Documentary Analysis and Opinion: No End in Sight - Movie Review Example

Documentary Analysis and Opinion: No End in Sight On 19 March 2003, the US forces with the aid of a few allied nations invaded Iraq with the objective of toppling dictator Saddam Hussein from power on suspicions of harboring weapons of mass destruction and crimes against humanity. They did not expect they would be there for more than a few months and George Bush declared the end of major military operations less than two months after the incursions (No End in Sight, 2007). However, the US military remained in the country for the better part of a decade engaging in a protracted and never ending war against rebels. Directed by an academy award winning Director Charles Ferguson, No end in sight was the first film to document the chronicle behind the downfall of Iraq in the wake of the US instigated war. It seeks to answer questions such as what went wrong in the Iraq campaign and how the American military strategists plot such as disastrous campaign. The film explores the rapid descend of Iraq into a state of anarchy, lawlessness and guerrilla warfare with the government losing its grip to warlords and other criminal elements. The film focuses on the massive incompetence retelling the story of Bagdad’s fall from the perspectives of high-ranking officials in the US government such as the former secretary of state and the Iraq ambassador at the time. The director also uses information from Iraq civilians, American soldiers and political analysts to try to find the underlying cause of the intrigue surrounding the Iraq invasion by America. The film analyses the myriad political missteps and cases of gross incompetence that contributed to the collapse of Iraq. These include the use of insufficient and ill-prepared troops by the US governments, allowing looting in the city and purging professionals from the Iraqi government (No End in Sight, 2007). The masterstroke of incompetence that probably resulted in the massive decline of the nation was the disbandment of the Iraq military that ultimately made it impossible for order to be maintained in the country. All this failures both by the US and Iraq administrations are projected in the film as the reason Iraq remains an unstable and violent country even today over a decade after the war commenced. In the context of the Iraq war, US is seen as the powerful agent whose actions albeit seemly legal to start with turn out to have been mostly illegal and founded on misinformation. The fact that they were not held accountable even through there exists a theoretical framework that they may probably have been used on a less powerful institution to make the war an ideal example of “crimes of the powerful”. Crime of the powerful can be described as a situation wherein; powerful institutions or individual agents engage in actions that significantly result in the harming of individuals, citizens and/or communities. These actions are not always subject to law while others may be sanctioned by some administrative of civil authorities. During and after the war, there was a massive outcry from activists and politicians opposed to the war, claiming that president Bush should stand trial for crimes against humanity. The film explores some of the atrocities committed against the people of Iraq by the US that could qualify for the aforementioned category. Although government records show that around 115,000 people were killed in the Iraq war, it is estimated that over half a million people many of who were civilian non-combatants died because of direct and indirect effects of the war. Over a trillion Dollars were spent in the war and around five thousands Americans lost their lives, in addition, the war had far-reaching consequences on the Iraqis. The daily bombings resulted in the permeation of depleted Uranium into their environment, and this was manifested in the subsequent birth defects. Ironically, despite the fact that the objectives of the war were clearly misconstrued and it turned out to be an expensive exercise of mass killings and destruction no single government official has ever been held accountable. This is a typical crime by government, which uses their power and influence to conceal their crimes and protect those involved (Fredriechs, 2010). Before the outbreak of the hostilities, the UN secretary general had stated on record that the use of force without endorsement by the Security Council would be against the UN charter. The fact that they UK and US went to war nevertheless, epitomizes the impunity with which the powerful can commit and get away with crimes against humanity. Tilly (1985) comments of the tendency of government to engineer reasons for going to war for ulterior motives such as material gain or annexing territory, Iraq war was a perfect example. In addition, there has been a great deal of controversy over the actions of the US in Iraq as an occupying power with claims and even evidence pointing to gross violations of the human rights of the people they were supposed to protect. The question of the war’s legality was and is still debated even today the US, UK and Australia all who were involved claimed that the war was legal. The Attorney generals of the UK and Australia for example claimed that the UN’s prohibition of force could be overturned since the nations were going to war in self-defence against possible nuclear offensives by Iraq. There were numerous justification by the powers that wanted to go to war although they never explained these with evidence since they did not recover any during or after the invasion. As mentioned above crimes of the powerful may include state or corporate bodies acting against the interests of civilians and communities (David, 2009). The justification for going to war was that Iraq had weapons of destruction; this was used to garner the support of the public and congress under the assumption that Saddam’s government posed a threat to global security. In addition, there was even the supposition that Iraq was in league with Al-Qaeda and many Americans had actually been convinced that 9/11 had something to do with Iraq. However, after the costly campaign both in terms of life and in terms of money, all these were proved to have been fabricated to justify an unnecessary war. In addition to the aforementioned state crime, there were a great deal of corporate economic crimes committed in Iraq because of the invasions. For the power grid and other numerous infrastructure were sabotaged first in the fight against Saddam and then in the battling of the rebels. Consequently, the economy depreciated and this resulted in never before witnessed poverty levels, illiteracy and in many places starvations and famine. The health sector failed dismally as most of the doctors and nurses either fled or were captured and killed. Ironically, as the innocence civilians were suffering, the government contractors were siphoning wealth and natural resources. For instance, prior to the war, Iraq had nationalized its oil industry so it could maintain a constant local supply and export the surplus. However, after the war, the industry was taken over by western firms who exploited the instability to ship the oil to their home countries and leave the locals suffering acute shortages. Profiteers from the war ranged from pentagon contractors to independent firms who have made billions through contracts to supply military and logistic hardware to the war efforts. These immoral profits have been recalled back into the war with many of the same contractors who were used to “destroy” the country being awarded reconstruction contracts. The film underscore the fact that the US and its allies in the west have engaged in a decade long quest to establish their power over the Middle East for the sake of military strategy and exploitation of natural resources in the region. The pursuit for dominance has however been a costly one; the ultimate price that Iraq had to pay for dominance was the death of thousands and the near total destruction of a modern nation’s state not to mention the displacement of hundreds of thousands. For the better part of the 21st century so far, the US has been central in the debate on international politics and security especially because of the proverbial war on terror. Its defence budget is bigger than that of China, Russia and India put together, and it has significantly affected security matters in the global setting. Despite its unrivalled might, the cost of the Iraq war which some estimated to have been close to a trillion as well as the thousands of lives lost has put it under a negative spotlight. In view of its post 9/11 foreign policy, it would appear that the US’s dominance and Hegemony might not be as infinite and indomitable as it appeared to be in the past. Evidently, the war had a serious impact on the nation’s hegemony and soft power in international relations since it was seen as having acted irresponsibly and even possibly illegally. According to Karl Marx, the theory of commodity fetishism is the perception of the social relationships in production as relationships among commodities rather than the people involved therefore objecting them latter (Roosevelt, 1975). The political economy under capitalism is founded on the perception of relationships based on production rather than the people behind the products. Consequently, it transforms people into objects valued for their extrinsic rather than intrinsic values. The war in Iraq is an archetypical demonstration of the aforementioned concept, analysts have claimed that the reason this war went on for so long is that it was benefiting military contractors with connections in governments. Consequently, to many of these profiteers Iraq represented more than a run-down country fraught with human right abuse and even genocide. They saw it as a source of profit and exploited it to the fullest, it is estimated they made as much as 130 billion dollars from the efforts and continue to earn more even today. On the other hand, oil and gas companies capitalized on the anarchy to obtain millions of barrels of oil, which served to secure oil supply for the west while at the same time depleting Iraq’s domestic reserves. Ultimately, the seriousness of the matter raised in “No end in sight” is underpinned by the impunity of the US, its allies directly resulted in civilian casualties, and owing to the fact that these nations have influence at the UN; they could get away with the crimes without being punished. This is a recurrent theme in the discourse about crimes of the powerful invariably against the weak. The former act with impunity since they are aware nothing can be done to them or they are the same people charged with bringing about justice even though they are the genesis of injustice (Hedges and Sacco, 2012). It happened then and it could happen again since the same legal mechanism that was undermined and manipulated to justify the war are still in operations. The same countries that commit such atrocities retain their seats in the US Security Council from where they can protect themselves, defend, and justify such crimes should they need to commit them again. A contemporary example of this is the annexation or Crimea by Russia, compared to Iraq’s attempt to Annex Kuwait territory in the 90s. Iraq was quickly attacked in the brutal operations desert storm and shield and thousands of lives were lost, however when the same is done by a powerful nation like Russia, they only have a few rebels opposing them while the US and other “powerful” nations watch in the sidelines. This is not a problem that can be solved by and individual organisations or state as the powerlessness of the UN has evinced. In an individual capacity, there is little I can do aside from agitating through social media and other platforms for the perpetrators to be brought to account. Individuals like George Bush and Dick Cheney need to be forced to explain their actions and face the consequences of such actions just like they have in the past made leaders in third world countries do. This issue requires the unwavering and collective will of the citizens of the US and its allies, they should use all; the tools of democracy to demand that their leaders take responsibility of the monies spent. Their sons and daughters killed needless and millions of innocent people whose lives were destroyed or ended for the sake of high-stake guesswork and shabbily investigated claims. Through the media and narratives such as the above documentary the true facts of the atrocities committed in their names are reaching the people and in the end, it is only through being informed and brought face to face with the gruesome reality can mass action against the unpunished war criminals can be sparked off. References Tilly, C. (1985). War Making and State Making as Organized Crime (in P. Evans, D. Rueschemeyer and T. Skopol (eds) Brining the State Back In) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press pp.169 – 187. Whyte, D. (2009) The Organization of Domination (Section 5, in Crimes of the Powerful a Reader, Berkshire: Open University Press) pp. 130 – 169 Fredriechs, D. (2010) The Discover of White Collar Crime (Ch. 1, in Trusted Criminals: White Collar Crime in contemporary Society). Stamford, CT : Cengage Learning. pp. 1-33 Hedges, C. and Sacco, J. (2012) Days of Revolt (Ch 5, in Days of Destruction Days of Revolt) New York : Nation Books, pp. 226 – 271 Dir. Charles Ferguson (2007) No End in Sight: The American Occupation of Iraq. Documentary .IMDb, Roosevelt, F. (1975). "Cambridge Economics as Commodity Fetishism". Review of Radical Political Economics 7 (4): 1–32. Read More