Originally Posted By ecdc After waiting all year, this film was finally released and finally made it to Salt Lake City. This film deserves to be seen and it deserves the support of the American people. What I loved about the film is that it didn't take the shotgun approach like others have done. It didn't try and hit as many targets as possible with a scatter shot, wide swath approach. Instead it's quite concise and focused in reviewing what's gone on the last four years that went wrong. And it interviews *the* key players involved. The film lays out four key issues that got us to where we are today in Iraq. Before these things were allowed to happen, the film suggests winning this war and winning the "hearts and minds" of the Iraqis was quite doable, and in fact, had been done to some degree. We mock the administration for saying we'd be greeted as liberators. Turns out they weren't all that wrong. They just completely screwed it up. 1) The looting and pillaging of Baghdad. Because, as the generals on the ground testified before Congress, we needed several hundred thousand soldiers but only had 160,000, we did not have the force necessary to stop the looting. The orders came from Rumsfeld himself that we were not there to be police officers. The looting turned into organized destruction and caused part of the destabilization of Baghdad and began to sow the seeds of discontent against America. 2) The refusal to setup an interim Iraqi government. The first American officials appointed to run Iraq, all interviewed in this film, say this is what they were working on and it was crucial. When Bremmer arrived, he refused to involve the Iraqis and had contempt for them (as the next two issues show). There was no government in Iraq for sometime because of Bremmer's decision. 3) The "de-Baathizing." Bremmer issued an order that said no member of the Baath party could do pretty much anything. Of course, this included some of Saddam Hussein's supporters. But it also included several thousand "Joe Iraqi's" who were school teachers, engineers, mechanics, etc. that joined the party simply to survive under Saddam. They were barred from any future employment. More seeds of discontent. 4) The disbanding of the Iraqi army. This is the biggie. As general after general told the first Americans on the ground to rebuild Iraq, Bremmer's decision to disband the army was the worst possible thing. The man in charge of redistributing the army to be part of the rebuilding effort, talked about having Iraqi military leaders walk up to him and offer their battalions to help with the rebuilding of Iraq. He was working on it and getting it ready when the order came. As they point out, this decision made 500,000 armed men unemployed. They marched in the street and tried to protest. They were told to go away. Make absolutely no mistake folks. The insurgency wasn't waiting for us when we got to Iraq. It was made through the incompetence of Paul Bremmer, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney. Dick Armitage and others interviewed point out that Bush was aloof and unaware of much of what was going on. The film points out what many of us have been saying. We're in the worst possible catch-22. If we leave now, the country will get even worse. But if we stay, every door we kick in, every bomb that goes slightly off target, every firefight that accidentally kills some kid or innocent victim, only turns more and more Iraqis against us. Even when they kill each other with IEDs, they still blame us because they believe it wouldn't be going on if we weren't there. We had a stable, strong Iraq within our grip, and the incompetence, hubris, and indifference of this administration lost it for us. Now, there's no way out and almost certainly no way back.
Originally Posted By gadzuux I saw this movie last week. For the most part, there's nothing "new" here, just a point by point recitation of bone-headed moves from the outset. A couple of points that stuck with me - for one thing, this wasn't just "looting", it was a destruction of order and a descent into chaos. All of the museums were stripped clean of the art and antiquities of their own culture. Concrete walls were broken to steal the rebar inside. Second, we toppled the iraqi government practically overnight and with only token resistance, but then had no plan to fill the void we created. Days and weeks went by with no sense of control or order. So the local mullahs and sharias stepped in and assumed control, and created the militias we face today. They didn't exist before we got there. And most appallingly, we let tons of munitions fall into the control of these militias. We received reports about munitions stores being broken into and spirited away, and we did nothing about it. In fact, we guarded the oil fields and nothing else. Bush backers love to tout how they "support the troops". But it's all empty rah-rah rhetoric when the troops aren't supported by the very people sending them into combat in the first place. By thrusting our military into this catastrophe of our own making, the bush administration shows just how much they value the sacrifices being made. For my tastes, the movie could have been a bit more 'sensational'. Both fallujah and abu ghraib rate barely a mention. The filmmakers let the administration off too easy.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I love how these critics are able to look back and say how obviously awful many of the decisions made in the aftermath of Saddam's overthrow were, but never seemed to have had any good suggestions at the time, or now. Hindsight is always 20/20. But there certainly is an end in sight, and although it's still a long way off, it's a positive end for those who desire peace and freedom.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "But there certainly is an end in sight, and although it's still a long way off, it's a positive end for those who desire peace and freedom." Dream, dream, dream, dream Dream, dream, dream, dream When I want you in my arms When I want you and all your charms Whenever I want you, all I have to do is Dream, dream, dream, dream When I feel blue in the night And I need you to hold me tight Whenever I want you, all I have to do is Dream I can make you mine, taste your lips of wine Anytime night or day Only trouble is, gee whiz I’m dreamin’ my life away I need you so that I could die I love you so and that is why Whenever I want you, all I have to do is Dream, dream, dream, dream Dream I can make you mine, taste your lips of wine Anytime night or day Only trouble is, gee whiz I’m dreamin’ my life away I need you so that I could die I love you so and that is why Whenever I want you, all I have to do is Dream, dream, dream, dream Dream, dream, dream, dream
Originally Posted By ecdc I actually disagree about the sensationalism, gadzuux. I think the film's power is that it's a recitation of the facts, by those involved, that could appeal to almost anyone. Ironically, it's Republicans who should be most upset with Bush. But like Nixon's final supporters, they cling to spin and wishful thinking to insist all is well. But Bush and his administration lost a winnable war and made the Republican brand mud in the eyes of most Americans. They should distance themselves and insist that Bush isn't representative of all Republicans. Instead they continue to paint themselves into a corner. To quote the Great Incompetent One himself, "bring 'em on."
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh The critics who insist this war isn't winnable are going to look pretty silly after we win it. Just like critics of the Cold War did.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "The critics who insist this war isn't winnable are going to look pretty silly after we win it. Just like critics of the Cold War did." Who, exactly, are we are war with? We invaded Iraq and overthrew their government. I'll answer my own question. That war took all of 38 seconds. Mission accomplished, remember? Problem has been, we haven't exactly been greeted as liberators. We had no plan for what happens next. We let their armies literally run for the hills rather than gather them all up. We arrogantly decided to ignore 1500 years of sectarian violence and Daddy Bush's admonition that he wouldn't do what we just did because of the quagmire that would follow, a quagmire Cheney recognized way back then but conveniently forgot about later. Chaos predictably ensued, and all manner of outlaw, bandit and terrorist made their way to Iraq. It's OUR fault, WE created this mess, and the only way to "win" this war is to kill everyone there, simply nuke the place. We've been idiots, plain and simple, and I have no tolerance anymore for people who think of this in conventional terms.
Originally Posted By DAR I don't object to the film being made. What I want to know is who is this film trying to reach? For the left and those who may have been initial supporters of the war, you're pretty much preaching to the choir. And you're not going to convert anyone who still supports the admininstration. So that leaves everyone in the middle which is most of the country by the way. Well what are you trying to convince them of? That war is bad? Sure war is bad, but sometimes it's an ugly necessary part of life. And I will still maintain that the only person to blame for this is Saddam Hussein. All he had to do was comply with the UN Resolutions. Will I see the film? Probably when it hits dvd. But overall I think political documentaries like this tend to get tedious and boring. I'm more into documentaries that go into characters studies, like Grizzly Man. Which is one movie you have to see.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> Well what are you trying to convince them of? That war is bad? << The message is that THIS war - this "pre-emptive" war - was waged incompetently from the very beginning. It's initial premise was a lie - iraq posed absolutely no danger to us and had no involvement in 9/11 - and the execution of it was criminally stupid. People seem to think that this administration is finally getting something right, while conveniently overlooking that they've exhausted just about every other option first. As a result of this monumental incompetence by people who had never even been in a war, let alone wage one, hundreds of thousands of people have died needlessly - for no purpose whatsoever. >> But there certainly is an end in sight, and although it's still a long way off, it's a positive end for those who desire peace and freedom. << This is unjustifiable, pie-in-the-sky jingoism.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>This is unjustifiable, pie-in-the-sky jingoism.<< Sure it is. But at this point, it's said merely to keep what's left of the choir from defecting or a little mantra to re-convince one's self that their man is right, no matter what the facts and evidence show.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Not only that, 2oony, but - wait for it - if a Democrat is the next president, and eventually we get out of Iraq and the power vacuum we created becomes an all-out bloody power struggle after we leave (and we have to leave some time)... those same people will be claiming that the Democrat president "lost" the war and if only we had stuck with Bush's plan and "vision," we could have won it. Count on it. It's as predictable as... as... "I love how these critics are able to look back and say how obviously awful many of the decisions made in the aftermath of Saddam's overthrow were, but never seemed to have had any good suggestions at the time, or now." Actually, I said at the time (as did at least one other person here. SPP? ecdc? Can't remember) that disbanding the Iraq army was about the dumbest possible thing they could do. I said it should be purged of actual Saddam loyalists, but the rank and file should be part of the rebuilding effort - as some (US) military men said at the time also. That was a good suggestion at the time, but of course overruled by Rumsfeld, Bremer, and ultimately Bush and Cheney. I love how the people (here and in DC) who have gotten just about everything wrong up to this point insist that they know best about what to do now.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Not only that, 2oony, but - wait for it - if a Democrat is the next president, and eventually we get out of Iraq and the power vacuum we created becomes an all-out bloody power struggle after we leave (and we have to leave some time)... those same people will be claiming that the Democrat president "lost" the war and if only we had stuck with Bush's plan and "vision," we could have won it.<< Guaranteed. But time will doom that argument. How many people say "if we only would've stuck to President Johnson's plan, we would've won Vietnam?" Well, apparently only George W. Bush. Someday it'll be seen for what it is. >>I love how the people (here and in DC) who have gotten just about everything wrong up to this point insist that they know best about what to do now.<< Yup. It'd be comical if it weren't over such a dire situation.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Not only that, 2oony, but - wait for it - if a Democrat is the next president, and eventually we get out of Iraq and the power vacuum we created becomes an all-out bloody power struggle after we leave (and we have to leave some time)... those same people will be claiming that the Democrat president "lost" the war and if only we had stuck with Bush's plan and "vision," we could have won it.<< Oh yeah. That will be the script for Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity over the next four years. Of course, most of their listeners will swallow that whole, but the rest of the world knows better. Neocons have been a dismal failure through and through.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Any party that can come up with the phrase, the "clinton/gore recession" is no stranger to revisionist history.
Originally Posted By jonvn Nobody blames Ford for the loss of Vietnam, which happened on his watch. Heck, people don't even blame Nixon for Vietnam, although he was President for four years while it was going on, and expanded the war into Cambodia and Laos. It's Johnson's war.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> ... those same people will be claiming that the Democrat president "lost" the war and if only we had stuck with Bush's plan and "vision," we could have won it. << We'll see another version of that very soon. The current troop strength of 16OK+ is unsustainable for any length of time. We're going to HAVE TO reduce our 'boots on the ground' soon, just because of the logistics. Bush's "surge" has brought the number up near maximum, and there's nowhere to go from here but down. Nevertheless, the coming drawdown will be portrayed as a sop to the democrats, who are undermining our efforts at securing peace in iraq and security at home and the march of freedom is being hindered and yada yada yada. And THEN they'll decry the democrats "politicizing" the war. It's breathtaking, isn't it?
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Guaranteed. But time will doom that argument. How many people say "if we only would've stuck to President Johnson's plan, we would've won Vietnam?" Well, apparently only George W. Bush. < problem is Johnson had NO plan - he listened to McNamara who would have fit right in in Washington today - regardless of his party affiliation.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan It's breathtaking, isn't it?<< Yeah, but Bill Clinton LIED too! Sorry, non-sequiter I realize, but I just wanted to beat someone to the punch.
