Now that Al Gore's made such a huge impact with his movie, maybe the time is right to revisit Dwight Eisenhower's. "Why We Fight" isn't officially Eisenhower's movie, but Ike's words about the military-industrial complex form its foundation. And there are plenty of parallels between Ike's issue and Al's.
Like global warming, militarism threatens the planet. Like global warming, it shouldn't be a Democrat-vs-Republican issue. (Both parties have fed at the trough, and have filled it in return.) And in both cases, you can't beat having a spokesman who can honestly say that he was elected President of the United States.
Film maker Eugene Jarecki also heads something called The Eisenhower Project, which studies foreign and military policy, and some of the General's family members - who hardly look like subversive lefties to me - offer surprisingly trenchant commentary throughout the film. So call it Ike's "Inconvenient Truth."
I didn't see the film when it was in theatrical release, since it looked overly "talky" and I felt I pretty much knew what it had to say. I got a review copy of the upcoming DVD the other day, however, and was struck by how much it's actually increased in relevance since it came out last year.
The refusal to engage in serious diplomacy while we beat the drums for war with Iran ... avoiding direct negotiations while North Korea grows increasingly dangerous ... unwillingness to offer any plan for exiting Iraq ...voting down an investigation into war profiteering ... none of this happens out of context, as the film reminds us.
Why aren't we talking more about the social, economic, and political processes that generate ongoing war?
The Eisenhower theme is based on Ike's famous farewell speech, of course, where he coined the term "military/industrial complex." But, as the film reminds us, he went much further than just naming the problem. For example, he observed in another speech, that one missile costs "as much as a half-million bushels of wheat." (What Democrat would have the nerve to say that today?)
To hear or read the farewell speech today is to be staggered by how far American politics has come since then ... in the wrong direction. In it, Eisenhower made statements that would be considered unthinkable in American politics today, and they're unnervingly timely:
"Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties."
"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 ... In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes."
And you can't advocate the multilateral approach to the Middle East, or the use of diplomacy to resolve conflict, with better words than these:
"...this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect. Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield. Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative."
(Incidentally, this video clip is "inspired" by "Why We Fight" and blends Eisenhower's speech with ambient music. Does that make it a "mash-up"? First it's the Sex Pistols with Madonna, now this! Kids nowadays ...)
As for the movie, despite my fears I found it highly watchable, with some strong editing and a number of "keeper" moments. It's a good introduction to the military/industrial complex for the recalcitrant conservative in the family, too, if you can get him to sit through it.
Eisenhower's "co-star," a retired New York City cop, tells a moving story with a twist ending about losing his son on 9/11. Where Eisenhower provides advocacy, he provides emotion.
Lefty policy wonks will already be familiar with a lot of its information, as I was, but I found some nuggets. One example: although I've been struggling to defend the majority of the world's Muslims as reasonable and moderate, I didn't know that over 1,000,000 people marched to show solidarity with the US after 9/11 - in Teheran.
There's also some excellent debunking of the "pre-emption" doctrine, which is particularly timely given the current state of saber-rattling over Iran. And, just as I was getting annoyed by the face time they were giving John McCain (who talks a good game but always does his party's will in the end) ... well, I won't spoil the surprise for you ...
There's also an ongoing sub-theme about military recruiting, which includes Chalmers Johnson's trenchant observation that the "Army of One" campaign appeals to self-interest in order to recruit people for the ultimate exercise in self-sacrifice. (In fact, Johnson acquits himself admirably in the movie. In some ways, the profile of him in the DVD extras is as strong as the film itself.)
Karen Kwatkiowski's observations about the "Office of Special Plans," and the invasion of the Pentagon by ideologues from outside think tanks, isn't new information either - but it is powerful to watch on-screen.
There's a lot of good background in Iraq, Iran, oil, and the concept of "blowback." And the footage of Rumsfeld and Saddam is priceless. I've seen the photo ... even used it once or twice ... but nothing beats live action.
The film also led me to a number of other interesting resources, including the invaluable journalism project called "Making A Killing: The Business of War."
Overall, it's a great overview of the military-industrial complex that will add some good talking points to your next political argument.
"Why We Fight" isn't perfect. If you're going to use a word like "imperialist" in a film that bases so much of its credibility on Eisenhower's words, you'd better be prepared to explain exactly what you mean. The problem for me is that, like "fascist," over time the word has come to have more emotional resonance than clear meaning. The American Empire Project elaborates on the theme, but it would have been more effective either to just elaborate or leave the term alone.
And, being sound-oriented, I struggled with the soundtrack here and there. At times, the music's too loud, and the choices are sometimes less than inspired. At other times ... well, let's just say the topic of militarism doesn't put me in an "emo" or folkie mood. An angry teenager with a Fender and a stack of Marshalls would reflect my feelings a lot better.
But that's just me, and those are small objections. There's a lot of information to be gained from the film, and the topic's right on target.
Eisenhower and Gore: movie stars, breaking political taboos. I didn't see that one coming.
Related links:
Why We Fight
The Eisenhower Project: mail@TheEisenhowerProject.com
The Business Of War
Carnegie Endowment For International Peace
The Center for American Progress
The American Empire Project