Standing Army, directed by Enrico Parenti and Thomas Fazi

I was recently introduced to Standing Army, directed by Enrico Parenti and Thomas Fazi, by an Italian friend of mine who works at RAI, Italy’s national television network. He felt the film might interest me, given that I am an American, a veteran, and a filmmaker, and he was right. The documentary was produced by an Italian crew who were inspired to make the film following the announcement that the United States military planned to build a new base in Vicenza, Italy, a decision that moved forward despite widespread public opposition, protests from local residents, and outspoken political resistance from the region.

The film begins by documenting these protests before expanding outward, taking the viewer on a tour of Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo and then grounding its argument in unclassified statistics and extensive archival footage related to the US military. Over the course of three years, Parenti and Fazi assembled a detailed examination of the United States’ expanding global military presence, the effects this presence has on host countries, and the possible motivations and risks behind its continued growth. What they ultimately present is an unsettling diagnosis of a condition that many Americans may already sense but rarely confront directly.

The title Standing Army itself is compelling. Visually, it evokes the image of soldiers in uniform, waiting, prepared, and immobile. When that army is the United States military, the subject becomes even more difficult to ignore. Growing up in the US, hearing phrases like “our military is the best in the world” shouted by a drill instructor in boot camp, is something I admit I once carried with pride. This film challenges that pride by placing it under external examination. Viewed through the lens of foreign filmmakers who step inside the US to interview scholars and authors such as Noam Chomsky, Catherine Lutz, and Gore Vidal, the documentary offers a perspective that is difficult to gain while living within the country’s borders.

Using field research, archival footage, and expert testimony, Standing Army frames the United States as a modern empire and connects the immense growth of its military to long standing warnings issued by past presidents, including George Washington and Dwight D. Eisenhower. Eisenhower’s cautionary words about the military industrial complex, a term I first encountered in The Fog of War, become a recurring anchor point. The film argues that terrorism and foreign wars are not isolated outcomes but symptoms of an overextended system. It also draws a clear line between the expansion of US military bases and the interests of global oil contractors, a connection that has been repeated so often in recent history that it risks becoming background noise to voters more focused on local news or reality television.

Watching the film’s depiction of a military apparatus that appears able to go where it wants, when it wants, while leaving cultural and environmental damage in its wake, is deeply uncomfortable. Yet it is also unsurprising, particularly in light of events associated with Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. Perhaps the most painful realization the film offers is the suggestion that the US military is no longer defined solely by the idea of standing ready to defend the nation. Instead, it has evolved into a complex system that increasingly pursues economic and political stability through conflict, positioning its resources wherever it sees advantage.

The film is not without its weaknesses. Its most notable flaw is a lack of meaningful opposition to its central argument, which at times pushes the message toward the edge of propaganda. Relying heavily on expert interviews that reinforce the same viewpoint, the film labels the US military as the “800 pound gorilla in the room” without offering counter perspectives from policymakers or military officials. Selective use of a public speech by Hillary Clinton and visual manipulation of footage featuring Barack Obama, making him appear cold and distant, further reveal the filmmakers’ willingness to shape perception. Even the opening music carries a tone of paranoia. While these choices maintain tension and engagement, they also weaken the film’s credibility by leaning too heavily in one direction.

Still, it is difficult to ignore moments that cut through these shortcomings. Watching Edward Luttwak, a consultant to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, dismissively address those who challenge military interests is jarring and revealing. Listening to author William Blum calmly list recent wars alongside the military bases that followed gives weight to the film’s claims. By the end, it becomes easier to understand how it might feel to live with a foreign military embedded within one’s country, and harder to deny that the United States is most often the one occupying that role.

As a side note, Standing Army has received recognition across parts of Asia, Europe, and the Middle East, though it has yet to secure distribution in the United States. You can watch the trailer below and visit the Standing Army site to purchase a copy. It is a professionally made and valuable film for anyone seeking a deeper understanding of the United States’ military influence around the world.

Thanks for reading. I hope you enjoyed it. Comment and join for future reviews.

_______

BUY YOUR COPY AT:

http://www.standingarmy.it/
________