No End In Sight, a documentary by rookie filmmaker Charles Ferguson about the botching of the Iraq occupation, is a decent, well-meaning film for the most part (it screened at the Bloor tonight as part of the Doc Soup series). It will open in theatres on Friday.
The film has come in for considerable critical acclaim, even winning the special documentary jury prize at Sundance earlier this year.
But what Americans likely need, IMO, is a cogent look at why their country went to war in Iraq in the first place, not whether the occupation was botched or not (the answer to that question is a pretty obvious 'yes').
Overthrowing a vicious tyrant who allegedly had what turned out to be phantom weapons of mass destruction can only be seen as a pretext for the military action launched in March 2003.
Would the U.S. really launch a war that could eventually cost more than US$1.8 trillion to bring "freedom" to a country if said country didn't sit above the world's second-largest conventional crude oil reserves? Personally, I suspect not.
For an example, see this post: It's about the oil, stupid. I find it amusing the Bushies can't bring themselves to use the words "Iraq" and "oil" in the same sentence.
Ferguson said he shied away from addressing the motives issue because he didn't want to make an ideological film. An understandable call, but a bad one just the same.
Oil is likely to become more scarce in the coming decades. An economic replacement doesn't appear to be on the near horizon. If the world -- the United States in particular -- doesn't come to grips with its oil addiction, then I would say the possibility of further U.S.-led wars to bring "freedom" to countries that have significant supplies will remain exceedingly high.
If Americans want to fool themselves that it will be okay to do so, provided that they conduct kinder and gentler invasions and occupations, I'm afraid the world has a problem.
