After all the hype surrounding Eugene Jarecki's new film, "Why We Fight," one might think that it would finally offer a definitive explanation, thereby putting all of us I.R. majors out of work. The fact that such a feat is impossible, however, doesn't stop critics like Entertainment Weekly's Owen Gleiberman from defying "anyone not to be staggered by it."
Most informed citizens will not react so enthusiastically, but that doesn't keep "Why We Fight" from remaining an important cinematic work. Like most scholarly documentaries, it skillfully weaves together a series of interviews, focusing on leading experts such as John McCain, Richard Perle and Gore Vidal. Though these interviews are far from shocking, they do raise serious questions and offer a multitude of perspectives on a controversial subject. We can never know exactly "Why We Fight," but the film clears up a great deal of confusion about how the people in Washington view militarism.
Borrowing its title from the World War II American propaganda film, "Why We Fight" shows that the question is no longer as easily answerable as it was back then. The film begins at a pivotal moment in the history of American militarism: a speech from President Eisenhower, warning against the dangerous implications of maintaining a military industrial complex. As more recent footage quickly shows, this cautious attitude towards militarization has more or less disappeared from the thoughts of today's policymakers.
In contrast to Eisenhower, Dick Cheney was quoted in 1992 saying that America needs to assume the role of a "new Rome" (failing to mention Rome's not-so-glorious later years). The positive and negative implications of maintaining that role is the focal point of the experts' views on American militarism. These implications hint at an answer to the actual question of why we fight.
The most unique and scholarly aspect of "Why We Fight" explores the conflicting cost-benefit analyses of four influences on policy: citizens, lawmakers, corporations, and think tanks. The negative influence of corporations on foreign policy may be old news, but it is quite interesting to trace the transformation of people's attitudes towards the topic over the years.
The film argues that people have a higher level of trust in policymakers with respect to war, and that this has led to an increasing willingness to utilize America's superpower status to intervene in weaker nations. Although one might call it an oversimplification, one of the film's most shocking and memorable moments is when it presents a map that shows the progression of every country that the U.S. has invaded in the last 60 years.
The film's lack of any sort of unifying narration hinders its ability to maintain the audience's attention as it flows from one interview to the next. This leaves room for "Why We Fight" to become the sort of unbiased, comprehensive analysis that some films - such as Michael Moore's - on similar subject matter have failed to achieve.
The downside of having such a fast-paced, comprehensive analysis of a limited topic is that, at times, the film seems to struggle to reach a typical 90-minute running time; it resorts to redundancy or the assumption of minimal prior knowledge on the part of the audience.
For example, only the most naive Americans have taken the hysteria surrounding the question of why most of the Middle East hates the American way of life at face value; one must only look ten or fifteen years in the past to find examples of America's foreign policy provoking resentment to its involvement overseas. "Why We Fight" makes the point, though, that for some reason the issue still needs clarification: a large portion of the population is living in what one speaker calls the "United States of Amnesia."
Here at Tufts it may be difficult to suppose that many people believe the oversimplified sound bites coming from Washington. We students will likely learn something, therefore, from the film's exploration of the opinions of a grieving former New York City policeman who lost his son on Sept. 11, 2001.
Speaking emotionally, he explains that if President Bush says that Iraqis were behind the attacks on that day, we should go after them and bring them to justice without hesitation. This attitude motivated him to request that his son's name be written on one of the bombs dropped in the opening air strikes against Baghdad.
The film later shows the man's reaction when President Bush finally admits that there was no evidence that Iraq was directly involved in the attacks on Sept. 11. The man's response cannot be described in words; it is a testament to the necessity of having a critical attitude towards aggressive foreign policy decisions, however convincing the arguments in favor may be.
This man's convincing final revelation, which echoes the first words of the film, represents what makes "Why We Fight" such a success. Although the film starts out with no obvious political agenda, the audience is left with the impression of a nonpartisan but critical look at the status quo.
One can only hope that "Why We Fight" gets the attention it deserves, and that viewers will take steps toward overcoming their alleged state of amnesia.
