'No End in Sight' documentary explains problems in Iraq
By Taryn Lentes, Staff Writer
September 17, 2007 | 9:49 p.m.
Critic’s Rating: A+
Runing Time: 102 minutes
MPAA Rating: not rated
Movie Genre: documentary
---
Not long ago, questioning the Bush administration’s policies would have been considered unpatriotic. Now, everyone seems to be critical of the war. Answering how and why things went wrong is essential to avoiding repeating those mistakes, and that’s where “No End in Sight” comes in.
“No End in Sight” is not the biased, leftist documentary some will undoubtedly claim it to be (most likely after reading the title and without actually watching the film). In fact, it has little to do with the Michael Moore-style of informative film, which, while powerful and often moving, is prone to oversimplifications. “No End in Sight” leaves the audience not only with a righteous, unfocused anger, but also a true sense of what specific mistakes were made and how they were allowed to happen.
Director Charles Ferguson has a Ph.D. in political science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and it shows. Ferguson used his disenfranchisement with the war in Iraq and a large sum of his own money to reach his goal of producing a film that got to the truth about U.S. policy in Iraq. The truth comes from the people who were there and the people who were actually involved, so the interviewee list this film boasts is impressive. More than once, the audience is left wondering how the filmmakers managed to convince some of those key figures to appear. It’s true, though unsurprising, that Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice all refused to appear in the film.
Among those who do turn up are the Iraqi ambassador to the United Nations, the deputy secretary of state (2001-2005), the director of strategic policy in Iraq, the general in charge of training the new Iraqi army, and numerous soldiers, journalists, professors and other high-ranking government officials who were directly involved in the botched efforts in Iraq. Something both disturbing and strangely reassuring subsists about hearing these people lament the lack of preparation, communication and common sense present during the period when so many crucial decisions were made.
After painstakingly laying out policies and plans for the reconstruction and stabilization of Iraq, a task they were given on inconceivably short notice, those initially involved in the efforts in Iraq were forced to watch their suggestions ignored, their positions replaced and their agency fazed out for not complying with the vision back home in Washington. At points in the film, it almost seems as if those participating are torn between the urge to apologize for not fighting harder and anger that they were used as long as they were.
The film outlines several key decisions that led to social and economic unrest among the Iraqi people, one of the most important being the decision to disband the Iraqi army. Former director of strategic policy in Iraq, Col. Paul Hughes claims to have had more than 100,000 Iraqi soldiers in talks to return to their posts and act as a local police force, ceasing lawlessness and looting among their own people. Before he could mobilize these forces, he received the news that the army was being disbanded, not from his colleagues in Washington, but from a news broadcast on television.
Hughes and others angrily describe how thousands of Iraqi men with military training and knowledge of weapons’ locations were denied purpose, salary and their pride. With anger over their predicament and no other way to provide for and protect their families, many of these men became the beginning of the insurgency.
When Walter Slocombe, senior adviser of national security and defense for the Coalition Provisional Authority, was asked about the decision and lack of communication with Hughes, he merely replied that he was speaking with Hughes daily but could not recall whether he mentioned the disbanding of the army to him. It’s a familiar refrain from those in the Bush administration, and these instances of memory lapse, combined with clips of Rumsfeld explaining to troops why it wasn’t a priority to provide armored Humvees, is more than enough to balance the documentary’s levelheaded approach with a well-deserved dose of outrage.
The most poignant moment in "No End in Sight" is its last. Lt. Seth Moulton of the U.S. Marines perfectly summed up the feelings of many Americans, regardless of political affiliation, when he said, "Don't tell me this is the best America can do."
---