may this be the cause:
http://www.sonyclassics.com/whywefight/
from the documentary “Why we fight”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_We_Fight_%282005_film%29
Is this the fundamental reason behind USAs wars?
Your link doesn’t work for me. This should do the trick!
I found the movie itself well made; certainly something the average voter should sit down and watch some time, since they won’t open a history book of any sort. In my view the military-industrial complex is probably a large component in all of our modern wars but it’s not the only reason. There’s plenty of room for ideology, grounded in reality or not.
No, it’s one of many factors.
It is in the nature of those who cannot grasp complex issues and human frailties and mistakes to seek out a single unifying explanation.
The reasons for “USAs wars” are the same as for any other nation’s involvement in war - security concerns, containing aggression, protecting/seeking economic advantages and so on.
Narrowing down blame to a single class - industrialists or semi-secret societies for example - is comforting to the conspiracy mongerers, but inadequate to explain why wars persist.
As von Clausewitz said, war is politics by another means. Militarily meddling in the affairs of other nations is simply an outgrowth of our foreign policy. If we cannot achieve something diplomatically, and we want it bad enough, then we must fight for it.
A History of American Wars We have been very busy. Read Eisenhowers farewell speech about the dangers of the militay-industrial complex and how war serves their ends. It is unpatriotic to question the wealth war brings to some.
First thing I thought of. It’s available here.
Yes, the movie’s spring board seems to be Eisenhower’s speech. Again, I heartily recommend it – the people interviewed are moving and fascinating, especially the NYPD officer who lost his son on 9/11.
Seconded. And rent The Fog of War while you’re at it.
The Eisenhower argument has every part of a robust and persuasive argument. I see no reason to discount if in favour of a more complicated explanation, as though complexity were a virtue itself.
We have in created in our miklitary industrial complex, the worlds biggest hammer and so every problem resembles a nail.
Except that’s not Eisenhower’s argument. All Eisenhower is doing, with the “millitary-industrial comples” line is saying that, now, for the first time, we have an armaments industry, and need to balance the needs of that industry with the needs of the nation. But Eisenhower isn’t saying that’s why we go to war. He’s saying we go to war because “we face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method”.
I got the impression Eisenhower was also objecting to the “he’s soft on defense!” meme that was being widely used as a general political attack. His stance was that the U.S. already had an “awesome” military and trying to gain political points by saying you were willing to spend more than your opponent for something that was already effective and expensive was ridiculous. Being a military man himself, I’m sure he understood that just throwing more money at an obstacle didn’t gain you anything.
The modern equivalent is to hint someone is encouraging terrorism. Of course he isn’t, but the accusation is both slimy and sticky and virtually impossible to refute because it has no substance.
That’s not entirely true, although that accusation could be credibly levied against the current Administration. The pere Bush government was far more balanced between diplomacy and warfare, and under Clinton the military “option” became the recourse of last resort even when possibly justified. (Whether this is good or bad depends on your viewpoint of how far the United States should go in preventing internal bloodshed and promoting U.S. interests abroad; Clinton himself has acknowledged some failures to act, and is also quite rightly celebrated for some diplomatic successes.)
Oh, and before you all start tossing out interpretations of Eisenhower’s famous “Military Industrial Complex” farewell speech, perhaps you should read the text of it, to wit:*Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
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 military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
…
**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 scientific technological 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.*Ike is clearly warning of the danger of allowing the “military industrial complex” to influence and overarch policy decisions that should be the domain of the public at large, i.e. to engage in foreign conflicts, allocate funding to military development, and otherwise engage in activities that benefit the combined interests of the military establishment and defense contractors.
The insidious think about the “military industrial complex” is its prosaicness. It’s not a bunch of overstuffed white guys smoking cigars and speaking in low tones around a darkened conference table; it’s a commercial industry that provides jobs hundreds of thousands of workers, gives economic and educational opportunities to low income and disadvantaged young adults, and creates technological offshoots (computers, the Internet, telecommunications, trauma medicine) that impact every part of society. Massively reducing the “military industrial complex” wouldn’t just leave the United States without a military capability, but would have vast, detrimental regional and national economic impacts. In a sense, a real reason for maintaining a military and military development programs is because they create high paid, skilled jobs, often in areas that would not otherwise have such good paying occupations; hence, why an important part of the process of proposing and selecting a contractor to work on a particular system is how well they can spread the money around to a variety of Congressional districts.
Of course, when you have a tool, you want to use it, and look for a reason to do so, lest it (and your skill with using it) become rusty. I doubt the Spanish Armada spent much time sitting around in port, and certainly the famed British Navy sailed the high seas in time of peace and war. When there were no French ships of the line to combat, or Spanish galleons to take as prize, they searched for pirates and protected (and expanded) the grasp of the Empire abroad. American military might in the post-WWII environment has been a significant asset in the foreign relations arsenal (speaking metaphorically and otherwise) and as such has seen action even when none was, in retrospect, required. Johnson’s chaffing to widen the Vietnam Conflict (and failing to understand that the Vietnamese, far from being good Communist brethren of the Russians or the Chinese, regarded any and all incursions onto their land as yet another attempt at colonialization and repression) provided its own justification to expand and utilize the U.S. military, to the detriment of everyone involved.
That being said, one of the eras of greatest military spending and weapons development–during Ronald Reagan’s tenure–saw an extended period of the least actual combat by U.S. armed forces since WWII. Save for a handful of paltry engagements and a couple of laughably minor invasions that couldn’t justify a short story by Tom Clancy, peace (albeit, under the constant threat of nuclear war) was rampant as far as the U.S. military was concerned. For the military and defense contractors, preparing for war is far more profitable and cost effective than actually going to war.
Stranger
Americans not only have a history of solving foreign policy problems with military action, but internal disputes are often surprisingly bloody as well.
I’ve always been wondering about the sacrosanct emphasis placed by educators and historians on the War of Independence: “We were unjustly oppressed and had to fight for our rights”. This is hammered into every young American. I believe it promotes a climate of aggressive feistiness as opposed to less violent means of solving problems.
My opinion. Most other nations and cultures are similar, but the U.S. particularly stands out because of the disparity between what they claim to stand for (justice, liberty, etc) and what they do (bullying and sending in the gunboats).
Of course, of course. Other nations are always up front about aggression for political/economic gain, while the U.S. commits forces to Somalia and Kosovo out of naked self-interest but pretends humanitarian motives.
I always thought that the lesson of the struggle for American independence was to treasure freedom and the sacrifices made to ensure it. But the scales on mine eyes have been lifted. :dubious:
I kinda liked Reagan. Sure the tax cuts after the 1986 ACT were all counterproductive but other than that, I don’t find a whole lot of fault with him.
I would like to respond to this, but America are in war, and I must go bomb and strafe something to protect my stock portfolio.