Why we fight
DIRECTOR INTERVIEW
EUGENE JARECKI
Thursday 3 March 2005
bbc
Eugene Jarecki's previous film The
Trials of Henry Kissinger was widely acclaimed and won the 2002 Amnesty
International Award. He spoke to us from
BBC Four: What was the spark for such an ambitious film?
Eugene Jarecki: It really followed on from the experience we had
making The Trials of Henry Kissinger. That film came out in about 130
BBC Four: Did the film become bigger in scope than you initially imagined?
EJ: I didn't expect
it to be this ambitious when we started out. I knew we were making something
called Why We Fight, and I knew I was going to try to look deep at the heart of
BBC Four: The two characters that stand out for me are
Wilton Sekzer, the former
EJ: All of the characters in the film undergo journeys in their understanding. The more I learn about systems and how they internally appear unchangeable, the more you look to people to bring about change.
The only way that happens is that the understanding of the
people themselves changes. If a viewer can see a man on screen, like
Wilton Sekzer, retired NY cop and turns in another direction, that's the kind of learning I think everyone should seek. It inspires one to remember that there is the prospect for change.
Anh
Duong on the other side is someone, who having been a refugee from
BBC Four: How did you tackle the structure of the film when you started editing?
EJ: The challenge was to have the past haunt the present and make sure the stories carry the viewer on a real journey. I guess what I do is to make the scenery of the journey the historical context itself. For example, to understand Wilton's story, a retired cop who lost his son on 9/11, you have to understand his role as a helicopter door gunner in Vietnam, and then when you are with him in Vietnam you start to understand the context of government deception of how the United States got launched into the Vietnam War and the lies told by President Johnson about the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Then along the edges you've got people weighing in who are thoughtful about the subject in a discourse that's meant to be a debate. It's not meant to present one side of the argument but really to give many shades of the story so the audience can find their own way as the journey unfolds.
BBC Four: There isn't an obvious villain of the piece, but I wonder if it's the US Congress?
EJ: One of the things that the film focuses on is the extraordinary prophesy issued by Dwight D Eisenhower in his last moments as president. He warned the American public of this "military-industrial complex" - a confluence of power that he saw as a threat to democracy itself. The film asks to what extent have the military-industrial interests, once a by-product of policy, come to define the policy itself? Eisenhower's children told me that the president's warning had not originally been worded "military-industrial complex". The original formulation was "military-industrial-congressional complex". That was dropped from the final draft, but it represents the fullness of his concern - that only with the collusion of members of Congress could the apparatus of the defence sector grow to wag the dog.
At this point in American history Congress is silent. It is supposed be the part of government that protects the weak from the strong but Congress is very much on the payroll of the strong. One thing to recognise
for a British audience, and I think it's crucial, is that if an American turns on the television and watches Prime Minister's Questions, it's a demonstration of accountability that we do not have in the United States. You will never see an American politician open to questions at the level that Tony Blair is
Frank Capra's Why We Fight during that hour each Wednesday.
Whatever British people might think about their own government,
that is a massive leap toward democracy compared to what we have here.
Also, the MPs in the House of Commons, by and large, appear to be socially and
economically, not poor, but not enormously wealthy people. If you look at the
members of Congress and the Senate, you are often looking at
multi-millionaires. Their lives are inextricably interwoven with the life of
the financial elite in
BBC Four: It's interesting that a man like Eisenhower, a World War II general and early Cold War warrior, was himself so concerned.
EJ: Eisenhower seemed a key figure for me because as a military person he was a balanced man and had what turns out to have been a very holistic and thorough understanding of what he was doing. But it wasn't lost on me that he was an almost pioneering actor in American covert action throughout the world, he was responsible for a number of the steps that led to the Vietnam War, and certainly he had his share of serious engagements. But it does in its own perverse way give him a certain credibility to come and say, "Hey - even a guy like me has got to think twice about this. I can't slow this machine down and if I can't no one can". But I would say a society is far gone into militarism when it looks to its militarists to be the critics of the military!
BBC Four: You ask members of the public, "Why do we fight?" Were the replies what you expected?
EJ: No. We must have asked about 150 people all over the country that and other questions. For over 120 of the people, their very first word was "freedom". It's fine that people do want to feel that that's what we are fighting for, but you have to ask yourself what kind of open society are we living in with that consistency of response. I think it's a knee-jerk reaction. If you were living in a state-controlled society how would it be any different? I trust people, I just think that the powerful media that we have is incredibly manipulative. It's unprecedented.
BBC Four: There are a lot of big documentaries around at the moment. Are there any you'd pick to be on a double bill with?
EJ: In a sense I'd want to double bill the film with a competent piece of testimony that is very much opposed to what is in my film, but it's hard for me to say. Basically you want to go dancing afterwards, internalise it and let off steam after seeing it. Either that or picket in the street. But I think the movies in the past bunch of years that I've been most taken by are those that were not afraid of treating their audience respectfully. I think that's what's very special about Adam Curtis' films [Century of the Self, The Power of Nightmares]. He obviously has a very high regard for the attention span and intellect of his viewer. He doesn't pull any punches about that and I think that's great. The essayist style that is unafraid to be opinionated is exactly where documentaries are carrying the torch that was once carried by journalists. I think it's a great time to be working in documentary and help promote the kind of discourse I am interested in seeing.
Why We Fight is the title of a series of propaganda films that Frank Capra began making in 1942, with the aim of encouraging the American war effort against Nazism. Director Eugene Jarecki (The Trials of Henry Kissinger) has used the films as a commentary on the contemporary obsession of the American elite with military power.
He also harks back to a speech by President Eisenhower, who,
just before he left office, referred to the "military-industrial
complex". Eisenhower was worried that too much intelligence, and too much
business acumen in
Since Eisenhower's time, everything has become much worse,
as Eugene Jarecki describes it. The war in
Is American foreign policy dominated by the idea of military supremacy? Has the military become too important in American life? Jarecki's shrewd and intelligent polemic would seem to give an affirmative answer to each of these questions.
Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961
Public Papers of the Presidents, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960, p. 1035- 1040
My fellow Americans:
Three days from now, after half a century in the service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor.
This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.
Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.
Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on issues of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the Nation.
My own relations with the Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and, finally, to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years.
In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the national good rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the Nation should go forward. So, my official relationship with the Congress ends in a feeling, on my part, of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.
II.
We now stand ten
years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among
great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these
holocausts
III.
Throughout
Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology -- global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger is poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle -- with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.
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. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.
But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs -- balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage -- balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.
The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of stress and threat. But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. I mention two only.
IV.
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
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
Until the latest of
our world conflicts, the
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.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial 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. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present
and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.
V.
Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.
VI.
Down the long lane of
the history yet to be written
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. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war -- as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years -- I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.
Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.
VII.
So -- in this my last good night to you as your President -- I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and peace. I trust that in that service you find some things worthy; as for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.
You and I -- my fellow citizens -- need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nation's great goals.
To all the peoples of
the world, I once more give expression to
We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.
Charles Ommanney / Getty Images for Newsweek