No End in Sight

source: No End in Sight

It's very hard to rate documentaries, especially documentaries that deal with the war in Iraq. I have become very disillusioned by my government leaders about most things and, especially, the war in Iraq. Thousands of good American citizens have lost their lives for a war that has always been about oil. The scenes presented in this documentary were presented well. It is up to you, as an American citizen, to determine just how you perceive the presentation. If only fifty percent of what was presented is the truth, then I say, dam the politicians in this country and dam those who do not have the intestinal fortitude to stand up to the inexperienced hierarchy in this GREAT land of ours!

First let me comment on the film's presentation. It was well-crafted from an editing/cinematography/graphics point of view. It looked far better than, for example, a Robert Greenwald documentary. It was woven together well and easy to watch. The content was decent, but I felt that the reasons for invading Iraq were ignored while the film focused on individual people's mistakes as far as military strategy was concerned. If certain companies didn't have an economic interest in that region, the war never would have occurred in the first place, so motivations, to me, are a pretty important detail that many movies about the war seem to be leaving out. While this film did provide an inside look at the lead-up to the war and Paul Bremer's atrocious handling of the occupation, I felt that it completely glossed over the massive profits that have been made in Iraq by U.S. companies (see the Iraq chapters in Naomi Klein's book "The Shock Doctrine"). Halliburton and a host of other U.S. companies have made a killing there while the Iraqi people continue to suffer. The true story of the war (and the hidden rationale for the war), which this movie hardly discussed, is the fact that it was a coordinated attempt to give U.S. companies access to a massive, untapped economic market. Oil reserves, reconstruction projects, and privatized warfare have the potential to be incredibly profitable. In the past, U.S. companies had no access to these markets, due, in part, to the strict U.N. sanctions on Iraq. The companies that stood to benefit from the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the destabilization of Iraq (a.k.a. the opening of an untouched new market) used their money and influence to produce think tank policy papers and talking heads that supported the invasion of Iraq. In fact, many members of the Bush administration, who are (or were) on the government's payroll, refused to divest themselves of their shares in the very companies that would go on to make outrageous profits in Iraq. They were well aware that this constituted a conflict of interest, but when asked to choose between their government posts and their money, they simply refused (or engaged in some "fuzzy math" shenanigans). So, the people who created the war directly benefited from it and it is in their interest to perpetuate it as long as there is money to be made. From "The Shock Doctrine": "The fact that Cheney still maintains such a quantity of Halliburton shares means that, throughout his term as vice president, he has collected millions every year in dividends from his stocks and has also been paid an annual deferred income by Halliburton of $211,000— roughly equivalent to his government salary. When he leaves office in 2009 and is able to cash in his Halliburton holdings, Cheney will have the opportunity to profit extravagantly from the stunning improvement in Halliburton's fortunes. The company's stock price rose from $10 before the war in Iraq to $41 three years later—a 300 percent jump, thanks to a combination of soaring energy prices and Iraq contracts, both of which flow directly from Cheney's steering the country into war with Iraq. " Or, put more simply by Boots Riley of The Coup: "War ain't about one land against the next; it's poor people dying so the rich cash checks."

You know I try to come into these things with an open mind, but it's clear this movie learned it's propaganda tactics from Fahrenheit 9/11. A bunch of hosed down juxtapositions to make the Bush administration look like mass murderers. Fact is we don't have import much of our oil from Iraq or Afghanstain so another blood for oil lie. This movie is left wing garbage.

Saddam's weapons came from Russia. For those who need a history lesson, Russia was the 'other side in the cold war' which was still being very much fought in the 1980's. The only side that got any 'secret' help from the US was Iran. It was in all the papers. The so called Reagan payoff to Iran. Lets try to keep our invective at least ACCURATE. The US did not 'back' Saddam in anything. We backed the Shah of Iran with weapons to counteract the Russian weapons in Iraq. Most Americans were so sick of the whole conflict, which only killed hundreds of thousands and featured the use of chemical weapons, by Iraq. You know, those weapons of mass destruction they didn't have and never used. People in America would be happy if they had both killed each other off until no one was left because we didn't understand the conflict. Iraq, specifically Saddam wanted to take over Iran. Hmmm. Just like Kuwait. And Iran got slipped some spare parts to make sure that didn't happen. Only the exact opposite of what some people are claiming. Pay attention to history. There will be a test. This was one.

In retrospect, I suppose 2007 will go down as the year in which filmmakers began addressing the problems in Iraq. The number of Iraq-themed films has piled up and disappeared at a breathtaking pace. Maybe it's not a surprise that the best of them so far is the one that doesn't try to turn the conflict into something fictional. All of the other Iraq movies have been well intentioned but limp; you can tell they want to address what's wrong without truly enraging anyone. Well, Charles Ferguson, the writer and director of "No End in Sight," has no such qualms, and his film enrages indeed. Meticulously crafted, "No End in Sight" proves what everyone has already known for a long time: the Iraq conflict is a complete disaster. The film is certainly biased; anyone who wants to discount it based on that fact is welcome to. But anyone who wants to deny that America's handling of post-invasion Iraq has been anything but a complete "quagmire" (to borrow a word from the film) is hopelessly deluded. "No End in Sight" is not about whether or not the war in Iraq was justified; in fact, the film goes out of its way to affirm that at first many Iraqis were happy that the U.S. had deposed Saddam Hussein. Rather, the film is about what went wrong after the invasion, about how groups that actually had a reconstruction plan were met with indifference at every step by an administration that really cared nothing for the Iraqi people even as they fed the American public a lot of hooey about bringing freedom and democracy to them. This film makes clear that for all of its recent talk about dangerous nations destabilizing the world's peace, the United States is one of the most dangerous countries currently in existence. It's terrifying that governments are run like this; if this film is accurate, my office at work is better managed than the project for occupying post-war Iraq. Ferguson can't be blamed if his film seems one sided. None of the key decision makers managing Iraq policy -- Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Bremer -- agreed to be interviewed for the film. The only consolation the film offers is that Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld now look like complete fools. Either they thought they had a good plan for rebuilding Iraq and proved themselves to be ridiculously incompetent; or (and more likely) they never really cared about what happened to Iraq in the first place and have proved themselves to be downright scary. Grade: A

When I heard about this film on one of my local college radio stations, I figured "I have to see this when/if it plays at one of my local cinemas". Of course, I never for a microsecond expected it to play at a mainstream cinema (heavens forbid that the masses would forsake their precious Adam Sandler piece of s**t instead of an insightful documentary about where our country has gone). I did get to see it (at one of my fave art cinemas), I knew it would be an eye opener,but not to the extent that I actually got (I exited the cinema feeling like the Alex character in 'Clockwork Orange' who had his eyes clamped open to watch all of that horrible violence---in short, I felt like I had been kicked in the stomach for nearly two hours). This is a well made doc about how the Bush Administration (or as I prefer to call it, The Fourth Reich)has managed to destroy a country,it's people & it's culture. And now that retarded Nazi wants to set his sights on Iran? It's clear that something has to be done about this dangerous spawn of Satan, before any more damage can be done. If you give a rats crap for our country,or for that matter,our world, see this crucial film (and prepare to walk out feeling angry & disillusioned at our so called leaders).

Good film, a well done documentary. Most outstanding achievement was its balance- this is no Mikey Moore ultra-leftist propaganda "mockumentary". It makes salient points and lets the audience draw its own intellectual conclusions. It was the final nail in the coffin for me- i have no faith left in gov't. I recommend this to anybody who's politically involved. It's a bit slow, you have to have a solid attention span to stay involved. I wonder why several key people declined to be interviewed? Pres Bush was cited as not having read numerous key reports, i wonder why not? Why do so many people defend this absolutely unwarranted (and illegal) war? When did Congress declare war on Iraq? How could we have legally invaded without this declaration?

As you may have inferred from my many sardonic comments about the neocons, I oppose the war in Iraq. The documentary No End in Sight confirms my opinion not shared by everyone to be sure. But this documentary, written, directed, and produced by Charles Ferguson, an information technology expert and member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Brookings Institution, shows in a rare non-ideological way, the mistakes made up to and during the Iraq invasion. This is not an incendiary Michael Moore screed; it puts the left's argument in cool, rational light for the right to see clearly and attack as is its right. Ferguson grimly reminds us that information about the absence of WMD's was ignored to further an agenda that began immediately after 9/11 with the order to confirm a link between Al-Qaeda and Hussein's Ba'athist regime. If you want more insanity, how about the order to disband the entire Iraqi army and Ba'ath party members from government service. That 2004 brought an insurgency of disaffected Sunni men who could have been serving in the necessary local army was no surprise. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's lack of preparation for post-invasion operations is just another depressing fact brought out by this sober, if not surprising or dramatically compelling documentary. If you read the New York Times, you won't need the information in No End in Sight, but Ferguson puts it together so carefully and responsibly you might want to refer to it as you debate the neocons who claim the surge is working and the end is in sight. They need glasses, and not rose colored ones. But then retaining political power does mighty strange things to one's vision.

The film is nothing but an enumeration of facts and figures. There is no heart to this movie, I wonder if it should be called a movie, or just a long line of chronologically arranged news. I guess one should not be surprised, the filmmaker is a software engineer. Lots of numbers and dates… I felt like I was doing time soon after the setup. About 70 percent of the stuff was common knowledge that anyone that watched the news knew about. The rest was a bit deeper than the news, but very undeveloped. The filmmaker pointed out the strategic mistakes Bush made in Iraq, but little was done to explain what should have been done. The most disappointing part is that the movie is pessimistic, but the premise is not developed. "No end in Sight" equals, it is impossible to win this country. Fine, I would buy that if the film would explore different options, and have some smart PHDs and Generals explain why it would not work. Instead the film is all about the past, while the title lures you to believe that it has a futuristic outlook "In Sight…" The end is terrible. Conclusion: Bush and Co. messed up in Iraq. In case you did not know… we will sit you down for 2 hrs and tell you again. I think good film making is done when a new facts or a new point of view is shown to the audience. The film does neither. Also, there is no opposition in the film. "The US didn't defend the Baghdad Museum" Great, but the museum was on a 16 acres and from what I read it was next to impossible at the time to secure such a large area. I wish I saw some opposing views. The visuals were terrible. For two hours you will see talking heads and general shots of US soldiers in Baghdad. Over and over. There is also one colored map. Conclusion: Bush messed up in Iraq. Hey, Magnolia Pictures thought it was great…Go figure