MovieChat Forums > No End in Sight (2007) Discussion > Incompetence or malevolence?

Incompetence or malevolence?

posted 16 years ago by Concise_Statement
22 replies | jump to latest

If we believe the narrative of the programme in its telling of the succession of events and decisions taken in the war, then we're looking at its key orchestrators intentionally causing the situation to become as chaotic as possible. The reason the film hints at is oil, when it makes the statement that the oil fields were one of the few places ordered to be protected.

Do you agree with the film that Iraq is not a blunder, but an evil enterprise? Is it a classic case of wanting to make sense of random, illogical decisions by looking for conspiracy theories? Or do you get a completely different interpretation of the film?

"How am I supposed to heal if I can't feel time?"

[–] gamertrav 16 years ago

I didn't think the film was making it out to be an "evil enterprise" at all. That hadn't even crossed my mind. I thought the film was showing the numerous and huge mistakes that were made, particularly in the aftermath of the initial conflict. It showed the complete ignorance and incompetence of the high ranking officials in charge of rebuilding Iraq. They seemed to repeatedly ignore "expert" advice and recommendations of people who had experience and/or were on the ground seeing what was really happening.

Other than that brief mention of the oil fields, I didn't see anything else pointing to a 'conspiracy' in regards to oil.

Even if we were just there for oil, I would think helping the Iraqi people rebuild their country and free them from dictatorship would be part of achieving that goal. Causing vast hatred of America throughout the middle-east and great instability/violence doesn't seem like a good way to help our oil trade interests. The film really didn't touch on this at all though, and I'm not really sure why you thought it did..

[–] ladym00s 16 years ago

While watching this film I had a similar thought. There was a quote from an Iraqi man, something about "it's as if they are trying to ruin our country on purpose". I wondered, could this be possible? They knowingly left the museum unprotected (crusades, anyone?) and allowed civil unrest to continue on a massive scale. I mulled this idea over for a little while. I don't think Rumsfeld and Co. intended to send Iraq into a state of constant fighting and eventually civil war. That is giving them (the politicians) way too much credit. I do believe they went in there without a plan, without discussion, without remorse.

Rumsfeld, Cheney (who I give a little more credit than the rest in this regard), et cetera, seem like those obnoxious Liberal Arts Majors who think they know everything. They go around trying to solve the world's problems. True, they may have some good ideas. But they don't know how to execute them, or how to be diplomatic about things. In the end, they run around with a bunch of half-assed plans and make everything a lot worse.

[–] Flying_Karate_Monkey 16 years ago

I actually got the same kind of feeling, unfortunately Cheney, Rice or Bremer, the decision makers, were not interviewed and we have conflicting testimony from couple of interviewee.
All the evidence of malevolence are circumstantial and won't hold in court. And most of all, Bush, the pack leader, has been exceptionally successful in making himself an epitome of incompetence. So... did these people had hidden agenda to mess up so badly? Before I watched this documentary my answer would have been: No they are just humongous idiots, just look at Bush. Now I have second thoughts.

[–] anthony-fox 16 years ago

A little of both perhaps?

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dvafp 15 years ago

the reason is simple, instability in the region causes the price of oil to rise, that was their motive.

I also would like to know, who killed Sergio Vieira de Mello.

[–] Katz5 15 years ago

Iraq, a sovereign nation that never attacked the U.S. and posed no threat to us, was invaded for three reasons: Oil, Israel, and Revenge.

Dude means nice guy. Dude means a regular sort of person.

[–] johnny-lover07 15 years ago

I still don't understand. This film and the book I read about the war both don't explore the reasons for the invasion... what is the relationship between the US and Iraqi oil? It sounds like a stupid question, and probably is, but I'll continue to be stupid until I ask it, so, there. Is Iraq the main country from which the US gets oil? Were they not trading with us while Saddam was in power? We don't in any way have direct control of it, surely....
also, how does Israel come into this?

"We can't stop here, this is bat country!"- Hunter S. Thompson
I <3 David Mitchell, sadly

[–] Katz5 15 years ago

Iraq is in the heart of the middle east. "Oil, Israel and revenge" is rather simplistic, but those are the three reasons for the war when you get right down to it. Iraq has oil. GWB had ties to the oil industry. The war hawks at AIPAC and PNAC, groups that put the well-being of Israel over the United States -- people like Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Bill Kristol (Google them if you need more information) -- have been itching for a full blown invasion of Iraq (and Iran and Syria) for years. And then there's the oil--pump the oil through Haifa and have the Israelis sell it to the United States. Nevermind the thousands of U.S. troops who perished in the invasion of Iraq (notice that no Israelis signed up for the invasion).

And then you have Cheney and his defense contractor connections. And then GWB's thirst for Saddam's blood because "he tried to kill my dad." It was a perfect storm for an invasion of Iraq. All they needed was a reason. And 9/11 was that reason. Manipulate "Intel" behind closed doors, with the help of the corporate and special interest groups, Think Tanks (like PNAC), which are accountable to no American voter, present this on the floor of Congress, label anyone who questions the fantasy Intel a "terrorist sympathizer," and there you have it: The invasion of Iraq.

Dude means nice guy. Dude means a regular sort of person.

[–] jriley555 14 years ago

i have a hard time escaping incompetance, though that doesnt rule out an admixture of malevolence as well.

the sequence of decisions to invade, entirely eviscerate the countries leadership & institutional authority, all-the-while planning on a hasty retreat - simply makes no sense, then or now.

i'm baffled by all this. to date, i've heard no coherent analysis which can mold these decisions into a narrative which advances u.s. interest according to any reasonable/rational scheme or plan.

rumsfeld and cheney come across to me, given the information that has been made available, as saboteurs.

unless we just consider them very, very stupid. which is also hard to swallow

[–] Concise_Statement 14 years ago

I liked that response because I can relate to that uneasy 'mixture' of feelings. Can politicians just be that stupid, that complacent, that stubborn, that selfish, that evil - or simply that detached in their own Washington/Whitehall bubble? Given that we're talking about a whole administration full of people, there's no reason why all of these attributes can't eventually apply somewhere. I just don't quite know in what measure - though an impulse in me naturally rejects saying they're all out evil like, say, religious psychopaths are. But I guess in the end, all that matters are actions, and in my view, sadly, war crimes have been committed. And it's not some petty, trendy, anti-American, grudge either, as I hold my own Labour government to those charges too. I guess all those feelings explain my fondness for the film In the Loop, which gets underneath, how political trivialities can have devastating consequences.

"THIS IS THE NEEEEEWS."

[–] jriley555 14 years ago

some good resources to examine in this connection (the early occupation as viewed/rememeber by actors, journalists, diplomats in-the-know):

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/yeariniraq/interviews/

[–] Concise_Statement 14 years ago

Cheers. Oh and I still thoroughly recommend In the Loop, if you haven't seen it - principally because it's just very funny.

"THIS IS THE NEEEEEWS."

[–] efs2 14 years ago

The failures of the Bush Administration's stewardship of Iraq after its military was defeated arose from an unholy mix of profound ignorance and breathtaking arrogance. But it is hard to believe that those in charge intended to cause Iraq to sink into bloody chaos. However, it is certainly true that they were unwilling to listen to voices of reason and experience and intelligence that offered advice and counsel that ran counter to their ignorant, arrogant views. Whether that is evil or malevolent seems a philosophical question.

As for the decision to invade, that was - without doubt, in my mind - an act of evil. Nothing surrounded by so many lies and which costs the lives of so many could be anything else.

Oh, my God! They're turkeys!

[–] Concise_Statement 14 years ago

I agree with that sentiment. I should clarify that I'm not in the same mindset as an angry, embittered or humiliated Muslim who immediately deems a Western presence in the Middle East as some frantic Holy War, where Bush and Blair are branded all-out psychopaths - and believe you me, a lot of regular moderate Muslims are quite happy to rest with that assessment.

But nevertheless, the basics of law and order still need to apply, even as high up as the President and the Prime Minister - an illegal war has been fought, a crime has been committed, and they need to go to jail. That's my idealism though. I'm also a realist. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Blair, Campbell, and so on - none of these people will be brought to justice.

"I drink too much. I smoke too much. I gamble too much. I am too much."

[–] Yorick_Brown 14 years ago

I just saw this movie this morning and I can't help but wonder if there is a great plan behind all this.

I mean, with all the blunders that's happened, there's no way these people with all these degrees working together could screw things up this badly without it being on purpose.

I think this chaos being caused in the Middle East is so a superpower won't grow there so there's no nation in that region to challenge America.

It's a far out theory but it beats destruction for destruction's sake.

Fully alive
More than most
Ready to smile and love life
Fully alive