I liked this movie. It gives a convincing argument on why the current Iraq occupation is a nearly complete failure, and one that will cost the United States dearly in the world economies of capitol and credibility.
I mean, it really seems like every decision made by someone important in the occupation was designed to be the worst possible thing that could be done. People are starting to loot — let’s not enforce any law, and give the impression that lawlessness will go unchallenged. People are starting to loot and destroy core infrastructure and important sites of national history — let’s still not intervene, and let the entire country deal without basic administrative infrastructure and without any sense of history, art, or pride. We’ll need to start up civil services again — let’s fire everyone who knew these jobs before, let them know that because of their political party before the invasion that they can never hold a position of importance in this country again, and then let’s hire US trust-fund babies fresh out of ivy-league colleges to handle the infrastructure to support millions of Iraqis. We really need a strong military presence to keep the peace — lets disband the entire national military, and leave jobless thousands of angry, combat-trained people who know the locations of all the currently under-guarded weapons caches in the country.
And we’re surprised the situation fell apart as thoroughly as it has?

Loading...
davee | 20-Sep-07 at 9:26 am | Permalink
i wonder if the long term policy for the middle east, over the last 30 years at least, is to maintain it’s *in*stability. to keep opec off kilter. to keep those nations from fully developing their capabilities without our involvement. they’re sitting on the vast majority of the worlds oil reserves, yet they for the most part are still without a stable middle class and varied industrial and service base. i really wonder if that’s in part our doing… or in our interests at some level…
csm | 20-Sep-07 at 1:00 pm | Permalink
That sounds like too codified a plan to have been the brainchild of these people. The simpler explanation is probably a combination of naivete, short-sighted self interest, and plain incompetence.
I mean, it was in someone’s personal best interests to hire the child of powerful people for high-profile jobs in Iraq. The kid gets something awesome to put on his resume, the kid’s parents are pleased, and the guy who hired the kid earns good will with the parents. The only people that lose out are everyone in Iraq, but the rich and powerful of this country seem to have no qualms with the poor’s suffering.
I have no doubt that some people do see long-term turmoil in the middle east as useful for advancing certain interests, but I don’t think that necessarily informs every decision made.