No End In Sight - B

In theaters. Not rated, 102 minutes.

To say that the conflict in Iraq and the volumes of news about it that is available everyday gives me extreme tired head is putting it mildly. I chose to see No End In Sight on the back end of a rare 2 movie night (the first was a second viewing of Once (A-)). The film starts in 2002 and goes to the present, clearly and concisely laying out the choices and mistakes made in the planning and execution of the occupation and rebuilding of Iraq.

Those interviewed included Richard Armitage, Jay Garner and several soldiers. The picture they draw is one of an administration (primarily Donald Rumsfeld) naive and unprepared for the aftermath of the taking of Baghdad. The film doesn't spend more than 3 or 4 minutes on the premise under which the Iraq war was initiated, instead focusing on the aftermath and parade of follies that began the day Baghdad was taken. The primary assertion of the film is that the problems that took root in the first 3 or 4 months after that day are still causing the problems there today. The filmmakers are highly critical of Paul Bremer, the first leader of the provisional authority, and his decision to proceed with 'de Ba'athification' and the disbanding of the Iraqi army.

The film served as a good primer on why Iraq is so difficult and why we are in the position we are in. The bias touches were annoying, such as only showing pictures of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the crew with smiles on their faces and using ominous tones and leading narration to gloss over weak points. I have seen some reviewers give this film much higher marks than I have, which is a joke. I would recommend the film, but it is not in the same league with other documentaries like Fog of War (A-).