No End in Sight

No End in Sight (2007)
Directed by Charles Ferguson
***1/4

Grievous
I cried while watching this documentary. I simply couldn't believe how grievously we had damaged the country of Iraq. Surely some of this had to be fabricated. Surely this many blunders in one war would be a mathematical impossibility. But as the film went on, carefully compiling its chronology, the evidence accumulated. No plan. No advice. No control. No wisdom. No trust. It's no wonder that as of this point, for Iraq's troubles there is no end in sight.

Bumbling
The film itself is imperfect, blemished by a slightly too personal tone at times, or a desire to include a slightly too personal a comment from an interviewee. Generally, it lacked the polished artistry of a documentary like Taxi to the Dark Side.

But far more, the US invasion and reconstruction in Iraq make bumbling seem like a polite phrase. In case you're curious about my strong reaction here, I probably knew as little or as much as you about the details of the Iraqi invasion and reconstruction process before watching this film. Charles Ferguson seems dedicated more to preserving a historical record of the events (rather than thesis-pushing), and he pursues the facts with patience and care.

Spiraling
First it was not enough troops. Then a barrage of only-insider decisions, with no persuasive input invited from those with military experience, reconstruction experience or an inside knowledge of Iraq. Then the troops were asked to stand by while looters ransacked government buildings, stole and/or burned  millennia-old artifacts from Baghdad's renowned museum and library. Then came the disbanding of the Iraqi police and the army, leaving hundreds of thousands of bread-winners without jobs. Then an executive decision that no existing government officials or intelligentsia could be members of the new government. Then the night raids, looking for Saddam, but far more often nabbing or killing the wrong guys, creating hostility.

Eventually, hungry families (whose sons had lost their jobs or were imprisoned) began to look to the US for utilities, jobs, food. At the same time, private contractors came in by the thousands, and were given permission to exercise their own discretion on violence—sometimes gunning down random cars while driving along the road. When the US didn't deliver jobs and utilities, and extremist Muslim communities seemed to offer at least a level of welcome and support, insurgency became inevitable. And when the insurgency came, the US responded with sweeping arrests of more breadwinners (often, any male of military age) and with an insufficient number of troops to maintain the peace.

Unacceptable
Just whose fault this is becomes clear through the documentary's development. Time after time, the decisions were made, decisively and without welcome to advice, by a small group of people. President Bush. Vice President Cheney. Donald Rumsfeld. Paul Wolfowitz. Paul Bremmer. Condoleezza Rice.

The people with the expertise, whose job it was to advise on decisions like this, were the ones interviewed for the film, from soldiers to Colin Powell's staff to the heads of the reconstruction organizations. Since these interviewees were almost all members or former members of the Bush administration, this is no case of liberal conspiracy-theorizing (and it never comes across this way; its carefulness puts Fahrenheit 9/11 to shame). The reality is that this is grievous, bumbling, unacceptable behavior from the highest leaders of our land. Its results are the deaths of many of the citizens we went to deliver, the imprisonment of many others, and the impoverishment of hundreds of thousands. Since we also allowed such rampant looting of their capital, we also essentially erased their history and sense of value as a nation. I was deeply troubled by this documentary, because it showed that the country we went in to help has been harmed almost beyond recognition. May God forgive us.

Comments

[Jordan M. Poss]

LOL--no problem.

I think the primary problem with the Iraq situation is one of focus. Precisely the same arguments currently made about Iraq could have been made perhaps even more convincingly about Germany and Japan after WWII or the South after the Civil War (and has quite a bit, actually, with regard to Hiroshima and Nagasaki). Iraq has become something of a mile marker showing what has changed in America--it's simply not possible to get everyone behind the government any more, even when the aim and intent is noble.

Hm. That entire paragraph could open any one of a dozen "cans of worms." Please forgive the generalizations. :D

[Will]

Jordan, thanks for saying what I didn't. :-)

But I guess you know I meant HOW we went about it, and not that we did. It's possible to remove a dictator without ruining a country. Our record over the past several years, unfortunately, is that we ruined the country at almost every step. The Iraqis would have been better off if they called in Jamaica to help them remove Hussein. [That last statement is hyperbole, of course.]

[Jordan M. Poss]

May God forgive us... for removing a tyrannical dictator who harbored terrorism and suppressed and murdered local minorities and his own people through a system of misongynist religious fascism.

This is an imperfect world. Things will not go well for everyone, and very seldom even for a majority. The middle east is a terrible place and change will not come without pain. Choosing "the lesser of two evils" may not be a convincing argument for some, but I doubt the Iraqi people--especially the Kurds--would prefer to have Saddam back.