Michael_Elliott
No End in Sight (2007) *** 1/2 (out of 4) Extremely well-made documentary taking a look at the many blunders made by the Bush administration during the Iraq invasion and the years after wards. Many government officials involved in some of the decisions are interviewed and it's clear that all of them are embarrassed by the events that happened. Many soldiers on the ground are also interviewed and have questions on why they were better protected when they were dropped into bad situations. NO END IN SIGHT is a very strong, intelligent and well thought out documentary that works on so many levels but at the same time I must say that I wish it hadn't been so one-sided and instead of just telling one story I wish they would have gathered someone from the other side. The evidence shown in this documentary makes it clear that there were so many mistakes made but I wish the filmmakers had gathered someone, or anyone, to try and explain why these decisions were made. Yes, the documentary tells us that the major players refused to be interviewed but I'm sure there were people below them that would have tried to explain the actions. With that said, what we do get here is pretty impressive stuff and this isn't your typical talking heads documentary where people just give brief statements that the director then edits together to tell his story. I was really impressed with how much detail was given to all the answers that were given and I was surprised to see how many stories were told about issues that went wrong. We start off with stuff about the lack of Marshall Law and how not stopping the looting early on led to many bigger issues down the road. We hear about various historic locations that were allowed to be destroyed, the U.S. soldiers not being allowed to do their jobs safely and things just keep getting worse as it appears no one was paying attention. NO END IN SIGHT really does a great job at showing it's case and those who support its cause will be entertained and saddened.
sychonic
I have a lot of opinions on this work, so I will start out with SPOILERS WITHIN. Hard to have a spoiler when most of what this documentary is just a retread of things anyone who's literate has read before. Having been made in 2007, in 2010, the end is clearly in sight, so it lacks critical information.There's a saying about World War I and World War II, "Same war, different chapters." (Churchill?) The First and Second Persian Gulf War, in my view, can be said of the same. This documentary doesn't really address that, which is okay, but it pretends to.In the very first part of the movie it gives a "history" of the Iraq Conflict. It starts with Hussein as a dictator attacking Iran. Which is fine, but woefully insufficient. If they wanted to have a serious history, they should have at least gone back to the end of the First World War, when the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire, who controlled the territory that is now Iraq, had lost and the Allies, notably the British, tried to figure out what to do with it.What ultimately happened was the creation of a makeshift nation, somehow named Iraq, with all kinds of disparate religious, ethnic, tribal, clan allegiances all at odds with each other in the same country. And that a minority religious group (the Islamic Sunnis) dominated everyone else (hinted at but not really explored).This mess of a country was held together by Hussein, ultimately, as a brutal dictator -- which is sort of addressed, but the makers of the documentary are much more interested in attacking the Bush Administration and its interest in getting rid of him and his genocidal tendencies. And it somehow make mention that the U.S. gave Hussein economic support in his war against Iran, which is hardly supported since he was getting tons of money and loans from the Kuwaitis and Saudis to buy weapons from the Soviets and the French. And also ignores the basic view of he U.S. government explicitly stated by Henry Kissinger (in private sector at the time) "It's too bad they can't both lose." Certainly the one thing the documentary gets right, I think many people agree, is the lack of planning for a post-Second Persian Gulf War. And an enormous repercussion from that lack of planning, and the decisions that followed.But then, it ridicules President Bush for avoiding military service in Vietnam by joining the National Guard (ironically a significant presence in the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan). Of course they fail to mention that Woodrow Wilson (WWI) and FDR (WWII) had never served in the military, and hardly in combat, and Abraham Lincoln (Civil War) had only had a cursory service in a skirmish against some Indians. All three wartime presidents.Perhaps the most trenchant and important part of the movie is the identification of three mistakes that were made by the post-war controller of Iraq -- Paul Bremer. Stopping an interim Iraqi government, de-baathification, and disbanding the security forces of Iraq (the last being the most egregious). A similarly accurate observation is the lack of post-war American forces ability to control all the munitions that were all around Iraq -- again, I think something that is commonly agreed on.Then again there are some blatant falsehoods, or perhaps inexcusable ignorance. One that is very clear: "Only one in eight Humvees in Iraq had adequate armor." Humvees were never supposed to be armored vehicles. Anyone who know anything about the U.S. military knows that the Humvee was a replacement for the Jeep. Only some of them were equipped with armor from the beginning. Humvees were just a vehicle to move around in, not to fight in with armor. There is no question that shortsightedness led to casualties because no one realized that the humvees would be vulnerable to insurgent attack. MRAPs, the more blast resistant vehicles were far too late in coming.These are just some basic observations about the documentary -- it highlights the transgressions, such as they might have been, by the U.S. military, but it fundamentally avoids, or omits the question: What was life like before Hussein being deposed, or life afterward? It mentions nothing of the repression on a day to day basis before Americans came. It mentions nothing of the opening of the society -- internet, freedoms, day to day ability to move around, or even avoiding the sociopaths that were Hussein's sons.And even more so, when the American run prison was to be turned over to the the Iraqis, the prisoners therein implored the Americans to take them with them. There were communications to people that if soldiers came to their door, before answering, make sure there was an American soldier with them to be careful.And even now, as Americans are leaving the country, now Iraqis are lamenting the exit.I think someone should ask -- whether it was worth it or not, that's a very good question -- but in 2010, do Iraqis or Americans, or anyone else, really want a vicious dictator like Hussein back again? This documentary seems to leave that question open.
bobm5508
This is an important documentary, that deserves a wide spread viewing by all Americans. It is an informative history lesson of the POST WAR missteps that sadly have our soldiers AND the IRAQI nation leading a frightening existence. The interviews with Iraqi citizens, their heartfelt loss of country pride and loss of any liveable civilization were heartbreaking to me.The director's take here is as on balance as it can get, knowing where we now stand. History is on his side. He has assembled the "usual suspects" of culpable parties - Rumsfeld, Cheney, the always distant George Bush and their dispatched diplomats. He chronicles the mind bogging, bad decisions, decisions made by woefully under qualified participants. The interviews of replaced diplomats are naturally the most damning, but do not seem like their agenda are misguided. The "Usual Suspects", as expected, refused to be interviewed.Many reviews here, and by major critics, depict those decisions and their devastating consequences. I will not rehash them here, and hope you watch this powerful movie.But, I have one nagging question. The "ousted" participants interviewed here seem to have had a good grasp on what needed to be done. Working against all odds (looted buildings, collapsed intrastucture, poor planning prior to their arrival) they speak about their slow but sure steps to reconstruction. Rumsford, Cheney et al picked them and put them in place!! What happened to shift them out of the picture so quickly?? Why did the administration feel the need to remove Jay Gardner (retired General with experience and in place) with an elitist, ex-CEO, armed with 2 devastatingly bad edicts??? I would have liked a bit more back story on how the change from humanitarian organization to the CPA came to be. With 200 hours of footage (I read somewhere), maybe that info can be addressed!?All in all, a must see. It is also a very valuable reminder that we have to pick our future leaders much better than this self serving mess of an administration!
