No End In Sight
Charles Ferguson’s new documentary on the war in Iraq, No End in Sight, manages to focus on an aspect of our misadventure which has recently become fashionable to discuss: whether a more intelligent handling of the time frame immediately after the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s invasion, would have prevented the chaos which has since unfolded. This has become a favorite argument of many conservative thinkers like Andrew Sullivan, who still believe that invading Iraq was the right thing to do, but that the aftermath was not properly managed. Even Bill Maher on last Friday’s show, invited Ambassador Barbara Bodine to participate on his panel, stated that after watching the film he found himself essentially saying “we had a window during which we could have won the Iraqi people over to our cause.”
This is the primary point Ferguson’s documentary wants to articulate; not that the war was about oil or American imperialism, but that regardless of which side of the war you fall on, the mismanagement of the war borders on criminal and started at the highest levels of the Bush Administration. It takes more dexterity than many have to avoid hitting President Bush between the eyes regarding his incompetent management of the occupation, and Ferguson’s film has become a trusted commentary on the President’s plan in large part because he is very careful not to resort to polemics and politics.
Citizens who want to be informed absent the hyperbolic screaming that characterizes too much current discussion over Iraq should make an effort to see this film if for no other reason than to ask themselves what small role we all played in allowing this war to go forward. For some of us, we did not scream loudly enough. For others, we set aside our misgivings in the aftermath of the anxiety 9/11 created. But lest another tragedy cause us to give up even more or become even more troublingly blind to the caution prudence would suggest, wrestling with the insights of commentaries like this are essential.
Two points I felt the film could not draw out due to its other emphasis were what conservatives should take away from the profound ideological shift that took their party towards the policy of invading Iraq and second, the reactions we all must protect ourselves against when next national tragedy strikes in the form of terrorism.
Being a conservative used to mean, among other things, believing that government should not do for the individual what the individual should do for themselves. But somehow, 9/11 changed this. In the angst filled years after that horrible day, it was accepted that our government could invade another sovereign country (unprovoked and without the absence of any imminent threat worthy of the doctrine of pre-emption), on the other side of the world, in a culture particularly disconnected from that of our own, topple their government and interject democracy. Writing this saddens me, because such a poorly thought out progression is possible only when our leaders themselves have forgotten the priorities and complexities that make democracy work. While it may be that freedom is the right of all mankind, it has only found its way to contemporary government with struggle and travail, time and patience.
Conservative thought used to reflect the awareness that collective thinking are never a substitution for individual action. This position is an uncomfortable one because it has meant many conservatives have been willing to stand aside as countries tore themselves apart in the search for political unity. But Iraq was different, and this ideological break is part of why many liberals are so suspicious of the underlying motives of the war in Iraq. Where once conservatives could have been counted on to keep our country out of wars of choice, the dimly lit room that held the case for invading Iraq never aligned with conservative thinking.
Unfortunately, conservatives have now rediscovered this insight as they have begun hoisting upon the shoulders of Iraqis the responsibilities of self-governance. The reality of any post-war Iraq plan needed to take into account the state of a society after the external deposing of a dictator. Dictatorships breed complacency, hide social tensions, subjugate everything to the whims of the potentate’s personality. The corrosive effect this has on the social fabric of a country can not be understated. How sad that among the first things Paul Bremer did was to make Baath party membership a disqualifier to public service; the badly needed technocrats and intelligentsia who marginally followed Baathist politics because it was necessary for life in Saddam’s Iraq were not allowed to be voices in the reconstruction of their savaged country (a country more savaged by Saddam than our invasion).
When I think of the war in Iraq, among the most important lessons that sticks out to me is how easily we bought into an argument that is now so obviously flawed. I well remember sitting outside smoking cigars with a group of friends who admitted the case for war in Iraq was poor but said it was justified because, “after 9/11, we have to do something.” This is a dangerous emotion we, as Americans, must be aware of and learn to manage. We cannot afford to allow emotion to color as much of our acceptance of a government policy as we did with the invasion of Iraq. Too many totalitarian dictators have well understood that a society’s response to trauma was the moment of vulnerability when they could be convinced to give up rights or embrace ideas they would otherwise, in a calmer state of mind, find noxious.
For a sunny Sunday on the last holiday weekend of this summer, I was pleasantly surprised to see the number of people in attendance for this matinee in my home city of Indianapolis. For those who have stayed current on the scholarship and reporting coming out regarding the lack of thought within the Bush Administration regarding this war, Ferguson’s documentary offers little new. More problematically still, the movie adds to a sense of frustration that no one has an answer to the question of how to wrap the saga up. Ferguson seems to be aware of this, poignantly titling his work “No End in Sight.”
previous post: Michael Smith
next post: Hitchens Comments on Senator Craig
Leave a Reply
About MysteriousFaith
“If anyone can show me, and prove to me, that I am wrong in thought or deed, I will gladly change. I seek the truth, which never yet hurt anybody. It is only persistence in self-delusion and ignorance which does harm.”
Themes
Now Reading
Search
Favorites
Personal Writing
Theology
Categories
Meta Data