HLSBuzz Movie Review: No End in Sight

No End in Sight is a documentary released on January 22, 2007 written and directed by Charles Ferguson. The central story of No End in Sight revolves around the decisions made by the Bush administration following 9/11, leading up and through the Iraq War and the occupation of Iraq.

The movie displays the decision making by key Bush administration officials, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and L. Paul Bremer who seemed to have unilaterally made decisions with little input from President Bush. Military and government officials on the ground in Iraq were also ignored, and were perhaps the most surprising omission of input during this film. These decisions have laid the groundwork towards lawlessness and rise of insurgency groups in Iraq. Most relevant today, groups such as ISIS can be traced to the choices made by L. Paul Bremer to disband the Iraqi military and the De-ba’thification, purging of the Ba’the party. These decisions alienated the most important institutions in Iraq, resulting in many proud Iraqi men with no means of supporting their family; leaving them no other choice but insurgency to support their family and to reclaim their pride and save face.

The strength of the movie largely comes from interviews from top war officials, generals, colonels, administration officials, soldiers and journalists who were part of the war and tasked with occupation of Iraq, specifically the Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Authority (OHRA), then later the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). The interviews with key officials in Iraq such as General Jay Garner, Colonel Paul Hughes, and Ambassador Barbara Bodine, to name a few, reflect the military and foreign policy experience to help guide the transition of Iraq. In contrast, the architects of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, such as Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and L. Paul Bremer did not have similar military and foreign policy experience to understand the lasting impact of an underprepared occupation. One example comes from the evaluation by General Garner and OHRA. Their 60 day assessment prior to occupying Iraq was that they were understaffed, underequipped, underprepared, unstructured with no plans to support the Iraqi people. In one instance, a soldier expressed his concern for the lack of armored Humvee’s to Donald Rumsfeld, and the response of Rumsfeld was “you go to war with what you have.” The presentation of this dichotomy of thinking and execution leaves viewers stunned regarding the perceived lack of communication, planning and “shooting from the hip” approach the Bush Administration had. Perhaps, the interviews of soldiers such as David Yancey and Hugo Gonzalez, both who served and became wounded, provide viewers a sour taste of the lasting human cost of an ill-conceived plan.

While the film largely has representative views that differ from the Bush Administration, to be fair, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz were offered interviews for the film, but declined. While it is not clear why they declined, it can be viewed that they did not want to own up to their mistakes. Interestingly, the film draws a connection between the George W. Bush’s advisors, through George H.W. Bush and the Reagan administrations. Again, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Colon Powell played vital roles with all three administrations, which leaves the viewer with the notion that the decisions made for the latter Iraq war and occupation were not coincidences, rather a continuation of previous administration’s failed policies or as depicted in the film, a plot by George W. Bush to revenge the attempted assignation of his father by Saddam Hussein.

The average viewer will leave this movie with an overall bad impression of the Bush Administration. The decisions made had an economic and human impact to the citizens of the United States, which to some level still exist pertaining to wounded veterans and the costs associated with rehabilitating them. On a more global level, the average viewer can make a correlation between the rise of ISIS and other insurgency groups, plus the ongoing instability in Iraq and Syria to the vacuum of government and leadership created during the occupation of Iraq. The message of No End in Sight is appropriate today as the influence of ISIS is felt not only in the United States, but globally.