No End In Sight (2007, Documentary)
Christian Ethics and the Movies
“It is better to watch a good movie again than a bad movie once!”
War: No End In Sight (2007, Documentary)
Reviewed by David A. Thomas, Assoc. Prof. of Rhetoric Emeritus, University of Richmond
Besides the spate of theatrical war dramas, there are now a dozen Iraq War documentaries either in production or in distribution this year. The best one so far is No End in Sight. It won a significant prize at the Sundance Film Festival. Richard Schickel, Time magazine`s reviewer, called the film "without question the most important movie you are likely to see this year."
No End in Sight covers the U. S. occupation and reconstruction of Iraq following the fall of Baghdad in May, 2003. It is devastating to American credibility. It shows the nearly criminal incompetence of our officials in charge. It is not merely that mistakes were made, but that only mistakes were made.
It is a textbook example of the best documentary techniques. Unlike Michael Moore`s flagrantly political films, No End in Sight is universally praised for its depth, density, and rigorous factual presentation of its message. As the genre suggests, it fully and fairly documents its assertions. It is straightforward, historic, chronological, and calm. Charles Ferguson, the film`s producer, is not a typical film maker. His education includes an undergraduate degree in mathematics from Berkeley, and a Ph. D. in political science from MIT. He has been a visiting faculty member at both of those prestigious universities. He was a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute, and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. When he began this movie project, he supported the war. No one can accuse him of being soft on national security.
This movie is his first. He is not a part of the film industry. In another interest area besides politics and national security, he authored three books on information technology. He made millions when he sold his software company to Microsoft. He spent $2 million of his own money to make this movie. He expects no profits, but he says it is the best $2 million he ever spent.
Because of his solid reputation as a conservative thinker, he was given unprecedented access to the government`s insiders. Ultimately, he interviewed hundreds of participants and key players. However, at the top of the organization chart, no one agreed to cooperate with him. This "No" list included the President and Vice President, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, Condileeza Rice, along with their top NeoCon advisers like Paul Wolfowitz. L. Paul Bremer III, the first Coalition Humanitarian and Reconstruction Authority director, who made the biggest errors, also refused interviews.
Just about everyone else in a position to know cooperated. On camera interviews include our Ambassador to Iraq, Barbara Bodine; White House insider Richard Armitage; Gen. Jay Garner; Col. Paul Hughes; Col. Lawrence Wilkerson (Colin Powell`s Chief of Staff); and many others who spoke freely with Ferguson on the record. Dozens of mid-level foreign service officials, Marines, civilian workers, and Iraqi nationals, also appear.
Ferguson and his crew spent months on the ground in Iraq. They generated 200 hours of interview footage and 30,000 pages of interview transcripts, of which less than one percent could be used in the movie due to length. Ninety-five percent of the interviews are with Republicans. Only one person, Walter Slocombe, Bush loyalist and former director of the Coalition Provisional Authority, still defends his actions and decisions despite the outcomes. He is to be admired for his courage to be interviewed.
In the end, No End in Sight is an indictment of the Bush Administration`s embarrassing handling of the Iraq situation. It turned a quick military victory over Saddam Hussein in 2003 into a catastrophic political and social quagmire even worse than it was before we invaded the country. Now, four years later, there is no end in sight.
Four main topics are covered in the movie`s bill of particulars. First, the war`s launch: The war was initiated and executed without any post-invasion plans. Pres. Bush based his actions on his utter reliance on a few NeoCon advisers and his own deeply held commitment to their imperialistic philosophy. None of those top level advisers had any experience or expertise in the military or diplomacy, certainly none in the Middle East. Their errors stemmed from their refusal to read military and CIA intelligence analyses, relevant State Department studies, and other key documents. The first major blunder Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld made was his decision to use only half the number of troops that the Pentagon insisted would be needed post-invasion.
The next three mistakes were all made by Bremer, the administrator who replaced Gen. Jay Garner in Iraq. He was the bureaucrat who was first assigned to take charge of post-invasion reconstruction. Bremer had never served diplomatically in the Middle East, had never set foot in Iraq, and he did not speak the language. He had never served in the military. Yet he made the following three fateful decisions without seeking the advice of anyone who could have helped him.
(1) Immediately after capturing Baghdad, our military failed to stop the looting of Baghdad. MPs were ordered not to interfere. This was a direct result of going in with insufficient forces for security. Stores, government buildings, and facilities were gutted down to the plumbing. Under Bremer`s orders, while priceless treasures of the National Museum and libraries-mankind`s oldest artifacts-were being carted off by thieves in semis, our U. S. Marines provided protection for just one location: the Oil Ministry.
(2) The decision to oust all Ba`ath Party members from any government posts, with the result that every Iraqi professional was permanently unemployed, including practically every doctor, lawyer, manager, commissioner, technician, and civil administrator all the way down to classroom teachers, with no qualified replacements available. This effectively paralyzed every function of civilian life in Iraq.
(3) The decision to disband the Iraqi Army, which instantly put a half million young Muslim men on the streets, many of them still armed. Inevitably, after the country was militarily defeated, Iraq was thrust into total social and political chaos. A wealthy and orderly nation was destroyed and poverty stricken, and completely out of control.
No End In Sight is made up of many "talking heads" on camera, with few action episodes or even background shots. It is, pure and simple, a debate brief on film. There is no fiction, no embellishment, no condensed time sequences, no composite characters. The only actor in the movie, the narrator Campbell Scott, speaks calmly. It is about as apolitical, prosaic, understated, objective, and, well, Republican documentary as there could possibly be. It never preaches, yet it never bores. After viewing this movie, it is difficult to understand why Pres. Bush`s low ratings are as high as they are.
Ethical Implications of Iraq War Movies Today. What ethical or moral implications can be drawn? Here, politics and ethics overlap.
There have been literally dozens of presidential primary debates to this point. For months, we have repeatedly watched a stage full of Democratic candidates on one hand, and an equally crowded platform of Republican candidates on the other, hammer home their talking points about what they believe the Iraq War issues come down to. What if their TV debates were our only sources for understanding the war? As this is written prior to the primaries, Democratic contenders seem united only on blaming Pres. Bush for misleading the nation into the war in the first place. None of the leading candidates of either party talk about actually ending the Iraq War. Rudy Giuliani says, "every time the Democrats debate, Hamas is the winner." In press conferences, Pres. Bush talks about World War III. At this point, according to both sides, there is literally no end in sight.
That could change. No End in Sight is not a box office smash, but its target audience is highly responsive. In contrast to the mass audiences that go to movie theaters for entertainment, those who elect to see movies like this are opinion leaders. It has already been shown in Congress. More Iraq War documentaries are scheduled soon.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
