Why We Fight (2005) User Reviews

More successful than Fahrenheit 911

[philiplott · 9/10 · 1 February 2005]

This is truly a remarkable film. In its subtlety, and its poetry it outshines "..9/11". While Moore's film remains an extraordinary piece of work - the criticisms could be spun by the right as a 'liberal rant' - largely due to Moore's obvious, and justified frustration.

Why we Fight presents a lyrical and devastatingly haunting portrait of a system that has failed the west - specifically America - time and time again in a repeating cycle. The narrative carefully builds an historical context for the present administration's actions, and unfolds a story of how Americans, even the most staunch supporters of Bush's policies, have gradually learnt that they've been lied to, lied about and then lied to again as the administration is called on to answer for their lies.

With extraordinary research, and some incredible interview contributors, the facts are again repeated - indeed, they gain, perhaps even greater impact because of the historical context - and the warnings of past leaders.

It is above all a film which at once makes you terribly sad - and frustrated. But the surprise - for me at least - was that my anger became levelled not so much at the arrogance of our governments, and those in the positions of power - but at the stupefying inaction of the voting public.

I need only direct you to another of the 'reviews' of this film to underline just how poisoned the populous is, and just how stupid people have allowed themselves to become.

-------- The director spoke at Sundance about how he consciously prevented this breathtaking documentary from being screened before the election in 04 - largely because he felt the message of the film is not partisan, and not about a particular administration - but it is about the system. My only frustration about this is that I can only imagine what the snowballing effects of this film might have been had it been allowed to swiftly follow 'Fahrenheit 911'.

thought provoking

[ApocalypseLater · 9/10 · 9 February 2006]

The negative reviews of this film seem to center around "those arrogant, hypocritical Europeans." If any of these reviewers had done their research, they would know that Jarecki is a New Yorker. Just because the film takes a firm stance against America's militarism does not mean that Mr. Jarecki is European.

Why We Fight is a superb complement to Errol Morris' Oscar-winning Fog of War. Morris took indirect shots at George Bush II by showing a Lyndon Johnson speech referring to Vietnam as "a war against tyranny and aggression." In that speech, Johnson also reiterated, "We won't leave until the job is finished." Sound familiar?

Jarecki picks up where Morris left off, more directly highlighting the similarities between Vietnam and the present conflict in Iraq. There are most certainly differences, but the parallels cannot and MUST NOT be ignored if the American people are to have any hope of learning from our government's past and present missteps. Most significantly, Jarecki shows how each conflict was escalated through a lie (Gulf of Tonkin/WMD) and nonsensical pro-freedom rhetoric from the government and the media.

Unlike Michael Moore's poorly constructed Farenheit 9/11, Jarecki does not limit the scope of the film to simplistic Bush team bashing. That's not to say this is absent from the film; Jarecki is obviously anti-Bush and left-leaning. However, he successfully illustrates how all of our elected representatives, Republicans and Democrats, are influenced by the Industrial-Military Complex.

You cannot fight a war against an abstraction (i.e. War on Terror, War on Communism, War on Drugs, War on Crime, et al). People are the true targets of wars. Declaring war without officially declaring it and abusing words like freedom and liberty are just ways of dehumanizing the conflict, and if we dehumanize war, we will never stop fighting.

This is a film that everyone in America should see, and if it is truly so enraging to the right-wingers, I would challenge them to make a comparable documentary defending the Iraq War. I would gladly watch it to see their side of the coin.

"We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." - James Madison

"The Department of Defense is a behemoth...With an annual budget larger than the gross domestic product of Russia, it is an empire." - The 9/11 Commission Report

Very interesting and revealing, but not complete

[ulfdahlen · 9/10 · 2 August 2005]

As a European I've wondered about America's preoccupation with war and military. Most Europeans oppose military solutions, even when there's a good case for it, probably because of our history of many, many bloody wars.

This movie explains the historic, financial and political reasons for America's enormous military spending (but I'm still left wondering why the people of USA want it).

Eisenhower's farewell speech was very insightful. I had no idea he had seen the dangers already 40 years ago. Using this speech as the base, the filmmaker looks at how the military-industrial establishment has grown to enormous proportions. The military is a part of American society in a way completely different from most European countries.

I would like to see a sequel to this movie, dealing more with American society, perhaps contrasting it with some other big countries (England, France, Germany).

A framework of understanding: Why We Fight compared to Fahrenheit 9/11

[david-2011 · 10/10 · 22 January 2006]

I was disappointed with Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11. As someone with deep concerns about American foreign policy specifically and the direction of American culture and discourse generally, I thought that movie generated more heat than light. It did not spark conversation; it extinguished it. Yeah, I think Bush and his cronies are doing indelible harm to America, but I felt like I was being asked to swallow large gulps of rhetorical kool-aid and endorse a somewhat histrionic script in order to appreciate what Moore was saying. It turned off a lot of other people too -- people who might have been able to come away with some new perspective on current political dynamics, but for a tone befitting Fox news (in reverse) were unable to see past the Bush-bashing.

Why We Fight is everything that F9/11 is not. Where F911 told, WWF explains. Where F911 ridicules, WWF allows items of fact speak for themselves. Why We Fight makes the assumption that its audience is educated and capable of examining multiple facets of an issue without resorting to unnecessarily polar characterizations of people or ideas. Just to be clear: WWF's take on these issues is unmistakable, but if F911 is a declaration, WWF is fundamentally a question.

Why We Fight asks its audience to consider Eisenhower's presidential farewell address, and amount of it he devoted to warning against the rise of the "military-industrial complex," coining a new phrase.

"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society." (1961)

Viewers of Why We Fight are consistently returned to this warning as they are reminded of the last fifty years of American military conflicts.

We are introduced to an ex-NYPD cop, Vietnam vet and father of a 9/11 victim who wants revenge on the bastards who killed his son. We meet an Air Force Lt. Colonel who resigned her post in intelligence at the Pentagon when political urgencies began to warp and distort her work of 20 years. The pilots who dropped the first bombs on Baghdad in 2003 talk about their mission. We hear commentary from think-tankers Bill Kristol and Richard Perle, and candid reservations about American military power from Senator John McCain. All have something valuable to say about the conflict in which the United States is engaged.

Fundamentally Why We Fight asks questions of involvement and influence: who are the players, what are their interests, and what are the stakes? It's not about one man, a group of men, or a political party. There are no conspiracy theories; merely a serious question. How much military might is necessary? Given the amount of money spent on defense, the number of jobs the industry provides, the numbers of congressmen in office due to contracts being brought home to their constituents, should we be concerned how the business of war drives the politics for war? Are the needs of a defense corporation different than those of humans? Who is in control, and how much power should they have?

On the surface, the movie is about how we got into Iraq. Deeper, it is asking what the future holds: American military supremacy? For how long? How long did the English or the French or the Soviets hold on to their hegemonies? Just how did we get from Iranians, Jordanians and Frenchmen proclaiming "we are all Americans" in the days following 9/11, to being seen around the globe as the single biggest threat to peace in the world? Can we ever get back?

Richard Perle makes a statement I found chilling largely because I find it hard to disagree. He says something to the effect of, "people think that you can just elect a new man to office, and everything will change. It's already a different world. We have already changed." The degree of truth of that statement is worthy of debate, and that's why I wholeheartedly recommend this movie.

A compelling overview of American militarism

[gracie28 · 10/10 · 12 April 2005]

The best film on the subject we've seen. Comprehensive, sweeping, factual; it covers many points of view but it is always the facts that rivet us and help us understand. "Why We Fight" clearly explains the reasons, starting with World War II right up to Iraq. The film features many luminaries, including the two US pilots who launched the first bomb strike on Baghdad, Senator John McCain, retired CIA experts, pentagon experts and ordinary citizens. The cinematography is first rate. The archival footage is rare and choice. The clips from Dwight D. Eisenhower are relevant and compelling. Highly recommended. Make sure you see this movie either in theaters or on DVD when it becomes available. It may still be playing on HBO. Worth going out of your way for this documentary.

Fair and Balanced

[chuckhmptn · 10/10 · 13 February 2006]

I'm as put off by liberals who see only from the perspective of the left as I am by conservatives who see only from the right, so I didn't much enjoy Michael Moore's films. This film however, is not about bashing anyone. This film illustrates how money influences politics, and that is bad for America no matter if you are Republican, Democrat or other. True patriots don't wrap themselves in the flag, they ask hard questions. This film does just that.

And what answers do we find? We find that Eisenhower, a military man of all people, was very scared that having this much power and money invested in a standing army and a huge profit driven industry supporting it, would haunt future Americans.

The film then sets out to show, very convincingly, that we have indeed been involved in conflicts we should not been involved in, and did so for all the wrong reasons. One of the films most important moments is when it shows Bush on tape stating that we did not go into Iraq for reasons related to 9/11. Most American citizens, completely buffaloed by Fox News Channel (when they can be pulled away from watching sports), are completely oblivious to this fact.

Excellent direction and comprehensive arguments

[seancondon · 10/10 · 26 March 2005]

Even if you don't agree with the sentiment of the movie, you have to admit that this is directed with great energy and pace. While Michael Moore touches the surface of it and Kevin Costner's JFK hinted at it, this documentary drives home the message (through facts) that it is the military-industrial-congress-think tanks complex that is driving not only US foreign policy, but a large part of the economy. One of the most memorable moments I got from this documentary was Richead Perle's conclusion that no-one should expect this situation to change - this is how things are, and they're not going back. Overall it is the most complete picture of US Foreign Policy I have seen.

very powerful, keeps from choosing sides

[Happyslayer_B13 · 31 January 2005]

I am a 15 year old boarding school student from Utah, and i came down to see this movie on it's last showing in Sundance. This movie provided an amazing account of the reasons the US acts as global mediator. it was a long movie, but it kept my attention for the whole time. This film has to potential to change peoples opinions on war, more than anything even Michael Moore could have thought up. Kudos to you for the awesome documentary. Here is the spoiler part: The film emphasized a speech by president Eisenhower warning the people of the spread of the American Industrial Complex. Why We Fight, related this speech to the spread of American Industrialism. It also talked about past decision towards imperialism.

Splintered

[flat6 · 6/10 · 14 February 2006]

"Why We Fight" is about America's involvement in recent wars. While the scope of this documentary aims for a broad view of all of the (many) conflicts of past 50 or so years, the focus does fall upon the most recent Iraq war.

The reader will want to know what this 6/10 review is doing amidst all these gushing 10/10's. Am I delusional? Do I really believe the US has selflessly acted in all these wars, bringing happiness and freedom to {insert indigenous population here}? No, I'm certainly not that naive. The most recent Iraq conflict was a botched, misguided effort; as, arguably, most of America's post-WWII involvements have also been. Thus, the obvious question becomes: why does America keep getting involved in these things? This is what "Why We Fight" tries to answer.

The problem with this documentary is that there is no compelling, cohesive answer that is given. We hear from a vast collection of people, all with varied theories on why we're involved. The viewpoints presented are on everything from God-given-mandate-to-spread-freedom, to imperialist-ambitions-to-single-handedly-rule-the-world, to capitalist-corporate-greed-lobbying, to unaccountable-think-tank-policies, to we-need-the-oil, to defense-industry-creates-jobs, to manipulation-of-media-and-public, etc., etc.. Feel lost yet? Well, that's what this documentary is like: disappointingly lost. It raises many individual points - each of which could, if further explored, arguably be valid and interesting - but quickly leaves a point to go on a completely separate tangent.

After its 100 minutes are up, the film leaves you with these little disconnected ideas, each presented through teasing but none-too-conclusive sound bites. You'll walk away with a vague suspicion that something is indeed amiss in America's reasoning for waging war. But of course, any thinking citizen probably had that suspicion to begin with; the job of this documentary was to clarify, present a clear logical explanation to answer our suspicions. It fails to do this. That's unfortunate, since the question of "Why We Fight" is very valid, and very important; someone should make a solid documentary answering it. While this movie does a better, more responsible job than Fahrenheit 9/11 at exploring the issues, it still comes up way, way short.

A documentary all Americans should watch

[FredDavies · 10/10 · 31 March 2005]

Despite obvious comparison with Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11this is not a gonzo bit of egotistic movie making with a big cuddly shambolic star doing stunts. This is a serious piece of research and reporting of the highest standard. Instead of the meaningless Bushite mantra of 'freedom; freedom; freedom' it pinpoints the historical dimension of the Iraq war and the ideological manipulation and monetary and political interests of the military industrial complex that has landed USA into the hand of crypto Fascists who hide the truth from the people who instead are fed 'bread and circuses' by the culture industry. However Jarecki includes key neocons like Richard Perle and great clips of Rumsfeld schmoozing with Saddam Hussein – our ally against Iran to whom US sold his wmd. Jarecki also includes a fascinating story of a Vietnam vet who backs the war because it was against Al Qaidia but falls apart as he watches Bush shuffle sheepishly away from that. It was been premièred at the Sundance film festival where it won the Grand Jury prize for documentary. But I doubt any of the US mass media which colludes with the military industrial complex as part of the 'national security state' will allow it to be shown. But we have had it shown In British TV.

A Thoughtful Long Term View of US Military Policy Tends to Be Drowned Out Amidst Rhetoric

[noralee · 7/10 · 2 March 2006]

About half of "Why We Fight" covers very similar ground, even with comparable personalizing techniques, as "Fahrenheit 9/11".

Writer/director Eugene Jarecki's unique contribution is taking the long-term view of American military policy. Unfortunately, his clarion points tend to get lost amidst the obvious agit-prop, where capitalism is presented as the antithesis of democracy.

The most powerful elements of the film are the prescient speech and analysis of the point of view of President and General Eisenhower. As one interviewee notes, we are all familiar with his coining of the term "the military-industrial complex" but had not seen more of the speech nor how he followed that up with additional warnings. This film also puts his views in biographical context, through interviews with family and historians, that emphasize how his military experience colored his policy views (an indirect cut at the non-veteran Bushies and neo-cons). Other historical elements are presented with little complexity, such as Truman's reasoning behind dropping the bombs. I would have liked to have seen more excerpts from the Frank Capra and Walt Disney World War II propaganda films, but those have probably been included in other documentaries over the years.

Jarecki well integrates international television footage of the war in Iraq that U.S. audiences have not seen before, particularly of civilian casualties. While the footage is presented completely uncritically, it does very effectively contradict the Bushies and the military. However, many of the criticisms of the excuses and bravado for the war have been already widely aired, and more adroitly presented, including nightly on "The Daily Show". And Jarecki doesn't even include the fall of Colin Powell's credibility in his criticisms. There is only a frisson that the current mess is blowback from European colonialism in the region for centuries.

Another strong element of the film is showing how Congress has become integral to the effective functioning of this force like a third leg on a stool, with the giant contractors parsing out their work by Congressional district. The visits to their trade shows, though, come across like the gun shows Michael Moore visited in "Bowling for Columbine", just with scarier fire power. The financial analysis of the industries involved is nowhere near the sophisticated level of "Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room".

Adding in the Beltway Think Tanks as some new element just comes across as naive - the Brookings Institution was for years considered the font of Democratic policy, and staffed the JFK and LBJ administrations, so now it's really just the neo-cons' turn after using their experience in the desert usefully. Jarecki, unfortunately, doesn't even explain the targeted funding by the conservative foundations such as the Scaifes that was crucial to this organized approach by providing operating support to general conservative outposts while the liberals frittered away their efforts through splintered project funding to dozens of specially focused groups. In general, right wingers are not given equal time with the liberals, as they are mostly represented by Irving Kristol.

Like Moore in "Fahrenheit 9/11", Jarecki hones in on a grieving parent, here a retired cop/Viet Nam vet whose son was killed in the World Trade Center. There is a very similar angle on military recruitment, though we do get to understand one teen's decision more individually than Moore provided. It's just a cheap shot to have the running insertions of little kids and folks in All American mise en scenes answering the titular question.

Robert Miller's score is very effective, especially as it's used to under gird some of the interviews.

The film will be as effective viewed on TV/DVD/video as in a theater.

Go See This Film!

[gsmed · 10/10 · 21 January 2006]

As a viewer of this movie at the premier last year in Park City, I was deeply impacted about the truth and objective reporting that this movie tries to portray about our country and the logical (and historical) progression that lead us to war. When Jarecki was asked in PC why he did not release the film during the election, he steadfastly stated that the film was not about Bush bashing, but was about trying to show the American public how democracy works, (both pro and con). I do not usually get worked up about a film or politics, but after viewing this film a year ago, I have talked about it continuously and it's lessons to all who are willing to listen. I steadfastly believe that this film should be shown in the classroom to educate, and perhaps forewarn our youth about being vigilant of our sometimes overreaching capitalistic tendencies. This is coming from an individual who has enjoyed the bounties of capitalism, but got a wakeup call. GO SEE THIS FILM!

question too big

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 15 August 2016]

Filmmaker Eugene Jarecki tackles a big question. It takes the name from Frank Capra's propaganda series "Why We Fight". It uses Dwight D. Eisenhower's Military Industrial Complex speech as the launching point culminating in the George W. Bush's Iraq War. It looks at the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war, the concept of blow back, and Dick Cheney's Halliburton military contracts.

The question may be too big. A smaller question of "Why We Fight in Iraq?" is a better option. This is a movie with a lot of talking heads. Some are more compelling than others. Some of them make very broad assertions that are dubious. One guy claims that Japan was ready to surrender but Truman deliberately dropped the bomb to threaten the Russians. There are other claims that are broadly true but lacks the nuance of a real discussion. This is a documentary with a left wing view point and may be fittingly named after a WWII propaganda series. It's also not much in terms of investigative reporting. It's a retread of plenty of anti-war material.

Some truth... but still propaganda

[JanieLee · 1/10 · 11 May 2006]

I have problems with this film because of the half truth and clear agenda of the movie. Gore Vidal said the Japanes wanted to surrender before the dropping of the A bombs during WWII. It was President Truman who went ahead with it to demonstrate Americas power to the USSR. The truth was some Japanese civilians wanted peace but the military commanders did not. It wasn't until the combined effort of two A bombs and the invasion of Manchuria(by the USSR) that the Japanes military finally gave up(and some still wanted to continue). I have studied history from the Japanese side of the war and feel I know something about this subject. My point is if the film can't even get this right how factual is the rest of it? Did Bush sell the American public the war in Iraq? Yes, but this selling of wars has been going for a long time...the Spanish-American war, Mexican-American war, the Indian wars all long before the evil military industrial complex showed up. Had the film been 100% truthful it could have been something to build on. Is the military industrial complex something to worry about? Yes, but the film turned into a Bush bash and America is an evil empire campaign! I was hoping to find out more about the military industrial complex, but instead was treated to the story about the VP and Halaburton. I know about this, its old news. Then they had to show dead civilian Iraqis to create more anti-Bush and anti-American feelings. Never did they show dead Iraqi soldiers, or blown up Iraqi tanks or aircraft not one. Propaganda works best when you take the truth, twist it, ignore some of it and invent the rest. Why we fight? For the truth!

Great! Recommended!

[hx0ar · 10/10 · 20 July 2005]

For all those interested in understanding a little better the motives behind wars in the last 60 years (at minimum), this movie will show you different points of view about "why we fight" (the original title of a US military propaganda of the past). In the meantime, you'll also see a lot of facts (yes, unquestionable facts) backing up the presumption yielded at the last minutes... that Capitalism is winning over Democracy. Patriotism, Militarism, Corruption, False democracy, Lies, etc, etc. We are used to those. This time, the topic is the military-industrial complex, something even a Republican (Dwight Eisenhower) warned about.

Eisenhower was right!

[bobzmcishl · 10/10 · 23 December 2006]

Unfortunately, we don't seem to have leaders today of Eisenhower's caliber - we are being led by a bunch of lightweights, who got us into an unnecessary war that would have appalled Ike. The movie starts of with the Eisenhower farewell address which is the centerpiece of the story that follows - we have allowed the military industrial complex that Ike warned about to play a major role in starting many of the wars this country has been involved with - and we wonder today why the U.S. is so universally disliked around the world. What is interesting is that Eisenower originally intended in his speech to talk about the military-industrial-congressional complex, but at the last minute left out the congressional part, because he did not want to antagonize Congress at the time. The documentary does an excellent job of using archival footage coupled with personal interviews of famous and not so famous subject matter experts who were intimately involved with events that have transpired since Ike left office. Of particular interest are the comments by a former Air Force female officer who worked in the Pentagon to develop the neocon talking points for Rumsfeld and others to justify our attacking Iraq. This is by far one of the best historical documentaries made about a subject that is not talked about enough. If you want to understand why the country can't afford health care and affordable housing or fixing Katrina - watch this movie.

Profound engaging political documentary

[donboyd2004 · 10/10 · 28 January 2006]

This film, like its brilliant counterpart The Fog of War is a great and important documentary. Not only has its director paid the respect all documentary filmmakers must do to their audiences, engage them in territory they need to understand, but he has provided stories, characters and insights for his viewers in arena that they are inevitably unfamiliar with - an extraordinary feat considering the likely handicaps that Jarecki must have had when he started his mission. Not the least the he was opening up a can of worms within a notoriously protected and secret environment: the American war machine. Anybody who has any interest at all in US politics must see this film and any curious viewer who wants to have their eyes out on storks for a couple of hours must see this rigorous and profound documentary. Produced with the BBC and its great commissioning editor Nick Fraser, (Jarecki's collaborator on an earlier film about Henry Kissinger), this deserving Sundance winner proves that articulate, powerful political expression is alive and well in the United States. Hooray!

All Americans Should See This

[ljensen-2 · 10/10 · 16 February 2006]

I'm producing an independent film in similar vein, from a different perspective, but if I had had the production team to produce THIS film, I would have.

Regardless of your politics, this film is well worth watching and discussing afterwords. Factually, it's right on.

I worked as a security analyst for the U.S. Navy for 12 years, ending in 2003, and this film tells is like it is; it does so in a comprehensive and interest-keeping way (given the short 1 1/2 hours a film has).

Weaving a historical perspective with contemporary stories made for a well-rounded documentary - it was brilliant, and it fills in the missing links in making sense of our current "Long War". It's brilliance was most evident in how it even-handed it really was. It's not an overt political film, or bipartisan in nature. The interviews are with principle players, not just commentary, and the footage takes us to the places where the action happens - as a great documentary will do.

See this movie, buy this movie, show this movie.

A good film with a poor understanding of history and the current state of the world

[Dr_feelgood_6_9 · 7/10 · 21 February 2006]

This film was well made researched and put together, No doubt about that, It is a much better film than any or Mr Moores, and does a good job of reminding people about the dangers of letting military spending and influence get out of control. It also allows for some different views from different people. So for that it should be commended.

"Why we fight" however is the type of movie that when watched by people with little understanding of they history of The Roman Empire, The Second World War, The Soviet Union (which this movie somewhat suggests wasn't a threat), The Dynamics of the Cold war and The current Russian-Sino relationship and the way they develop and sell weapons leads to that Mr. Moore undergraduate hysteria which isn't a good thing by any means. The film also plays on peoples very poor understanding of the relationship between Sadam Hussein the United States.

The biggest mistake that this film makes is its very poor understanding or unwillingness to show the actual success of American Military Technology. They show the failure to of missile strikes to hit their targets. Which is untrue. The weapons do in fact hit the location where they are supposed to. The targets where the higher ups in the Sadam regime, who where often where not in these buildings. These people know the tactics of the USAF and their precision. They therefore use high-risk targets as bomb shelters for civilians to erode support for America and its allies. It happened during the 1st Gulf War and it happened during this one. Omission of this and extending blame only to the USAF is once again shows the lack of willingness of the filmmakers to tell the whole story.

The film is ripe with very shallow reasoning such as this explained above. Towards the end of the film you see a young boy behind bars. Sadams Regime imprisoned that person but we are lead to believe by the sequence of events that he is subject of brutality by America. The film pulls tricks like these time after time and it hurts credibility.

The film makes good points about the dangers of the MIC but misses the context of the times we live in. The Cold War put America in the position to make Luke warm relationships with people they didn't like ("I wish there was a way they could both lose" comments made about the Iran Iraq war). The might of the world's biggest military is now being used to clean up this mess. Russian, France, China, other countries with their hands equally covered in blood during interventions in during the cold war gulf war etc, do very little to clean up the mess made by all of us.

The hospitals schools and social programs of Europe where all paid for by American defence spending holding back the Bear of the Soviet Union, freeing up Europe's budgets for social spending. The world is and will be safer with a free Iraq, a disarmed Libya and a marginalized North Korea. Iran will only understand the strength of America not the EU. The Massive Regan era build up which brought the Soviet Union to its knees all of these if looked at through the eyes of this of movie would been seen as foolish expeditions in imperialism.

The movie goes out to try to make a good statement about the dangers of imperialism and the connection between the Military Industrial Complex connected to it but instead gets caught in the same anti-Bush anti-American trap that confuses the symbolism of what America does and the parallels between that and other empires with the reality of the world today. Watch this movie no matter who you are you'll enjoy and learn some things. Don't just watch this movie to form an opinion though.

why we fight..and fight and fight..

[pookey56 · 10/10 · 5 January 2007]

i watched this superlative documentary months ago and am surprised i didn't write a review, which is more like a letter of gratitude. There are no spoilers here. just accolades from a grateful viewer. this montage of famed politicians, historians, people of courage and amazing intelligence is enough to recommend this documentary, if only to see a piece of history put together in such brilliant fashion, and with such a clear, unabridged message. There isn't any preaching, finger wagging, lecturing...none of that. Only pure, clear-minded analysis on an aspect of human nature which we need to expose, and understand. Hind sight is easy. Seeing the future path becoming wider is a different matter. humanity needs more films like this one. It has a way of exonerating our blackest characteristics, not by making excuses, but by making it clear that the Why of fighting is understood. If we can disseminate, expose, and understand, we can stop. kudos to Eugene Jarecki.

Japan "tried to surrender all summer?"

[moore2772 · 7/10 · 7 March 2006]

I was astounded to see Gore Vidal claiming that the Empire of Japan "had been trying to surrender all summer" before the A-bombs were dropped- that the only reason we dropped them was to scare the Soviets. 1. The Japanese home islands were never going to surrender without a long and overwhelmingly bloody invasion. Indeed, despite the Emperor's eventual decision to surrender (and only after TWO atom bombs), there was an attempt within the military to take over and continue fighting. 2. The cold war had not even started yet. The Soviets and we were trying to finish the war against Japan. We encouraged the Soviets to be more aggressive in the Pacific Theater.

If there is evidence to the contrary, I'd like to see it.

Mostly I liked the film and thought it pretty well balanced. But I'm not certain the audience can always accurately determine fact from opinion, the way it was presented.

The name says it all

[turdburgher · 9/10 · 19 October 2006]

Usually documentaries tend to make me grit my teeth and sit down ready to be overwhelmed with facts, preached at, and generally bored. This movie was a welcome relief in terms of those fears, and an eye-opener in terms of learning "Why we Fight".

I think my favourite line is the one by Eisenhower when he says that every dollar spent on weapons is thus not spent on starving children, constituting a crime against humanity.

This movie really lays out in a rational way exactly what the motivation for the continuous wars being waged by the US and the lobbyists that hold sway.

If you are curious as to who is pulling the strings, then this movie should answer a lot of questions.

It's easy to watch and overall an excellent movie.

How the politics of defense contractors pushes us to endless war.

[rexae · 3 March 2006]

If you vote, if you pay taxes, if you care about what kind of world your children will grow up in, you need to see this movie to see where they are going. More education than entertainment, this is a fascinating illumination of the world of lobbyists, the military, and government officials like former Representative "Duke" Cunningham and the impact they have on the lives of ordinary people. Weaves together the stories of many different lives to illustrate the scope and reach of the military-industrial complex warned of by Dwight Eisenhower. These stories and these views are something that you will rarely see in the mainstream corporate media, so catch it while you have this opportunity. Change begins with knowledge. Get it!

Still looking for the question to be answered

[jchory · 6/10 · 1 April 2006]

This is not "a movie every American should see!" You'll be OK if you miss it. It is not a documentary, but a commentary. If you go, you will find both sides of the issue presented "equally", but be prepared - the side the movie makers were on is a lot "more equal" than the other side.

It is never hard to take a slice of life showing suffering from any conflict and use it to make a case against war. There is no political cause in the world for which I would sacrifice my children - yet this doesn't disprove the need for a nation to fight. I remain unpersuaded that the only reason our country ever fights is because no one will stand up and object.

Interesting yet sadly incomplete

[backseat-2 · 5/10 · 18 February 2006]

I saw "Why We Fight" in a small theater in a largely liberal town, and most of the others in the place were chuckling with self congratulation whenever one of the interviewed faces said something about how bad the United States was or how the government and the military-industrial complex had turned our land into an evil place.

I was disgusted with these people, since they seemed to be so thrilled at being made to look right in their own viewpoints that the implication of the downfall of the good old USA in the bargain did not temper their laughter.

I found myself thinking, "This is actually a pretty well done movie, but....". What are those 'buts'? For one thing, the film cannot really be called a true documentary, since it is almost exclusively made up of personal opinions without backup - people say things with a straight face and authoritative voices, but how qualified are they and how accurate are their assertions? Few actual facts are presented and what remains amounts to little more than a parade of opinions. Another thing, I got the impression that many of these people on the screen had more complex ideas and understanding of the issues than what ended up after editing. Is the result an accurate portrayal or is it biased, accidentally or deliberately? The movie does not say and the viewer is left without an answer to the question posed by the film's title.

If the film maker's intention was to simply ask a question and present an overview of the many reasons that might qualify as answers, then I would say that it is a job well done. If the intention was to tell the viewer what the answer is, then it fails miserably.

I think in truth the reasons why the USA goes to war are as numerous as the stars in the sky. Some reasons are noble, some understandable, some self-serving, and some very regrettable. Few are evil, although I have little doubt that at least some of our leaders and public servants, past and present, ARE evil. And, most of our targets in these wars are even more evil (Nazis, dictators, war lords, etc), but this film never really addresses the possibility that good reasons figure into the mix in any significant way. And that is where this film really fails us.