What leads to war?
As far as the movie concerns, it relates closely to the political realism. In the regard of war, the weak seeks for new order, while hegemony sees the instability. What leads us to the war, according to the census from the movie, is the strenuous acquirement of freedom. However, people directly involved in the matter, express otherwise. Consider the plausibility of realism, that every war in civilized ages are generated from rational calculations of interests. How do we justify war? War, masked behind some high-honored slogans like “l(fā)iberty”, or even more effortless, covered with the hatred generated from revenges, has dominated our minds.
But why defense doesn't serve as much as we want? Why should we preempt?
Because the one pulls trigger one second later will be the undisputable dead. Knowing that not one single is aiming for the peace, violence becomes the only solution to conflicts. This is a typical Prisoner Dilemma Game playing here. No one wants the worst, but that will not leads to the very best of everyone. In order to grasp a chance of survival, one seemingly has to be sabotage others’ benefits for one’s own.
Therefore, hegemony gives us leadership. And leaderships in both military expansion of global security circumstances and economic colonialism process maintain the hegemony. Some have interpreted the reason going to Iraq war was simply due to the oil under the ground. The wants of having a war is simple, while the difficult part is the convincement of the public.
Hence, it leads to the topic of how and why the US became a defense industry.
This is a defense industry, which we are all involved in at some level as a living person on the current American land. As Eisenhower warned the nation, military industrial complexity and the following unauthorized utilization of power would become dreadful crises. From the frontline of Iraq War to the army boots sewing company, from the missile killing hundreds of men in a blink to the recruitment of a homeless young man, from the humanitarian protests to the legal corruption of military industry, Americans are caught in the meddle of the industrial complex as predicted decades ago.
Pentagon needs to maintain the popularity of war, and politicians realize that they could dominate the argument of war, of violence, of killing and death as much as they want. Even if the US is proud of being the freest land, such media orientation is so easily manipulated. After the enthusiasm of attending war fades as time flies by, people start to ask the government, and themselves as well, why we fight?
Through the lasting pain from the tragic 9/11, to the strategic rearrangement of military force, American people haven’t stopped bleeding. Neither did the people in many other areas, especially some occupied by American troops. I want to end the essay with a quotation from Frodo’s last words explaining why he left the middle earth, “Some hurts go too deep…that have taken holds.”


P.S.又是一篇作業(yè)，快速碼完字，語法都沒有檢查。。。
標記一下。嗯，就是這樣。

其實殖民帝國主義是根本，軍事工業(yè)是其結構性結果之一。

了解西方歷史的都知道，殖民是西方國家發(fā)展的永恒模式。從古希臘到羅馬到西班牙葡萄牙到英國法國到希特勒莫非如此。美國的殖民是經(jīng)濟殖民，即資本化的殖民。如果說英法是老式殖民（占領土地和移民）向新式殖民（掠奪資源和經(jīng)濟）的轉(zhuǎn)變，納粹是一次殖民倒退，那么美國徹底完成了殖民形式的轉(zhuǎn)換。

實際上，中世紀是西方唯一一段沒有殖民地的歷史。

這部紀錄片很出彩的地方在于它所選取的采訪對象，政界的資深軍事顧問，前五角大樓研究員，兒子在9/11死去的父親，越南裔美籍飛彈研制工程師（前越南難民),親自參與2003年3月份對伊拉克的空襲的兩名美國軍官......不同的角度，不同的立場，在反思美國從二戰(zhàn)到伊拉克戰(zhàn)爭的國際地位,美國民眾對政府的評價變化的同時，也對美國未來在國際環(huán)境和國內(nèi)民主方面表現(xiàn)得憂心忡忡。

片子在快接近尾聲的時候，黑底白字的打出來的數(shù)據(jù)觸目驚心，寫著：在伊拉克戰(zhàn)爭開始的6各月內(nèi)，美軍共投放50顆precision skystrikes（軍火商稱命中率極高,并且能將周圍損失減小到最少的smart missile），0顆擊中目標，即伊拉克的領導層。死亡的90%為平民。

真正讓美國人憤怒的是政府掩蓋真實的戰(zhàn)爭動機，操縱了民眾對戰(zhàn)爭的看法。媒體也未起到check&balance的監(jiān)督作用，單方面聽取了政府對戰(zhàn)爭的說辭。這讓美國對長期以來引以為傲的民主系統(tǒng)產(chǎn)生了強烈的動搖，對于capitalism對democracy的侵蝕的論調(diào)得到了再一次印證。但對于別的國家的人看來，只能說對權力的完全信賴是民眾的天真。