The heart of the matter
On the same evening:
The two sides of the world
February 16, 2005
Yesterday evening, we were treated to two astonishing programs. First, on ARTE, on Tuesday, February 15 at 8:45 p.m., a one-hour film by Eugene Jarecki titled "The Heart of the Matter," dealing with the theme "The United States and War." Then, on ARTE, at 11:50 p.m., another documentary titled "Algeria 1988–2000: Autopsy of a Tragedy."
(Note: If anyone recorded one of these documents—or both—and could send me a copy in DivX or Avi format, I would be extremely grateful, as these are truly documentary materials for study.)
When television lies to us, we must denounce it. No channel is exempt. But information is not homogeneous, in either direction. As I always say and repeat: "Learn to think for yourself, or others will do it for you." On this Tuesday evening, February 15, 2005, it seemed as though two media outlets had simultaneously presented us with the two extremes of the world's greatest problems, in the most raw and unvarnished way possible.
1 - THE NEW ROME
Let’s begin with the first film. Two images obsessively recur throughout, serving as a backdrop. The first is a speech by Eisenhower, delivered on the day he left political life, warning his fellow citizens—and the entire world—to beware of the growing power of what he called (inventing the term on the spot) "the military-industrial complex." The filmmaker returns to this sequence repeatedly throughout the film, using it as both introduction and conclusion.
Everything is covered. The filmmaker interviews ordinary American citizens about the war in Iraq.
- What were we doing there?
Responses vary:
- Defending freedom... our freedoms.
- We went because we had to.
- I suppose if our president sent our troops there, he must have had his reasons.
- I... don’t know. Honestly, I don’t know.
The film presents a series of documents showing statements made by Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and Bush prior to the start of the operation. It’s enough to listen to their own words.
- We know Saddam Hussein is developing weapons of mass destruction. We have proof of this. One day he could bomb our own country. We must act now, before it’s too late. Saddam is developing the atomic bomb. We know he tried to acquire uranium in Africa (a claim actually dating back to 1980). People and states that support terrorists will have to pay.
Later in the film, a quote from Bush:
- There was no link between Saddam Hussein and terrorism... I’m sorry, there were no weapons of mass destruction.
The filmmaker uses another testimony: that of a New York police officer whose son was killed in the collapse of one of the twin towers. He witnessed it firsthand, seeing the event from his subway train at the time. He served in Vietnam. He recounts how, when young, he was a gunner aboard a helicopter, flying at 100 to 200 meters above the ground.
- We were shooting at ants. I could see them running like ants, he says.
We see the famous scene where Bush stands amidst the rubble of the World Trade Center, gripping a firefighter by the shoulder and declaring:
- Those who did this will pay!
And everyone smiles, gathers around the President of the United States. We recall members of Congress singing "God Bless America" in unison.
The New York cop—the quintessential American good guy, the pure embodiment of naivety—describes his fury:
- I wanted to do something meaningful in response to my son’s death. I wanted those responsible to suffer. So I thought we could put his name on one of the bombs dropped on Baghdad, and I campaigned for that. In the end, I succeeded.
Indeed, we see an image from one of the aircraft carriers: the name of his son is inscribed on a laser-guided bomb about to be attached to an aircraft.
There is another sequence, which the filmmaker gradually unfolds throughout the documentary. He interviews the two pilots who dropped two 900-kilogram bombs on a presidential palace in Baghdad at night, using their F-117A stealth aircraft—the first act of war by the United States. These two pilots express complete confidence in the effectiveness of their technology. They praise the precision of their strikes, claiming this technique avoids all collateral damage, all civilian casualties. In contrast, we hear Rumsfeld say:
- We have now achieved a level of precision in our bombing that exceeds anything you could imagine.
In the film, we await the bomb drop. The order came from the Presidency, which for the first time in U.S. history was granted the authority to initiate hostilities wherever and whenever it wished. A green light, a complete blank check. We see the F-117A flying at night. We hear the reporter in Baghdad saying that for now, the city is calm, completely illuminated. The bombs are indeed dropped—but at least one misses its target and hits a nearby residential neighborhood. Images of civilians, of children killed.
The film is filled with conflicting images. The filmmaker explains how members of Congress have become tightly linked to the military-industrial complex. This complex creates jobs in their constituencies. Refusing to give the green light for war would mean losing their seats. The pieces of the puzzle are methodically assembled. The heart of war is money. And what the filmmaker shows us is that it is also its engine, its very essence (no pun intended). The personality of Eisenhower is emphasized—former supreme commander of the Allied forces during the Normandy invasion. Fragments of his speeches from that era are replayed:
- Men will die. But we must give our lives to preserve what is most precious to us: our freedom.
At the time, he believed it, his men believed it, and it was true. The Nazi megalomania had to be stopped. War was the only solution. But in the postwar era, Eisenhower perceived the rise of new forces: the powers of money, for whom war is simply a means to enrich themselves. The film reveals staggering figures on U.S. military spending, helping us understand how war might indeed become an end in itself. Weapon production is highly profitable. A corporate executive adds:
- We have shareholders. And when they don’t receive sufficient returns on their investments, they protest, believe me.
To achieve good returns, you need a full order book. And to have orders, you need consumption, you need destruction. In short, war is necessary to keep the weapons industry running. Never before has such a stark truth been so clearly laid bare. There are interviews with industrialists, "product managers"—often women. A Vietnamese emigrant...