Military Videos - The Documentary Network Explore the world beyond headlines with amazing videos. Wed, 12 Apr 2017 13:53:52 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.3.5 https://documentary.net/wp-content/themes/documentary/img/documentary-logo.png Documentary Network - Watch free documentaries and films 337 17 Explore the world beyond headlines with amazing videos. America’s War Games https://documentary.net/video/americas-war-games/ https://documentary.net/video/americas-war-games/#comments Fri, 26 Apr 2013 09:52:23 +0000 http://documentary.net/?p=9723

The United States' military expenditures today account for about 40 percent of the world total. In 2012, the US spent some $682bn on its military - an amount more than what was spent by the next 13 countries combined. Now that the war in Iraq is over and the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan will be complete in 2014, the stage might therefore appear to be set for a decrease in US defence spending. Even in Washington DC, many have argued that the defence budget can be cut substantially and the resulting "peace dividend" could be diverted to more pressing domestic concerns, such as dealing with the nation's continuing economic problems. However, a battle to ward off cuts to the Pentagon's budget has begun and the way things are going, it seems likely that the US will have the smallest drawdown or reduction of the military budget after a period of conflict since World War II - in comparative terms, smaller than after Vietnam, Korea and the end of the Cold War. The Pentagon's joint chiefs of staff have appeared before Congress warning of dire results from the impacts of sequestration, a requirement to reduce defence spending by $500bn over 10 years that grew out of a 2011 budget deal between President Obama and Congress. In March, sequestration led to a $41bn cut in 2013 defence spending. Pentagon officials, defence companies, politicians and conservative commentators argue that defence cuts will be devastating for the military and the economy. Others point out that after sequestration, the Pentagon's base defence budget, which does not include additional funds for the war in Afghanistan - will remain above the Cold War average, and close to the highest level since World War II. Chuck Spinney, who worked as an analyst in the US secretary of defence's office for 26 years, believes it is difficult for the United States to reap the benefits of a peace dividend because of the workings of the military-industrial complex that President Dwight Eisenhower warned about in his final 1961 address. "It's what in Washington we call an iron triangle," Spinney says, " you have an alliance between the private sector, the defence contractors, the executive branch, in this case the Pentagon, and the legislative branch." Everyone benefits from expensive procurement projects - the Pentagon gets weapons, defence companies get to make profits, and politicians get re-elected by funding armaments that generate jobs for constituents and campaign contributions from defence companies. The result, according to Spinney, is a defence budget "that is packed to the gills with weapons we don't need, with weapons that are underestimated in their future costs". The Pentagon and defence contractors low-ball costs and exaggerate performance in the early stages of a project to "turn on the money spigot". Then the companies engage in "political engineering," they spread the contracts and employment for a weapon around to as many Congressional districts as possible. They do that, Spinney says, so that once cost-overruns and performance problems become apparent, "you can't do anything about it [because] there's too much political support". The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is a textbook case of a Pentagon procurement project that reveals why it is difficult to cut the defence budget. Three versions of the F-35 are being built for the Air Force, Navy and Marines by Lockheed Martin, the largest defence contractor in the US. The F-35 is the most expensive military weapons programme in US history, bigger than the Manhattan Project that produced nuclear weapons. The F-35 was sold as a programme that would cost $226bn for about 2,900 aircrafts. It is now seven years behind schedule, and the price has increased almost 100 percent to $400bn for only 2,400 fighters. At least another $1 trillion will be required for operations and maintenance of the F-35 over its lifetime. Pierre Sprey, an aircraft engineer and analyst who was one of Defense Secretary Robert McNamara's 'whizz kids' in the 1960s, believes that the project should be cancelled or "there will be so little money left over for anything that's needed, it'll be unbelievable. They'll be cutting people, pilots, training, everything just to pay for this thing." Sprey played a key role in the design and procurement of the F-16 fighter and the A-10 ground support plane, two mainstays of the current US Air Force fleet. Mike Rein, the F-35 spokesman for Lockheed, says that the company saw the period from 2012 and into 2013 as "a step of great progress for the programme and [something which is] certainly going in the right direction". He points to the tests of the F-35 that were completed in 2012. Sprey argues that "they're re-testing stuff they already failed. So this isn't progress. This is like every day that you're flying, you're finding new problems. And you're slipping the schedule worse and worse." The F-35 was supposed to be operational by 2012, but critics say it is unlikely to be deployed before 2017 at the earliest. Despite a litany of engineering and performance problems, Congress continues to support the programme. Lockheed has spread jobs and contracts to 47 states and Puerto Rico, according to its website. The company also seems to have an international political engineering strategy - eight countries besides the US are involved in the aircraft's development program - including Britain, Italy, Canada, Australia and Turkey. Meanwhile, Israel, Singapore and Japan have plans to buy the fighter. According to Spinney, that "makes it even more difficult to cut the programme because now you're creating an international incident of some kind. That's no accident. It was done deliberately." Pork barrel deal-making that goes on in Congress over weapons projects also makes it hard to secure a peace dividend. According to William Hartung of the Center for International Policy, "there will be a sort of log rolling process where you know, ‘I'll support your weapons system if you support my weapons system.' And so once that horse trading goes on, then it's much harder to cut anything." Two years ago, the US army announced that it could save close to $2.8bn by pausing production of the Abrams M1 tank. Ray Odierno, the army chief of staff, said the M1 fleet was in good shape and no more tanks were needed. The Pentagon does not see much use for the M1 in confronting 21st century threats like terrorism and piracy. However, Congress did not go along. Over the last two years, it has provided $355bn to keep the M1 production line rolling at the Joint Systems Manufacturing Center in Lima, Ohio. General Dynamics, which operates the tank plant, spent $22m on lobbying Congress over the past two years, and about $2m on campaign contributions. According to the David Berger, the mayor of Lima, General Dynamics also put together a study claiming that it would be more cost-effective to keep the tank plant open now than to reopen the plant in the future if it was needed. The company would not send us the cost study, and declined our request for an interview. Hartung says that Pentagon contractors have "for years used the jobs argument to revive weapons systems that have been cancelled. To push for things that even the Pentagon itself has not wanted." For months, a study has been circulating in Washington, underwritten by the Aerospace Industries Association, a major defence industry trade group. It claims that a million jobs would be lost as a result of sequestration cuts to defence spending. Hartung, who has analysed the study, says it exaggerates the potential job loss number by a factor of three, and that many of those jobs will be replaced. He points out that spending on education, health care, and infrastructure "can create 1.5 to 2 times as many jobs. So the economy would be much better off spending on things other than the Pentagon." Several recent reports examining ways to cut Pentagon spending call for changes in the US nuclear weapons posture. They claim that it would produce hundreds of billions of dollars of savings in coming decades, and the Obama administration is reportedly considering nuclear weapons cuts. But they will be difficult to achieve.]]>

The United States' military expenditures today account for about 40 percent of the world total. In 2012, the US spent some $682bn on its military - an amount more than what was spent by the next 13 countries combined. Now that the war in Iraq is over and the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan will be complete in 2014, the stage might therefore appear to be set for a decrease in US defence spending. Even in Washington DC, many have argued that the defence budget can be cut substantially and the resulting "peace dividend" could be diverted to more pressing domestic concerns, such as dealing with the nation's continuing economic problems. However, a battle to ward off cuts to the Pentagon's budget has begun and the way things are going, it seems likely that the US will have the smallest drawdown or reduction of the military budget after a period of conflict since World War II - in comparative terms, smaller than after Vietnam, Korea and the end of the Cold War. The Pentagon's joint chiefs of staff have appeared before Congress warning of dire results from the impacts of sequestration, a requirement to reduce defence spending by $500bn over 10 years that grew out of a 2011 budget deal between President Obama and Congress. In March, sequestration led to a $41bn cut in 2013 defence spending. Pentagon officials, defence companies, politicians and conservative commentators argue that defence cuts will be devastating for the military and the economy. Others point out that after sequestration, the Pentagon's base defence budget, which does not include additional funds for the war in Afghanistan - will remain above the Cold War average, and close to the highest level since World War II. Chuck Spinney, who worked as an analyst in the US secretary of defence's office for 26 years, believes it is difficult for the United States to reap the benefits of a peace dividend because of the workings of the military-industrial complex that President Dwight Eisenhower warned about in his final 1961 address. "It's what in Washington we call an iron triangle," Spinney says, " you have an alliance between the private sector, the defence contractors, the executive branch, in this case the Pentagon, and the legislative branch." Everyone benefits from expensive procurement projects - the Pentagon gets weapons, defence companies get to make profits, and politicians get re-elected by funding armaments that generate jobs for constituents and campaign contributions from defence companies. The result, according to Spinney, is a defence budget "that is packed to the gills with weapons we don't need, with weapons that are underestimated in their future costs". The Pentagon and defence contractors low-ball costs and exaggerate performance in the early stages of a project to "turn on the money spigot". Then the companies engage in "political engineering," they spread the contracts and employment for a weapon around to as many Congressional districts as possible. They do that, Spinney says, so that once cost-overruns and performance problems become apparent, "you can't do anything about it [because] there's too much political support". The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is a textbook case of a Pentagon procurement project that reveals why it is difficult to cut the defence budget. Three versions of the F-35 are being built for the Air Force, Navy and Marines by Lockheed Martin, the largest defence contractor in the US. The F-35 is the most expensive military weapons programme in US history, bigger than the Manhattan Project that produced nuclear weapons. The F-35 was sold as a programme that would cost $226bn for about 2,900 aircrafts. It is now seven years behind schedule, and the price has increased almost 100 percent to $400bn for only 2,400 fighters. At least another $1 trillion will be required for operations and maintenance of the F-35 over its lifetime. Pierre Sprey, an aircraft engineer and analyst who was one of Defense Secretary Robert McNamara's 'whizz kids' in the 1960s, believes that the project should be cancelled or "there will be so little money left over for anything that's needed, it'll be unbelievable. They'll be cutting people, pilots, training, everything just to pay for this thing." Sprey played a key role in the design and procurement of the F-16 fighter and the A-10 ground support plane, two mainstays of the current US Air Force fleet. Mike Rein, the F-35 spokesman for Lockheed, says that the company saw the period from 2012 and into 2013 as "a step of great progress for the programme and [something which is] certainly going in the right direction". He points to the tests of the F-35 that were completed in 2012. Sprey argues that "they're re-testing stuff they already failed. So this isn't progress. This is like every day that you're flying, you're finding new problems. And you're slipping the schedule worse and worse." The F-35 was supposed to be operational by 2012, but critics say it is unlikely to be deployed before 2017 at the earliest. Despite a litany of engineering and performance problems, Congress continues to support the programme. Lockheed has spread jobs and contracts to 47 states and Puerto Rico, according to its website. The company also seems to have an international political engineering strategy - eight countries besides the US are involved in the aircraft's development program - including Britain, Italy, Canada, Australia and Turkey. Meanwhile, Israel, Singapore and Japan have plans to buy the fighter. According to Spinney, that "makes it even more difficult to cut the programme because now you're creating an international incident of some kind. That's no accident. It was done deliberately." Pork barrel deal-making that goes on in Congress over weapons projects also makes it hard to secure a peace dividend. According to William Hartung of the Center for International Policy, "there will be a sort of log rolling process where you know, ‘I'll support your weapons system if you support my weapons system.' And so once that horse trading goes on, then it's much harder to cut anything." Two years ago, the US army announced that it could save close to $2.8bn by pausing production of the Abrams M1 tank. Ray Odierno, the army chief of staff, said the M1 fleet was in good shape and no more tanks were needed. The Pentagon does not see much use for the M1 in confronting 21st century threats like terrorism and piracy. However, Congress did not go along. Over the last two years, it has provided $355bn to keep the M1 production line rolling at the Joint Systems Manufacturing Center in Lima, Ohio. General Dynamics, which operates the tank plant, spent $22m on lobbying Congress over the past two years, and about $2m on campaign contributions. According to the David Berger, the mayor of Lima, General Dynamics also put together a study claiming that it would be more cost-effective to keep the tank plant open now than to reopen the plant in the future if it was needed. The company would not send us the cost study, and declined our request for an interview. Hartung says that Pentagon contractors have "for years used the jobs argument to revive weapons systems that have been cancelled. To push for things that even the Pentagon itself has not wanted." For months, a study has been circulating in Washington, underwritten by the Aerospace Industries Association, a major defence industry trade group. It claims that a million jobs would be lost as a result of sequestration cuts to defence spending. Hartung, who has analysed the study, says it exaggerates the potential job loss number by a factor of three, and that many of those jobs will be replaced. He points out that spending on education, health care, and infrastructure "can create 1.5 to 2 times as many jobs. So the economy would be much better off spending on things other than the Pentagon." Several recent reports examining ways to cut Pentagon spending call for changes in the US nuclear weapons posture. They claim that it would produce hundreds of billions of dollars of savings in coming decades, and the Obama administration is reportedly considering nuclear weapons cuts. But they will be difficult to achieve.]]> https://documentary.net/video/americas-war-games/feed/ 1 Attack of the Drones and Robots – The Future of War? https://documentary.net/video/attack-of-the-drones-and-robots-the-future-of-war/ https://documentary.net/video/attack-of-the-drones-and-robots-the-future-of-war/#respond Sun, 19 Aug 2012 07:18:02 +0000 http://documentary.net/?p=8066

The US government’s growing reliance on aerial drones to pursue its war on al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Yemen, Afghanistan and elsewhere is proving controversial – as evidenced by the international reaction to recent drone missile attacks along the border with Pakistan. But Barack Obama’s administration is undeterred, favouring the technology more and more because it reduces the need for American troops in those countries and the risk of politically unpalatable casualties. “He probably thinks this is already a controversial war,” says Christ Klep, an international relations analysts at the University of Utrecht. “I’d better not endanger my pilots and my special forces, so what else do I have? Unmanned aerial vehicles? Deploy them.” But the strategy is giving rise to anxieties that conflict is becoming just a big computer game, in which ‘desk pilots’ in air conditioned bunkers far from the battlefield can kill a few enemy fighters and then go home to their families, remote from the human consequences of their actions or the anguish of associated civilian casualties. Nevertheless, Ko Colijn, a security expert at the prestigious Clingendael Institute, says that the technology is here to stay. “In a way the Americans reached a turning point in 2009, 2010. They trained more screen pilots than pilots physically inside an aircraft. And they purchased more unmanned planes than manned ones, which is not surprising since they’re much cheaper,” he says. However the Americans are not the only ones using drones. More than 40 countries are believed to be working with unmanned aircraft and even Iran claims to be developing its own version – perhaps based on a captured US spy drone it downed last year and then proudly displayed to the media. Nor are the current crop of unmanned military aircraft the only manifestation of this disturbing new trend. Already in production are aerial drones that can independently acquire and attack targets or work together in swarms over hostile territory and earthbound battlefield drones that can either accompany ground troops or be sent alone into especially dangerous areas. Some commentators fear it all adds up to a new tech-driven arms race. The use of drones is becoming more widespread in civilian circles too – not least as a key law and order tool in the fight against crime. In June this year, for example, police in the British city of Manchester used one to track down a suspected car thief; in the Netherlands an arsonist was caught after being identified on a drone camera. And in Zurich, Switzerland, scientists have been developing flying robots for use in the construction industry. In demonstrations they will happily show how a few small drones, working at impressive speed, can lift heavy concrete blocks into place on a complex tower structure – a process that would otherwise necessitate scaffolding and dozens of human workers. But the technology also gives rise to worrying questions about snooping and invasion of privacy – and not merely because of the actions of government. With private companies in the US and Europe now developing cheap aerial drones that can be controlled with the kind of software used in smart phones, pilotless aircraft just a couple of feet across may soon be commercially available for a few hundred dollars. Imagine then, the images that a paparazzi photographer could obtain with a camera drone able to fly over high walls or hover outside windows set atop a multi-storey building. This film, from Dutch filmmakers Vincent Verweij, Fred Sengers and KRO, looks at the development and use of these extraordinary machines and ask where their use might lead.]]>

The US government’s growing reliance on aerial drones to pursue its war on al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Yemen, Afghanistan and elsewhere is proving controversial – as evidenced by the international reaction to recent drone missile attacks along the border with Pakistan. But Barack Obama’s administration is undeterred, favouring the technology more and more because it reduces the need for American troops in those countries and the risk of politically unpalatable casualties. “He probably thinks this is already a controversial war,” says Christ Klep, an international relations analysts at the University of Utrecht. “I’d better not endanger my pilots and my special forces, so what else do I have? Unmanned aerial vehicles? Deploy them.” But the strategy is giving rise to anxieties that conflict is becoming just a big computer game, in which ‘desk pilots’ in air conditioned bunkers far from the battlefield can kill a few enemy fighters and then go home to their families, remote from the human consequences of their actions or the anguish of associated civilian casualties. Nevertheless, Ko Colijn, a security expert at the prestigious Clingendael Institute, says that the technology is here to stay. “In a way the Americans reached a turning point in 2009, 2010. They trained more screen pilots than pilots physically inside an aircraft. And they purchased more unmanned planes than manned ones, which is not surprising since they’re much cheaper,” he says. However the Americans are not the only ones using drones. More than 40 countries are believed to be working with unmanned aircraft and even Iran claims to be developing its own version – perhaps based on a captured US spy drone it downed last year and then proudly displayed to the media. Nor are the current crop of unmanned military aircraft the only manifestation of this disturbing new trend. Already in production are aerial drones that can independently acquire and attack targets or work together in swarms over hostile territory and earthbound battlefield drones that can either accompany ground troops or be sent alone into especially dangerous areas. Some commentators fear it all adds up to a new tech-driven arms race. The use of drones is becoming more widespread in civilian circles too – not least as a key law and order tool in the fight against crime. In June this year, for example, police in the British city of Manchester used one to track down a suspected car thief; in the Netherlands an arsonist was caught after being identified on a drone camera. And in Zurich, Switzerland, scientists have been developing flying robots for use in the construction industry. In demonstrations they will happily show how a few small drones, working at impressive speed, can lift heavy concrete blocks into place on a complex tower structure – a process that would otherwise necessitate scaffolding and dozens of human workers. But the technology also gives rise to worrying questions about snooping and invasion of privacy – and not merely because of the actions of government. With private companies in the US and Europe now developing cheap aerial drones that can be controlled with the kind of software used in smart phones, pilotless aircraft just a couple of feet across may soon be commercially available for a few hundred dollars. Imagine then, the images that a paparazzi photographer could obtain with a camera drone able to fly over high walls or hover outside windows set atop a multi-storey building. This film, from Dutch filmmakers Vincent Verweij, Fred Sengers and KRO, looks at the development and use of these extraordinary machines and ask where their use might lead.]]> https://documentary.net/video/attack-of-the-drones-and-robots-the-future-of-war/feed/ 0 Street Vets – Homeless Veteran – PBS Documentary Film https://documentary.net/video/street-vets-homeless-veteran-pbs-documentary-film/ https://documentary.net/video/street-vets-homeless-veteran-pbs-documentary-film/#comments Mon, 02 Apr 2012 18:26:54 +0000 http://documentary.net/?p=5607

Over 100,000 United States Veterans are homeless every year. In this one-hour documentary, filmmaker Issac Goeckeritz takes viewers into the largely invisible world of homeless veterans and the difficult, but hopeful, pathways home. DVD available at www.igfilms.com.]]>

Over 100,000 United States Veterans are homeless every year. In this one-hour documentary, filmmaker Issac Goeckeritz takes viewers into the largely invisible world of homeless veterans and the difficult, but hopeful, pathways home. DVD available at www.igfilms.com.]]> https://documentary.net/video/street-vets-homeless-veteran-pbs-documentary-film/feed/ 3 The Winter War – US 25th Infantry Division in Afghanistan & Checkpoint 2.5 photographs https://documentary.net/video/the-winter-war-us-25th-infantry-division-in-afghanistan-checkpoint-2-5-photographs/ https://documentary.net/video/the-winter-war-us-25th-infantry-division-in-afghanistan-checkpoint-2-5-photographs/#comments Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:15:30 +0000 http://documentary.net/?p=4713

Barack Obama, the US president, has pledged to withdraw American forces from Afghanistan by 2014, with other NATO nations set to pull out their troops before that date and overall responsibility for security gradually being handed to the Afghan National Army and police. Following the announcement last month from the Taliban that they are prepared to open a political office in Qatar - a step which may facilitate a move towards negotiations and a peaceful settlement - many people hope that the end of Afghanistan's long and brutal war may just be in sight. But there is a long way to go yet and many ways in which any deal could be upset by events. General John Allen, the senior American commander on the ground, has publicly expressed doubts that a full military withdrawal by 2014 is feasible and, as many experts point out, fighting in parts of Afghanistan is just as fierce as it has always been. This is especially so in two strategically vital provinces, Kunar and Nuristan, which sit on Afghanistan's mountainous north-eastern border with Pakistan. Since US troops arrived in the country 11 years ago, the area has seen sustained and intense violence. In 2009, with casualties rising, the Americans withdrew entirely from Nuristan. The following year northern Kunar was also handed over to Afghan control. But within a few months, the Taliban had retaken the area, infiltrating through vital border crossings and completely undermining attempts by Afghan forces to maintain security across the region. So now US forces have returned to the area, this time to the frozen peaks as well as the valleys, determined to re-establish their military dominance and win over the local population before they go. The Taliban are just as keen to see them defeated and the result is an intermittent but occasionally ferocious clash for supremacy amid the mountain tops. Both sides know that what happens here may yet decide the success or failure of NATO's war and indeed the future of Afghanistan itself. Filmmaker John D McHugh went to the frontline of this remote but important struggle, to assess the willingness and capacity of the combatants to see it through to a definitive conclusion.
I shot these photographs at a tiny outpost called Checkpoint 2.5 while making a film, The Winter War, in Kunar in Nov/Dec 2011. The footage from this bunker didn't make it into the film, but this audio slideshow, or photofilm, gives a sense of what it is like for the US soldiers of 2/27 Infantry to live in such a remote and vulnerable posting. Filmmaker John D McHugh
]]>

Barack Obama, the US president, has pledged to withdraw American forces from Afghanistan by 2014, with other NATO nations set to pull out their troops before that date and overall responsibility for security gradually being handed to the Afghan National Army and police. Following the announcement last month from the Taliban that they are prepared to open a political office in Qatar - a step which may facilitate a move towards negotiations and a peaceful settlement - many people hope that the end of Afghanistan's long and brutal war may just be in sight. But there is a long way to go yet and many ways in which any deal could be upset by events. General John Allen, the senior American commander on the ground, has publicly expressed doubts that a full military withdrawal by 2014 is feasible and, as many experts point out, fighting in parts of Afghanistan is just as fierce as it has always been. This is especially so in two strategically vital provinces, Kunar and Nuristan, which sit on Afghanistan's mountainous north-eastern border with Pakistan. Since US troops arrived in the country 11 years ago, the area has seen sustained and intense violence. In 2009, with casualties rising, the Americans withdrew entirely from Nuristan. The following year northern Kunar was also handed over to Afghan control. But within a few months, the Taliban had retaken the area, infiltrating through vital border crossings and completely undermining attempts by Afghan forces to maintain security across the region. So now US forces have returned to the area, this time to the frozen peaks as well as the valleys, determined to re-establish their military dominance and win over the local population before they go. The Taliban are just as keen to see them defeated and the result is an intermittent but occasionally ferocious clash for supremacy amid the mountain tops. Both sides know that what happens here may yet decide the success or failure of NATO's war and indeed the future of Afghanistan itself. Filmmaker John D McHugh went to the frontline of this remote but important struggle, to assess the willingness and capacity of the combatants to see it through to a definitive conclusion.
I shot these photographs at a tiny outpost called Checkpoint 2.5 while making a film, The Winter War, in Kunar in Nov/Dec 2011. The footage from this bunker didn't make it into the film, but this audio slideshow, or photofilm, gives a sense of what it is like for the US soldiers of 2/27 Infantry to live in such a remote and vulnerable posting. Filmmaker John D McHugh
]]> https://documentary.net/video/the-winter-war-us-25th-infantry-division-in-afghanistan-checkpoint-2-5-photographs/feed/ 4 Robot Wars – Unmanned systems in the Battlefield https://documentary.net/video/robot-wars-unmanned-systems-in-the-battlefield/ https://documentary.net/video/robot-wars-unmanned-systems-in-the-battlefield/#comments Tue, 27 Dec 2011 12:31:21 +0000 http://documentary.net/?p=4239

Over the past decade, the US military has shifted the way it fights its wars, deploying more unmanned systems in the battlefield than ever before. Today there are more than 7,000 drones and 12,000 ground robots in use by all branches of the military. These systems mean less American deaths and also less political risk for the US when it takes acts of lethal force – often outside of official war zones. But US lethal drone strikes in countries like Pakistan have brought up serious questions about the legal and political implications of using these systems. The film looks at how these new weapons of choice are allowing the US to stretch the international laws of war and what it could mean when more and more autonomy is developed for these lethal machines.]]>

Over the past decade, the US military has shifted the way it fights its wars, deploying more unmanned systems in the battlefield than ever before. Today there are more than 7,000 drones and 12,000 ground robots in use by all branches of the military. These systems mean less American deaths and also less political risk for the US when it takes acts of lethal force – often outside of official war zones. But US lethal drone strikes in countries like Pakistan have brought up serious questions about the legal and political implications of using these systems. The film looks at how these new weapons of choice are allowing the US to stretch the international laws of war and what it could mean when more and more autonomy is developed for these lethal machines.]]> https://documentary.net/video/robot-wars-unmanned-systems-in-the-battlefield/feed/ 1 Hollywood and the War Machine https://documentary.net/video/hollywood-and-the-war-machine/ https://documentary.net/video/hollywood-and-the-war-machine/#comments Tue, 13 Sep 2011 11:57:10 +0000 http://documentary.net/?p=3090

War is hell, but for Hollywood it has been a Godsend, providing the perfect dramatic setting against which courageous heroes win the hearts and minds of the movie going public. The Pentagon recognises the power of these celluloid dreams and encourages Hollywood to create heroic myths; to rewrite history to suit its own strategy and as a recruiting tool to provide a steady flow of willing young patriots for its wars. What does Hollywood get out of this 'deal with the devil'? Access to billions of dollars worth of military kit, from helicopters to aircraft carriers, enabling filmmakers to make bigger and more spectacular battle scenes, which in turn generate more box office revenue. Providing they accept the Pentagon's advice, even toe the party line and show the US military in a positive light. So is it a case of art imitating life, or a sinister force using art to influence life and death - and the public perception of both?]]>

War is hell, but for Hollywood it has been a Godsend, providing the perfect dramatic setting against which courageous heroes win the hearts and minds of the movie going public. The Pentagon recognises the power of these celluloid dreams and encourages Hollywood to create heroic myths; to rewrite history to suit its own strategy and as a recruiting tool to provide a steady flow of willing young patriots for its wars. What does Hollywood get out of this 'deal with the devil'? Access to billions of dollars worth of military kit, from helicopters to aircraft carriers, enabling filmmakers to make bigger and more spectacular battle scenes, which in turn generate more box office revenue. Providing they accept the Pentagon's advice, even toe the party line and show the US military in a positive light. So is it a case of art imitating life, or a sinister force using art to influence life and death - and the public perception of both?]]> https://documentary.net/video/hollywood-and-the-war-machine/feed/ 2 The 9/11 Decade: The Image War https://documentary.net/video/the-911-decade-the-image-war/ https://documentary.net/video/the-911-decade-the-image-war/#comments Wed, 07 Sep 2011 05:58:44 +0000 http://documentary.net/?p=3026

9/11: It was a PR stunt which killed thousands and launched a propaganda war that has, so far, lasted a decade. Since then, the US and al-Qaeda have competed furiously to win "hearts and minds" with elaborate media strategies. Spin, threats, lies, censorship, the killing of journalists; how far has each side been prepared to go to win the propaganda war? In the "war on terror" the exploitation of images was to become a matter of life and death, as both the US and al-Qaeda bombarded the world with media designed to win people over to their side. It started with 9/11 itself: an act of terror staged as a global media event and the catalyst for a decade of propaganda war. But al-Qaeda's canny use of 9/11 imagery, which included saving footage of the attackers for release at a later date so as to maximise publicity, gave way to serious errors in judgement as the group's use of beheadings not only terrorised viewers but also alienated one-time sympathisers. The US, for its part, did not perform any better with Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib becoming prime examples of how to lose a war. Source: Aljazeera]]>

9/11: It was a PR stunt which killed thousands and launched a propaganda war that has, so far, lasted a decade. Since then, the US and al-Qaeda have competed furiously to win "hearts and minds" with elaborate media strategies. Spin, threats, lies, censorship, the killing of journalists; how far has each side been prepared to go to win the propaganda war? In the "war on terror" the exploitation of images was to become a matter of life and death, as both the US and al-Qaeda bombarded the world with media designed to win people over to their side. It started with 9/11 itself: an act of terror staged as a global media event and the catalyst for a decade of propaganda war. But al-Qaeda's canny use of 9/11 imagery, which included saving footage of the attackers for release at a later date so as to maximise publicity, gave way to serious errors in judgement as the group's use of beheadings not only terrorised viewers but also alienated one-time sympathisers. The US, for its part, did not perform any better with Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib becoming prime examples of how to lose a war. Source: Aljazeera]]> https://documentary.net/video/the-911-decade-the-image-war/feed/ 1 FARC Guerrillas – A war that never ends? https://documentary.net/video/farc-guerrillas-a-war-that-never-ends/ https://documentary.net/video/farc-guerrillas-a-war-that-never-ends/#comments Sat, 06 Aug 2011 07:45:28 +0000 http://documentary.net/?p=2398

After decades of war, today the Colombian government claims to be putting an end to one of the oldest guerrilla organisations in the world: the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). The strategy that accompanies the government's military strikes is to offer opportunities and guarantees to those soldiers who decide to leave the ranks of the group. But can Colombia keep its promise of peace for the ex-FARC guerrillas returning home from the jungle - and can they resist temptations? In the following account, filmmaker Russ Finkelstein describes the issues behind the demobilisation programme and why many ex-FARC guerrillas are struggling with demobilisation. The FARC has been fighting a revolution in Colombia for 47 years now. What first began as a Marxist-inspired struggle over land rights, social and agrarian reforms and resistance to neo-imperialism has been intensified and warped by the influence of the extremely lucrative cocaine trade. At times, the FARC has held support among Colombia's lower classes, especially in the countryside. In other contexts they have been feared and despised for their ruthless tactics. The Colombian government, the US state department and the European Union consider them to be a terrorist organisation. Alvaro Uribe, who was president of Colombia from 2002 to 2010, made eradicating the FARC a top priority of his administration. Contrary to his predecessor, Andres Pastrana Arango, who held peace talks with the guerrillas, Uribe took a hardline approach to ending the conflict; perhaps in part because his own father was killed by the FARC during a 1983 kidnapping attempt. During his presidency, Uribe launched countless military operations against the group, and his former minister of defence and the country's current president, Juan Manuel Santos, has kept putting an end to the FARC a top priority of the current administration. For the guerrillas, the harshness of the jungle combined with enduring increasingly effective military strikes has made life for the combatants treacherous, if not intolerable. Thousands of the groups remaining members have been tempted to defect thanks to the government's demobilisation programme, which consist of a pardon for having been a member of a terrorist organisation as well as economic, educational and psychological assistance while integrating into civilian life. The Santos government considers the programme, along with the military pressure on the FARC, to be successful, citing the large numbers of demobilised combatants as forward progress in the seemingly endless war. "The best way to win the war is to prevent combat from continuing while still being able to achieve one's objectives," said President Juan Manuel Santos at a recent forum on the demobilisation process, adding, "How can we defeat them as quickly as possible? Of course military action continues. They are constantly adapting, they have and continue to finance themselves through drug trafficking, and so what will put an end to them once and for all? We have told them to demobilise and form part of the [demobilisation] programme, because if they don't it will either be jail or the grave. For this to be more convincing, we've got to make demobilisation more attractive, and we've got to make the threat of jail or the grave more effective." While we were making Hard Road Back, it became apparent that for the ex-combatants the war does not necessarily end with their demobilisation. The FARC continues to exist. They consider their defected former comrades, including those who participated in our film, to be traitors to the organisation, an offence punishable by death. Most of the ex-combatants we spent time with were hesitant at first to appear on camera as they generally try to remain anonymous for the sake of their personal safety. Additionally, they do not usually discuss their pasts as they try to avoid discrimination they are likely to face in a society that generally considers them to be terrorists, extortionists, kidnappers, torturers, rapists and murderers. For these reasons many of the demobilised leave their homes in the countryside to settle in large cities where they can live anonymously. For their personal surrender as well as for their participation in psychological counselling and basic education, the ex-combatants receive a modest monthly stipend from the government. The programme also allows them plenty of free time in which they are encouraged to work. We learned however after talking to dozens of ex-combatants in the programme, that with little if any education, few employable skills and the discrimination they face as former terrorists, the demobilised ex-combatants generally live lives of poverty. At the same time, the war continues to manifest and change. New armed groups have sprung up in marginal neighbourhoods of major cities; which also happen to be the types of places where many of the ex-combatants settle after demobilising. These criminal elements, including urban wings of paramilitary groups, pay three to five times the amount of the monthly government stipend to those who work as hired guns. The money is often sufficient temptation for those with the experience and know-how necessary for this type of work. After meeting dozens of ex-combatants and hearing them tell their stories, it became apparent that the existence of these new armed groups and the temptation they represent to the demobilised ex-combatants presents a significant challenge to the success of the government's programme and to the prospect of peace as proposed by the current policies. The government's efforts may be diminishing the FARC's numbers, but if a significant number of those who leave the group end up taking up arms to fight for other illegal armed groups, then the war will perhaps mutate and persist. The names of the groups doing the fighting may change though the profile of the individual combatants remains essentially the same. For the most part, they are poor and frustrated people to whom joining in the fighting represents a means of survival. As is usually the case with people from the countryside anywhere in the world, the ex-combatants we came in contact with were all very hospitable, humble, friendly, respectful and accommodating. At first it was startling to recall that the people who had invited us into their homes and offered us their food had a few months or years ago been carrying out unthinkable acts in the jungle. We soon realised though that they are tired of fighting and are now doing their best to leave their violent pasts behind. All of the former FARC combatants we met including Julio came from rural poverty. Julio first joined the FARC as a miliciano or plain-clothed, unarmed helper, when he was eleven or twelve years old. He was an orphan and had been forced to work in the fields as a young boy. To him, the well dressed, well-armed FARC soldiers commanded respect. Furthermore, they stood for political ideals that directly reflected the injustices he lived as a peasant from the countryside. He soon became dedicated to the organisation and was convinced that the FARC would topple the powers that be and establish a new and more just government in Colombia. But after nearly two decades with the organisation and changing personal circumstances, Julio decided to defect. He moved to Bogota with his wife and son and has since been doing his best to make ends meet; though it has not been easy. Although he has given up on the FARC's revolution, he still remains politically committed to social change and progress for Colombia's poor. He has had to put his political ideals aside to some degree however in order to address the more pressing issue of his family's wellbeing. Julio is charming and charismatic. In the FARC he rose to the rank of commander and in civilian life he has attracted countless friends and comrades. He is currently organising a committee of ex-combatants in his neighbourhood which he hopes will, among their other objectives, help prevent the demobilised from falling back into the war. The idea is to pool resources, improve relations with the community and establish solidarity and camaraderie amongst the demobilised in order to improve their situation. For the government, the success of the demobilisation programme is seen as a vital strategic step in putting an end to a gruesome war that has gone on for nearly half a century. But for the FARC's former combatants, most of whom have endured hardship and turmoil all their lives, the government's programme offers an opportunity to start anew and pursue something they have never known: a peaceful life. If they are to achieve this goal, however, they must be personally committed to peace in order to resist the ever-present possibility of reverting back to a life of violence. A film by Manuel Contreras and Russ Finkelstein]]>

After decades of war, today the Colombian government claims to be putting an end to one of the oldest guerrilla organisations in the world: the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). The strategy that accompanies the government's military strikes is to offer opportunities and guarantees to those soldiers who decide to leave the ranks of the group. But can Colombia keep its promise of peace for the ex-FARC guerrillas returning home from the jungle - and can they resist temptations? In the following account, filmmaker Russ Finkelstein describes the issues behind the demobilisation programme and why many ex-FARC guerrillas are struggling with demobilisation. The FARC has been fighting a revolution in Colombia for 47 years now. What first began as a Marxist-inspired struggle over land rights, social and agrarian reforms and resistance to neo-imperialism has been intensified and warped by the influence of the extremely lucrative cocaine trade. At times, the FARC has held support among Colombia's lower classes, especially in the countryside. In other contexts they have been feared and despised for their ruthless tactics. The Colombian government, the US state department and the European Union consider them to be a terrorist organisation. Alvaro Uribe, who was president of Colombia from 2002 to 2010, made eradicating the FARC a top priority of his administration. Contrary to his predecessor, Andres Pastrana Arango, who held peace talks with the guerrillas, Uribe took a hardline approach to ending the conflict; perhaps in part because his own father was killed by the FARC during a 1983 kidnapping attempt. During his presidency, Uribe launched countless military operations against the group, and his former minister of defence and the country's current president, Juan Manuel Santos, has kept putting an end to the FARC a top priority of the current administration. For the guerrillas, the harshness of the jungle combined with enduring increasingly effective military strikes has made life for the combatants treacherous, if not intolerable. Thousands of the groups remaining members have been tempted to defect thanks to the government's demobilisation programme, which consist of a pardon for having been a member of a terrorist organisation as well as economic, educational and psychological assistance while integrating into civilian life. The Santos government considers the programme, along with the military pressure on the FARC, to be successful, citing the large numbers of demobilised combatants as forward progress in the seemingly endless war. "The best way to win the war is to prevent combat from continuing while still being able to achieve one's objectives," said President Juan Manuel Santos at a recent forum on the demobilisation process, adding, "How can we defeat them as quickly as possible? Of course military action continues. They are constantly adapting, they have and continue to finance themselves through drug trafficking, and so what will put an end to them once and for all? We have told them to demobilise and form part of the [demobilisation] programme, because if they don't it will either be jail or the grave. For this to be more convincing, we've got to make demobilisation more attractive, and we've got to make the threat of jail or the grave more effective." While we were making Hard Road Back, it became apparent that for the ex-combatants the war does not necessarily end with their demobilisation. The FARC continues to exist. They consider their defected former comrades, including those who participated in our film, to be traitors to the organisation, an offence punishable by death. Most of the ex-combatants we spent time with were hesitant at first to appear on camera as they generally try to remain anonymous for the sake of their personal safety. Additionally, they do not usually discuss their pasts as they try to avoid discrimination they are likely to face in a society that generally considers them to be terrorists, extortionists, kidnappers, torturers, rapists and murderers. For these reasons many of the demobilised leave their homes in the countryside to settle in large cities where they can live anonymously. For their personal surrender as well as for their participation in psychological counselling and basic education, the ex-combatants receive a modest monthly stipend from the government. The programme also allows them plenty of free time in which they are encouraged to work. We learned however after talking to dozens of ex-combatants in the programme, that with little if any education, few employable skills and the discrimination they face as former terrorists, the demobilised ex-combatants generally live lives of poverty. At the same time, the war continues to manifest and change. New armed groups have sprung up in marginal neighbourhoods of major cities; which also happen to be the types of places where many of the ex-combatants settle after demobilising. These criminal elements, including urban wings of paramilitary groups, pay three to five times the amount of the monthly government stipend to those who work as hired guns. The money is often sufficient temptation for those with the experience and know-how necessary for this type of work. After meeting dozens of ex-combatants and hearing them tell their stories, it became apparent that the existence of these new armed groups and the temptation they represent to the demobilised ex-combatants presents a significant challenge to the success of the government's programme and to the prospect of peace as proposed by the current policies. The government's efforts may be diminishing the FARC's numbers, but if a significant number of those who leave the group end up taking up arms to fight for other illegal armed groups, then the war will perhaps mutate and persist. The names of the groups doing the fighting may change though the profile of the individual combatants remains essentially the same. For the most part, they are poor and frustrated people to whom joining in the fighting represents a means of survival. As is usually the case with people from the countryside anywhere in the world, the ex-combatants we came in contact with were all very hospitable, humble, friendly, respectful and accommodating. At first it was startling to recall that the people who had invited us into their homes and offered us their food had a few months or years ago been carrying out unthinkable acts in the jungle. We soon realised though that they are tired of fighting and are now doing their best to leave their violent pasts behind. All of the former FARC combatants we met including Julio came from rural poverty. Julio first joined the FARC as a miliciano or plain-clothed, unarmed helper, when he was eleven or twelve years old. He was an orphan and had been forced to work in the fields as a young boy. To him, the well dressed, well-armed FARC soldiers commanded respect. Furthermore, they stood for political ideals that directly reflected the injustices he lived as a peasant from the countryside. He soon became dedicated to the organisation and was convinced that the FARC would topple the powers that be and establish a new and more just government in Colombia. But after nearly two decades with the organisation and changing personal circumstances, Julio decided to defect. He moved to Bogota with his wife and son and has since been doing his best to make ends meet; though it has not been easy. Although he has given up on the FARC's revolution, he still remains politically committed to social change and progress for Colombia's poor. He has had to put his political ideals aside to some degree however in order to address the more pressing issue of his family's wellbeing. Julio is charming and charismatic. In the FARC he rose to the rank of commander and in civilian life he has attracted countless friends and comrades. He is currently organising a committee of ex-combatants in his neighbourhood which he hopes will, among their other objectives, help prevent the demobilised from falling back into the war. The idea is to pool resources, improve relations with the community and establish solidarity and camaraderie amongst the demobilised in order to improve their situation. For the government, the success of the demobilisation programme is seen as a vital strategic step in putting an end to a gruesome war that has gone on for nearly half a century. But for the FARC's former combatants, most of whom have endured hardship and turmoil all their lives, the government's programme offers an opportunity to start anew and pursue something they have never known: a peaceful life. If they are to achieve this goal, however, they must be personally committed to peace in order to resist the ever-present possibility of reverting back to a life of violence. A film by Manuel Contreras and Russ Finkelstein]]> https://documentary.net/video/farc-guerrillas-a-war-that-never-ends/feed/ 1 Endgame – Embedded with US 4th Infantry Division in Kandahar https://documentary.net/video/endgame-embedded-with-us-4th-infantry-division-in-kandahar/ https://documentary.net/video/endgame-embedded-with-us-4th-infantry-division-in-kandahar/#comments Mon, 20 Jun 2011 14:06:28 +0000 http://documentary.net/?p=1958

Filmmaker John D McHugh was embedded with units from the US 4th infantry division in the city of Kandahar and the surrounding region, he describes the progress he witnessed while he was in Afghanistan. ]]>

Filmmaker John D McHugh was embedded with units from the US 4th infantry division in the city of Kandahar and the surrounding region, he describes the progress he witnessed while he was in Afghanistan. ]]> https://documentary.net/video/endgame-embedded-with-us-4th-infantry-division-in-kandahar/feed/ 1 Blood and Dust (2011) [Review] https://documentary.net/magazine/blood-and-dust-2011-review/ https://documentary.net/magazine/blood-and-dust-2011-review/#respond Mon, 09 May 2011 19:41:53 +0000 http://documentary.net/?p=1385

Vaughan Smith is a fearless director who already filmed several military embeds – when he filmed a Serbian military action in the 90’s a bullett lodged in his cell phone. His latest work took him to Afghanistan. In Blood and Dust he shows the other side of the war – the human side. And in the case of a war this means suffering. Blood and Dusts length is only about 25 minutes, but those 25 minutes are extremely intense and the title is quite literal. Sometimes the dust of the rough Afghan landscape is so heavy that one can hardly see what’s going on on screen; and when you can see what’s going on you see wounded soldiers and the exhausted faces of their comrades. Smith, who also founded the Frontline Club, an instituition to advance independent journalism and who also gave refuge to Julian Assange some months ago, spent ten days with paramedics of the US Army’s 214th Aviation Regiment and created a film that takes an unadorned look at the ugly side of war. In interviews the doctors and soldiers talk about their feelings and the uncertainty of their work. They never know what the next call is going to be, how hard it is going to be. Smith’s camera is always close to the medics, even in the most dangerous situations. Here one can see what war really is. One can imagine that many of the men think about quitting but in the end all comes down to the Aviation Regiment’s motto: „Striving to save lives.“ documentary.net says: If you are interested in war footage that is not shown on the news, this is a film for you. Watch this film]]>

Vaughan Smith is a fearless director who already filmed several military embeds – when he filmed a Serbian military action in the 90’s a bullett lodged in his cell phone. His latest work took him to Afghanistan. In Blood and Dust he shows the other side of the war – the human side. And in the case of a war this means suffering. Blood and Dusts length is only about 25 minutes, but those 25 minutes are extremely intense and the title is quite literal. Sometimes the dust of the rough Afghan landscape is so heavy that one can hardly see what’s going on on screen; and when you can see what’s going on you see wounded soldiers and the exhausted faces of their comrades. Smith, who also founded the Frontline Club, an instituition to advance independent journalism and who also gave refuge to Julian Assange some months ago, spent ten days with paramedics of the US Army’s 214th Aviation Regiment and created a film that takes an unadorned look at the ugly side of war. In interviews the doctors and soldiers talk about their feelings and the uncertainty of their work. They never know what the next call is going to be, how hard it is going to be. Smith’s camera is always close to the medics, even in the most dangerous situations. Here one can see what war really is. One can imagine that many of the men think about quitting but in the end all comes down to the Aviation Regiment’s motto: „Striving to save lives.“ documentary.net says: If you are interested in war footage that is not shown on the news, this is a film for you. Watch this film]]> https://documentary.net/magazine/blood-and-dust-2011-review/feed/ 0 Blood and Dust https://documentary.net/video/blood-and-dust/ https://documentary.net/video/blood-and-dust/#comments Thu, 05 May 2011 14:20:35 +0000 http://documentary.net/?p=1291

Award-winning filmmaker Vaughan Smith spent 10 days with a US Medevac helicopter unit in Afghanistan. ]]>

Award-winning filmmaker Vaughan Smith spent 10 days with a US Medevac helicopter unit in Afghanistan. ]]> https://documentary.net/video/blood-and-dust/feed/ 2