Movie Review

Directed by Eugene Jarecki, 139 minutes, 2006.

Even for Canadians, this is a sobering documentary about US involvement in war since the end of WWll. It begins with Dwight Eisenhower's farewell speech as US President in 1960. In that speech he used the term "military-Industrial complex" for the first time. He warned of the effect on US society of the intimate connection between those who produce the machines of war and those who decide to go to war. He was more prescient than he thought!

Since that time, observers have extended the notion of "complex" to embrace a "military-industrial-Congress-complex since the producers of arms and materiel are present in every political riding in the US. The political success of every Senator and State Representative in the country is tied to jobs. Elected officials move easily and often from the Congress to boards of these companies. The role of "think tanks" in the development of policy is identified as a fourth complex. Thus, policy, procurement and implementation are 'outsourced' from government to the private sector where only market forces are heeded and large, very large amounts of money are to be made in the business of war.

This is not all 'conspiracy theory' by outsiders, for a number of CIA and military insiders are interviewed. There is a series of touching interviews with a retired NYPD officer and Viet Nam veteran (Wilton Sekzer). He lost a son in the World Trade centre bombing and he is initially driven by notions of patriotism and a desire for revenge to support the invasion of Iraq. He has even made a request to the US army that one of its bombs be engraved with his son's name (granted). His initial enthusiasm turns to disillusionment, betrayal and disbelief as it is admitted that not only were no WMDs found, they knew they weren't there!

The question "Why do we fight" is asked throughout the movie and the consistent answer from both adults and children is "for freedom". A more provocative reply is offered by a retired lieutenant colonel that left the intelligence corps when think tank operatives overruled solid intelligence that WMD and evidence of 'fissionable material' were not present in Iraq.

Her answer, "Not enough people ask questions". Throughout, the weak and captive role of the Fifth Estate in the US 'war on terror' is heartily criticized. The notion of a Just War and the criteria for waging one are increasingly on the public mind and more attention is paid to this by public officials. These ancient criteria, first itemized by St Augustine in the 5th century are:

1. Just Cause; e.g. stopping 'ethnic cleansing'
2. Decision by a competent authority; e.g. not a military adventure by the generals
3. Right Intention; e.g. not a land grab under the guise of 'protecting civilians'

Over time, such criteria have been reinterpreted and applied in various difficult circumstances and "hard" and "soft" interpretations have developed. The so called "soft" interpretation is characterized by:

• a strongly articulated horror of war
• a strong resumption against war
• a skepticism about government claims
• the use of Just War Criteria for citizens' discernment
• generally trusting international treaties and bodies (UN etc.)

The so called "hard" interpretation, on the other hand, tends to reverse these approaches and is characterized by:

• a presumption against injustice and disorder instead of against war
• an assumption that war is tragic but inevitable in a fallen world
• a tendency to trust government and its claim to need military action
• Just War Criteria are used as a tool for policy makers and military, not citizens
• a distrust of international perspectives

While this is a US made film and focuses on US war making it raises important issues for Canadians as we try to establish independent policies and identity as a peaceful (though, let's face it, less powerful) nation. Surprisingly, a 1700 year old doctrine, articulated by Augustine has become very relevant to our daily lives and one that merits more people asking more questions