America is the greatest force of good in the United States and we should be spreading democracy around the world. Standard conservative position. Later in the documentary, though, he shows how he earned his reputation among conservatives as a maverick.
Lastly, lest anyone blow this off as a liberal smear of the United States military, be advised: Bill Kristol, Richard Perle, and John McCain make substantial contributions to the debate.
Thoughts?
Is Obama an enlightened being? / Spiritual wise ones say: This sure ain’t no ordinary politician. You buying it?
Is Obama an enlightened being?
