Hiding behind patriotism and the American ideals imbedded within our society such as freedom and liberty, the government has been able to carry out their neocolonial agenda by manipulating public opinion of war. This is done to disguise the intention of warfare as well as the consequences such as human and economic losses through several means including deliberately withholding information, fabricating facts, and controlling media representations of war. These actions effectively endanger true democracy because of the manufactured consent of the American public, in the favor of warfare, obtained through them. The film, Why We Fight, examines the history of fairly recent wars involving the United States and the military industrial complex as it relates.
“While nothing seems more deliberate and calculated as the decision to go to war, there have been cases where societies find themselves at war for mysterious reasons. (Worrell 2011:1)” It has been proven that the US government has lied on several occasions to gain consent from its people. The highly controversial Vietnam War is one such case that is outlined in the film. It was announced by the president that Vietnam launched an unprovoked attack, dubbed the “Gulf of Tonkin incident” on ships stationed on the Vietnam coastline (Jarecki 2005). War was declared in retaliation. Eventually, the truth was revealed that there was no attack (Jarecki 2005). The backlash from the Vietnam War is a large part of the reason war presentation in media was changed and restricted. The film introduces a new ‘sub-branch’ of the government involving ‘think-tanks’ that research and form political strategy that find ways to gain consent (Jarecki 2005). They accomplish this by misrepresenting facts and limiting access to information. In the specific case of the Vietnam War, the government was not able to hide enough information from the public and they were allowed to see the more gruesome details of war which led to mass protesting (Jarecki, 2005). This alone shows that war and killing is not an innate feature of human beings and supports Worrel’s assertion that war is a “social, not natural phenomenon.” (Worrell 2005).
Mark P. Worrell, in Why Nations go to War argues that proxy wars are one of the ways that warfare is disguised as an agent for democracy. Proxy wars occur when two or more core nations join in on either side of two conflicting parties of another nation for control of the fighting nation (Worrell 2011). The side supported by our government is presented as the side for democracy and against dictatorship, communism, the degradation of women, etc. On the surface this seems a noble task, but underneath we see that proxy wars are not about freedom at all. Sides are carefully selected based on a number of factors including control of valuable resources and compliancy of the leaders (or the degree of indirect political control the U.S. will be able to exercise over a nation). This is basic neocolonialism. By involving ourselves in proxy wars such as Iraq, we can control other nations, station military camps under the guise of ‘protection’ and force their hand on issues that benefit us such as restrictions on the oil supply. The American public was presented the war on Iraq as a “war on terrorism” after the 9/11 attack of the Twin Towers. The media expounded on the false immediate danger of nuclear weaponry to inspire fear when in reality, the attack on the towers had nothing to do with Iraqi or its former president, Sadaam Hussein other than the fact that he refused to follow the wishes of the U.S. and was deemed dangerous.
Another underlying intent of war is that, “War is business and war is profitable” which increases government willingness to support war (Worrell 2011:51). Profits are usually expected to increase as post-war economic booms as seen in the past. President Eisenhower, in his exit speech warned the U.S. public of the dangers of the military industrial complex. Any time there is a widespread need for weapons, supplies, food, and clothing; this benefits the corporations responsible for producing them. Mass destruction from war brings the need for bricks, wood, tools, glass, etc. The possibilities are plentiful for the products needed to invade a country, engage in warfare and then rebuild a society. Our nation operates around capitalism which requires growth and the constant acquisition of land, people, and resources. What better way to accomplish this than war? Consequently, America is always in a state of preparation and involvement in warfare (Worrell, 2). As Worrel states, the U.S. has been in a constant state of war since 1934. He describes this as a permanence of conflict that has become the ‘norm’ for our country (Worrell.
The relationship between corporations and politics is one that needs to be examined. The film points out that the system is corrupted because corporate interests and political interests are interwoven to the point where government officials and corporate heads are the same people (Jarecki 2005). “The two cannot be seen clearly as two distinct worlds” (Jarecki 2005). An example is with the case of Vice President Dick Cheney who was formerly connected to a company called Halliburton (Jarecki 2005). It is rumored that he drew contracts with the country to support the military that were misused to draw extra funds from the government (Jarecki 2005). It is clear that the line between corporations and politics is blurred and some of the decisions made concerning war are extremely biased.
Patriotism and nationalism are integral parts of media SPIN as it concerns war. Worrel, writes, “…being a ‘patriot’ has become synonymous with blind obedience” (2011:46). Patriotism dictates that you support your nation and it’s ideals at all costs. Speaking up against the government or ‘questioning’ is seen as unpatriotic. The accompanying idea of nationalism emphasizes the idea of “Us vs. them” that creates a divide between peoples and the construction of the ‘other’. “The ‘other’ is a foreigner, immigrant, or stranger” (Eisenstein 1996:180). Otherness is usually constructed through physical differences that fuel racism (Eisenstein 1996:180. For our purposes here, the other is not necessarily concerned with the physical, but rather the geological, political, and even cultural differences that our media exploits to justify the “…subordination of our opponents” (Rothenburg 2006:168). This paints the picture of the opposing nation as evil and a threat to our society or in some cases, oppressed and in need of our help with social reconstruction. Ex-marine Tyler Boudreau writes, “There’s always a lot of talk about developing hatred when it comes to war. You’ve got to hate them before you can kill them” (Boudreau 2008:75)
As a nation, we are constantly asserting our dominance and superiority over others hailing democracy as our champion. However, war conflicts with democracy. It not only involves endangering the political sovereignty of the opposing nation, but ours as well. Making an uninformed decision about war is comparable to having no decision at all. You are unable to make an accurate assessment of the costs and benefits of a situation without a clear understanding of the history, facts, and potential risks. There are moral concerns about not having informed consent when it involves personal health. Why is it then that the same allowances are not made for the public when thousands of lives hang in the balance due to the threat of war?
The consequences of war are high. Human losses as well as financial losses are largely unknown to the public. According to a study done at Brown University, war is not only a one time expense. It has lasting consequences, mainly in the care of veterans involving injuries, therapy, education, and pensions (CWP 2011). Specifically, the Iraqi/Afghanistan war was researched. Human losses from both sides, are priceless and cannot be monetarily quantified. They total 339,282(CWP 2011). This is not including indirect deaths from injuries or environmental destruction. It is important to note that the media only reported the American losses (6,786) which were significantly lower than the opposition and gives a skewed version of the larger picture (CWP 2011). As of 2008, the U.S. spends more on it’s military than every other nation combined(Worrell 2005). The current costs of the war terror is aproaching on 4 trillion dollars and should grow with time (CWP 2011). However, these are not the only consequences of war. There is the physical and mental health of the soldiers to concern ourselves with as well as the ever growing anti-American sentiment spreading across the globe.
The film concludes with a powerful answer to the ever present question of why we fight. “Because too many people are not standing up saying I’m not doing this anymore.” (Jarecki 2005). If media SPIN, think tanks, proxy wars and the general manipulation disguising war for what it truly is, neocolonialism with the purpose of fueling capitalism, was not put into place by our government, then perhaps the American people would make different decisions and catalyze change. When faced with the reality of war which includes astronomical financial and human loss and suffering, many would agree that the costs are just too high. It has been said that ignorance is bliss, but we as a nation have a responsibility to inform ourselves to the best of our ability, question, organize and protect true democracy and choices.
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]