Why We Fight

In class we watched the film, "Why We Fight", a documentary on the "military-industrial complex" so famously mentioned in President Eisenhower's farewell address in 1961. Unfortunately, I was not able to view the entire movie, as I was taken out of class early to by another teacher to talk about an upcoming event. Therefore, I can only comment and critique the small portion of the film that I actually saw.

Based on what I witnessed, "Why We Fight" is not a film that I would use as a template for my documentary. It relied almost exclusively upon emotional arguments, "experts" whose credentials were only vaguely described, or omitted entirely, misleading or unverified information, "interviews" obviously edited to suit the filmmaker's purposes, and shock imagery. Clearly the creators of this film subscribe to the same film making philosophy as Michael Moore and his ilk.

Although this style of "documentary" can be very effective in achieving its objectives, I find the methods it uses to do so immoral and offensive. I believe that a film should persuade not through catering to the lowest common denominators of its audience, namely ignorance, fear, and gullibility, but instead by appealing to the viewer's sense of logic reason, and self interest. I will attempt to put these ideals into practice in my documentary by relying heavily on statistics, credible experts, and logical arguments.

Although I cannot decry the brutish tactics used by this film in strong enough language, I probably agree with much of its message. It is our government's close relationship with the private sector than ensures that our military best armed and armored armed forces in the world, and that enables us to maintain the technological supremacy over our adversaries that we have enjoyed and befitted from for so long. The research and equipment provided to our military has saved countless lives throughout the years, both those of civilians and our fine soldiers. Clearly we owe much to the military industrial complex, as it has rendered us a service that cannot be overestimated. However, there is a limit to what these corporations can and should be able to provide us with. The arms industry must be viewed as exactly that, a collection of businesses that provide our armed forces with the equipment they need; it is not a foreign policy think tank, or a congressional committee, or any sort of expert in the field of geopolitics, and this is a lesson we ignore at our own peril. It is only when this distinction is blurred that the military industrial complex poses any sort of threat to our country's self interest. Ultimately, it is up to government officials to ensure that the roles of this valuable relationship are clearly defined and enforced (through independent thought, not regulation), the government pursuing U.S. interests abroad, while the arms industry produces the equipment vital to the defense of our nation.