Politics concepts and applications

Politics

The central theme of the movie "Lord of war" and the documentary "The fog of war: eleven lessons from the life of Robert S. McNamara," is human nature during war and the need for power in general, and over other countries.

The documentary "Fog of War," directed by Errol Morris, evolves around a very controversial man, Robert McNamara, secretary of Defense in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, who subsequently became president of the World Bank. The documentary combines an interview with McNamara with archival footage, documents, and an original score by Philip Glass.

McNamara discusses his experiences and shares some lessons he learned during his tenure as secretary of defense. He talks about his work as a bombing statistician during World War II, his presidency at Ford Motor Company and the Kennedy administration's triumph during the Cuban Missile Crisis. On the other hand the documentary focuses primarily on his failures in Vietnam. The main themes of the movie are his "eleven lessons" learned during his time. Some of these include: understanding the enemy, accepting that in order to do good it is necessary to engage in evil and the fight to try to change human nature will always be unsuccessfully.

The movie "Lord of War" focuses on a character (inspired from reality) called Yuri Orlov who lives in little Odessa, and on how he gradually becomes a gun dealer, from selling guns to the villains in his neighborhood to selling firearms in different points of the world. He becomes a very rich and important gun dealer, closing business with an African leader, who likes to call himself warlord, and his psychotic son. The movie also describes the relationship between Yuri and his beautiful wife and his brother. Orlov is chased by a federal agent and in the end he seems very torn between his family and his job. He is fascinated by success but he is rather cold when analyzing how moral or immoral his "job" is.

Both, the documentary "Fog of War" and the movie "Lord of War" are inspired from real events, the stories presented by the two different characters, happened sometime in the history. The theme of war is presented in both movies, and in the end there is the grim accomplishment that the urge to kill is the earliest feature of men and war can not be stopped. The movies are a study of the moral complexities of war and those who fight it.

The term military-industrial complex refers to the United States, and it was used in the farewell address of president Dwight D. Eisenhower. The military-industrial complex is also called the "iron triangle" and describes a secret agreement among defense contractors (industry), the Pentagon (military force) and the congress, the United States government. This unity works against the public interests and its motivation is to take advantage. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/military_industrial_complex)

Military-industrial complex is a symbiotic relationship between a nation's armed forces, its private industry in association with political and commercial interests. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/military_industrial_complex)

President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned the Americans in his farewell address about the fact that, although there is a certain need for the development of a military establishment and the arm industry, the American nation must not fail to comprehend its grave implications; "the total influence economic - political, even spiritual - is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/military_industrial_complex).And thus the Americans must protect themselves against "unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex." Power can be misplaced and this could have a disastrous effect. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/military_industrial_complex)

According to Wikipedia free encyclopedia in the penultimate draft of the address, Eisenhower initially used the term military-industrial- congressional complex, indicating the essential role that the U.S. Congress plays in the propagation of the military industry.

Taking into consideration what former president Eisenhower, after a lifetime experience in military actions said, the lesson underlined is that the leaders of a country will not always search for the best interest of the people that inhabit it, but their own interest, and anybody can be easily influenced by other forces. Looking for ones' well fair is a natural human trait, and this might be an excuse for the people that work in the government who have other hidden business than promote peace. In the future people will do more to obtain peace than governments do, "people want peace so much that one of these days' governments had better get out of the way and let them have it" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenhower).

Errol Morris documentary and Andrew Niccol's movie are dealing with the subject of power, somehow everything is reduced to power or to who has greater power. The moment somebody has the power he becomes "blind," and there is the risk of not knowing where and in which way to focus on it and this, as Mr. Eisenhower warned, might lead to destruction.

Also, the films talked about how the military industry is the one that gives power to a nation over other nations. Not insignificant" gun dealers like Yuri Orlov, who are in search to arm as many people as possible in order to get rich, are the real issue. The real world's leading arms dealers are the five permanent members of the UN Security Council the U.S., UK, France, Russia and China. Orlov proclaims that U.S. government is a much bigger supplier of arms than him, "they sell in a day more than me in one year" and some of Yuri's customers are useful to foreign policy: "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Orlov opened Valentine's eyes (the cop who was eager to put Yuri in jail) telling him that if he was eventually put on trial, that would certainly bring to surface some embarrassing revelations. Thus Yuri is in the end released and his character is viewed as a necessary evil for U.S..

Morris's personage, Robert McNamara, seems to have been looking at the destruction of war and what it does to the human soul and the viewers are left with the sense of a man who has come a long way. While his lessons reduce to "the end justifies the means" his conclusion is clear that the U.S. should never invade another country without the support of its friends and allies. He says: "we are the strongest nation in the world today... And I do not believe we should ever apply that economic, political or military power unilaterally. If we'd followed that rule in Vietnam, we wouldn't have been there. None of our allies supported us. If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better re-examine our reasoning."

While recognizing his own role, McNamara is stating sorrow for what war has elaborated, he never apologizes and he advances his message for the future by making it universal: admitting mankind has a problem with violence and stating that he was doing the best he could.

The most important moment of the documentary is when McNamara speaks about mankind never learning from history. Although, there are some moments when he is more optimistic and gives the world some credit. The next important scene is the one when the ex-secretary of defense gets to meet a general from the Vietnamese army, one of McNamara's adversaries from 30 years ago. It becomes clear that McNamara is not eager to accept much responsibility for his actions during the Vietnam War and he tries to describe himself as a "simple" employee," working for the president. Instead he does admit the United States were wrong in misjudging the nature of Vietnam and its history, wrong about assessing on the ground intelligence and wrong in not securing support from nations' traditions and values similar to the American ones. In the end, the ex-secretary of defense is not ready to answer questions about personal guilt. It is clear that during the past events he has been influenced in his decisions by other major forces (like General LeMay who was certain that bombing Tokyo during, World war II, was the right thing to do, otherwise both he and McNamara would have been regarded as war criminals) and that any unsuitable questions will put him in difficulty. When he didn't criticize the Vietnam War after he left the Johnson administration, he let the audience speculate, hinting only that he had information that the viewer didn't have.

Lord of war" is another movie that focuses on some of the problems encountered in the society, and it gives basic figures through Nicholas Cage's character as well as looking at various sequences of corruption that show that no matter what you try to do, money talks, and in firearms dealing, it seems to yell. Yuri justifies his business transactions the same way as a man who runs a diner - claiming that it is a basic human function, that people will always kill each other, and while that happens why not make a dollar out of it?

Both movies are a character's confessions. Yuri Orlov and Robert McNamara are not trying to tell the audience they are sorry for their past actions, not at all trying to ask anybody for forgiveness. They are only trying to justify their actions; they are handing excuses, telling the events as they happened. And in the end maybe these characters do find an excuse, the one that they are both human, bound to fail and to be influenced, sharing the same planet and dealing with the same kind of people. The two personages enjoyed having power and realized in the end that having power doesn't necessary make them omniscient.

Both Robert McNamara and Yuri Orlov had the lives of numerous people in their hands. Maybe these characters felt the need to retell all their stories, in order to let all the demons trapped inside their conscious out.

The characters presented in the two movies were able to depict the laws and needs of man and rose above law; they become a sort of demigod. In Yuri's case this was shown during his tramping across west Africa where armed men were unable to kill him and the hyenas confront him (these animals treat him as one of their own, as a matter of speaking the hyenas and Yuri "feed themselves with dead bodies"). Yuri declared: "I felt cursed with invincibility." Yuri was trapped in his own personal hell.

Andrew's Niccol's "Lord of War" ends, and the world goes on revolving. The echoes of Yuri's voice "evil prevails," is chilling. Such are the words of the ex-secretary of defense when he admits that the world came very close to nuclear destruction: "in the end we lucked out..."

It's not our war, and no matter what we do we can't stop it," taking Yuri's words in consideration, the difference between him and the ex-secretary of defense becomes clear. While Yuri is a "simple" man who wants to get rich, secure financially his family and realizing in the process that he is really good in dealing firearms, so he can not simply give up his "job," Robert McNamara is no longer such a simple character. He was nothing but insignificant. Having the status of secretary of defense, in other words being somewhere in the top, belonging to the leadership of a nation, makes that person very important in the eyes of the people inhabiting the country and also to the entire world (especially when being part of one of the most important leaderships in the world). McNamara was part of the ministry of defense, which also meant that his duty was to keep the United States away from conflicts and wars; maintain peace. On the other hand his status gave him the power to go to war. And with or without influence he went to war (World War II, Vietnam), and he admitted during the documentary, that there were moments during his job as secretary of defense, when there were not enough reasons to lead the nation to war, and thus sacrificing innocent lives. So Cage's character is not the cause of any war, he is just supplying other nations' wars. Instead Mr. McNamara had, along history, his major contribution to the Vietnam War, and he was a major representative of the U.S., his decisions regarding military actions were crucial, as a matter of fact it was "his" war.

The images presented in both movies are astounding. As an example, in the documentary "Fog of War" when McNamara is talking about recruiting as he claimed, his pioneering studies on safety, director Morris showed the viewers human skulls wrapped in white linen being dropped several floors through a stairwell to smash upon the floor below. These scenes were shown in slow motion. These images symbolized McNamara's macabre capacity to treat carnage as a matter of statistical calculation. The second film was set in a dark tone, the opening scenes are amazing, and the audience actually witnessed the manufacturing of a bullet to its final destination - the head of a young African man. Then there is the shocking scene when Yuri is asked by a little African girl without an arm if her arm will ever grow back and of course the final scene, the camera rolls over thousands of empty shell casings covered with blood and mood until they disappear and the credits ensue.

The major economical and military forces in the world are U.S., UK, France, Russia and China. These countries are always searching to improve their defense industry, and of course the military sector will become stronger and this will provide power for those countries. And certainly the military industry offers a great deal of money. And those countries supply wars from other small, poor countries; guns reach the hands of so called peace makers, and "often, the most barbaric atrocities occur when both combatants proclaim themselves freedom - fighters" (Nicholas Cage as Yuri Orlov)

Without a business like Yuri's it would be impossible for certain countries to lead a respectable war (Yuri's statement). And also this kind of business and especially bullets are a certain way to win a government's votes.

The most unnerving part of the documentary was McNamara's continued assertion that the men involved in the Cuban Missile Crises were all "rational men" and not villains. It is a rather creepy thought that this kind of "rationality" came very close to nuclear war.

A clear interest in saving military planes and not the people that run them is revealed by the ex-secretary of defense. The United States Army Air Force found out the best way to stop a 20% mechanical failure on American planes bombing Germany, and that was to court martial the pilots if they turned back before reaching the target, which soon led to a 0% mechanical failure on USAAF planes. This is bewildering and a proof that the products provided by the defense industry are precious to the leaders of a nation, more valuable than human lives.

McNamara admitted his major role in firebombing Tokyo in World War II, killing 100.000 Japanese in one night, his leader General Curtis LeMay would have had it no other way. He talks about the likelihood that he and Curtis LeMay would have been deemed war criminals for the fire bombing of Japanese cities, had the Americans lost. He admitted the Americans were wrong in not seeing that the Vietnam War was a civil war, not a phase of some longer cold war strategy by the U.S.S.R. Or China. Owning war weapons doesn't give the right to get involved in other countries' wars, but it does happen. Why? Because in every part of the world there is something to gain: money and power.

Keeping peace in the military establishment means having powerful arms, ready for action, so that the aggressor may not be lured to risk his own destruction (Farewell address to the nation; January 17, 1961). Weapons must be looked at as defense means, and used only for protection in case of assault, but the temptation to test the brand new weapons provided by the industry exists (for example the Cuban Missile Crises), and reasons to go to war will always be found.

The ex-secretary of defense predicted in the documentary what ex-president Eisenhower warned; the indefinite combinations of human liability to be wrong and nuclear weapons will eventually lead to the destruction of nations. Yuri's prediction (Cage's last line) is worth taking in consideration too: "you know who's going to inherit the Earth? Arms dealers. Because everyone else is too busy killing each other..." This predictions are grim but worth meditating on.

Should we see wars as caused by "structural," economic and political conditions, necessary consequences of unpredictable chains of events involving millions of people - or are they essentially the product of the decision of a few men in power, who are therefore able to decide whether they happen or not?" (the main question that concerned Morris in his documentary). To answer this question there is worth considering Eisenhower's Farewell address. From his speech resulted that wars are caused by the decision a few men make, and how much they are influenced by other powers (economical power, political power) like the military industrial complex. Morris answers to this question sending the message that the decisions a few men make can actually make all the difference, but they cannot understand adequately, while terrible events are happening, the consequences of what they do. They do not have enough information or the capacity to analyze it.