No End in Sight (2007)

No End in Sight is a documentary film which premiered in 2007. It is about the US war in Iraq which began in 2003. Here is some basic information about this film:

** Writer, producer, and director: Charles Ferguson

** Executive producer: Alex Gibney

** Narrator: Campbell Scott

** Released on DVD: 2008

** Run time: 102 minutes

More than thirty persons are interviewed in the film. I will not mention all names, because the complete list is too long. Here are some of the names (in alphabetical order):

** Chris Allbritton – reporter, TIME Magazine

** Richard Armitage – former deputy secretary of the US State Department

** Barbara Bodine – US ambassador to Iraq from April to May 2003

** James Fallows – national editor of the Atlantic, author of Blind into Baghdad: America’s War in Iraq (2006)

** Marc Garlasco – senior Iraq analyst, US Defense Intelligence Agency 1997-2003

** Jay Garner – US general

** Paul Hughes – US colonel, worked for ORHA and later for CPA

** Robert Hutchings – former chairman of the US National Intelligence Council

** George Packer – reporter, author of The Assassins’ Gate: America in Iraq (2005)

** Samantha Power – war reporter, author, US ambassador to the UN 2013-2017 (under President Obama)

** Lawrence Wilkerson – chief of staff for US Secretary of State Colin Powell

Archive footage is used between the talking heads. Archive footage is used to illustrate historical events and to show us old clips and old interviews with public figures.

In the beginning of this film we are told that the official reason for going to war against Iraq was not true. US President Bush claimed Iraq was a sanctuary for international terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda. A claim which was never supported by any US intelligence. Once this fact has been mentioned, it is largely forgotten. The main part of the film is devoted to a detailed analysis of the US occupation of Iraq.

According to the film, the US government had a simple 3-step plan for the war in Iraq:

# 1. Invade Iraq and overthrow the government of Saddam Hussein

# 2. Occupy Iraq and establish a new pro-US government in Iraq

# 3. Pack up and go home

The plan was expected to be completed in less than one year. But the plan was based on wishful thinking. It was totally unrealistic. In 2007, four years after the invasion, when this film was released, Iraq was being torn apart by internal conflicts. US forces were still in Iraq, and as the title says, there was “no end in sight.”

According to the film, the occupation was badly planned and poorly implemented.

The US army did A, B, and C. This was not a good idea. They should not have done that. Examples:

(1) The US decided to dissolve the Iraqi army.

(2) The men in charge of the war had no military experience and refused to listen to men who had military experience.

(3) The men in charge of the war did not speak Arabic.

The US army failed to X, Y, and Z. This was a shame. They should have done that. Examples:

(1) The US did not establish a police force that could have prevented looting and destruction in Baghdad.

(2) The US army did not provide protection of public buildings in Baghdad, such as the National Museum of Iraq, which was looted and damaged.

These claims are supported by facts and by interviews with people who know what they are talking about. Not only outside observers, but also people who used to work for the US in different positions (high as well as low). They believed the US government had good intentions, but they were disillusioned when the US policy failed to produce good results.

What is the implication of this? The implication seems to be as follows: if only the planning had been better, if only the plan had been implemented in a better way, things would have been fine. But is this really true?

The word mentioned again and again is “mistake.” When the US army did A, B, and C, it was a mistake. When the US army failed to X, Y, and Z, it was a mistake. If only they had not made these mistakes, things would have been fine. But is this really true?

What is the meaning of the word “mistake”? It means you do something wrong by accident.

If you accidentally bump into someone on the sidewalk, it is a mistake. You apologize and the other person will probably forgive you, because you did not mean for this to happen.

Things are different, if you bump into someone on purpose. You know it is wrong, but you do not care. You do it anyway, because you only care about yourself. You think this other person is in your way, so you just push him aside. This is not a mistake. This is a crime.

Here is another example: a bank robbery that has gone wrong. The bank robbers are inside the bank. They have the money they came for, but the police are waiting outside. Now the bank robbers are asking themselves: how did we end up in this situation? What went wrong?

Perhaps the robbery was badly planned and poorly implemented. Perhaps we should have made a better plan. Perhaps we should have implemented the plan in a better way. What can we do now? Perhaps we can say it was all a mistake. We did not mean it. If we give back the money, can you forget about it and let us go home?

Do you think the police will accept this offer? No. The police will say: we do not care about your plan or how it was implemented. What is important here is the fact that you broke the law.

A bank robbery is not a mistake. It is a crime!

When the director of this film focuses almost exclusively on the occupation of Iraq – what was done and what was not done – he fails to see the bigger picture: why is the US army even there? How and why did it all begin?

As stated above, more than thirty persons are interviewed in the film, but it seems not one of them can say the following words: the war against Iraq is morally wrong and in violation of international law.

The leaders of the US Government have a goal. They want to control Iraq. The only question they have is this: how can we reach this goal? They never stop and ask themselves: what about our goal? Is it right or wrong? Is it in accordance with international law?

How many stars does this film deserve? The answer depends on what I am looking for.

If I want to see a film that offers a detailed analysis of the US occupation of Iraq, I must say this film is perfect. It deserves a rating of five stars for a job well done.

But if I want to see a film that covers the whole war, a film that places the war against Iraq in the context of US global policy, I must say I am very disappointed. In that case, this film cannot get more than two stars, because it focuses on tactics and strategy; because it explains the mess in Iraq by talking about poor planning, incompetence and mistakes.

PS # 1. What do reviewers say about this film? Here are the results of three review aggregators:

** 83 per cent = IMDb

** 89 per cent = Meta

** 94 per cent = Rotten Tomatoes (the audience)

** 96 per cent = Rotten Tomatoes (the critics)

On the US version of Amazon there are more than 160 reviews of this product. The average rating is 4.6 stars.

As you can guess, I think all these average ratings are too generous. I think this film is highly overrated.

PS # 2. Charles Ferguson is the director of the film “Inside Job” (which premiered in 2010). The topic is the global economic crisis and collapse of 2008.

PS # 4. Alex Gibney is the director of several documentary films, including:

** Enron (2005)

** Client 9 (2010)

** Park Avenue (2012)

** The Armstrong Lie (2015)

PS # 5. Here are some other films about the war in Iraq:

** Control Room (2004)

** Why We Fight (2005)

** The Ground Truth (2006)

** Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers (2006)

** The Unknown Known (2013)

** We Are Many (2014)

** Imminent Threat (2015)

** Official Secrets (2019)

*****

*****