Review of No End in Sight

I wish to compliment this piece alongside another British theater play called Stuff Happens. The content of both pieces—No End in Sight & Stuff Happens—displayed pithy and compelling accounts of the events that led to the US's involvement in the Iraq war, yet both were also respectfully motivated by political agendas. I do not mean to imply that these pieces were mere exercises in propaganda (though some might argue otherwise), but rather that they attempted to display the facts as objectively as possible while simultaneously suggesting the imprudence, and perhaps immoral behavior of the Bush Administration. Both pieces are enormously complex and in no way can provide easy solutions to the monster that the US has helped create. Of course, it is difficult for US citizens to even think they have helped create this monster—most would rather scapegoat such responsibility to their government leaders; leaders chosen by the majority of US citizens. The argument that both pieces seem to make is: Are Americans right for shifting this blame to the Bush Administration? As both would heavily suggest, they are.

I felt that Stuff Happens was weaker in its execution as compared to No End in Sight because it relied more upon speculative guesswork than factual information. I do not deny that much of the information was taken from real-life news conferences, television interviews and public addresses; however, the closed-door conferences, especially the private meetings between Bush and Tony Blair created more of a dramatized and perhaps even fictional quality to the piece, thus lessening the play's credibility and overall objectivity. As to what was exchanged during those meetings can only be assumed. But the premise of assuming the truth only precludes certainty from solidifying the truth, and can therefore only lie within the realms of either probability or possibility. The author can rightfully exclude the possibility of those conversations taking place—and indeed, I think he knows he's beyond possibility. He's made a much more persuasive argument that leans upon probability; probability of the US's mistake to enter the war, and is upheld by various witnesses that sensed the immorality of the Administration.

Where the author of Stuff Happens argument is weakened by excessive assumption, the author of No End in Sight strengthens the same argument by more reliance upon facts, thereby lessening the viewer's skepticism. The film does not attempt to necessarily hide or manipulate the facts, but rather ironically suggests those who would hide from and manipulate the facts. The author suggests that the viewer has very good reasons to be skeptical of the US' political leaders because many of them refused to be interviewed for the film. The implication here could mean multiple things: those who hide from the truth; those guilty of creating the Iraqi monster; those who refuse to take responsibility for the war, and so forth. Could some of these implications be true? Yes, and indeed I think some of them are, but I also think the issue is more complicated than that. I think it is unfair to label the entire Bush Administration as wholly corrupt. In other words, the author still had an agenda behind the piece. Perhaps certain members of the Administration had denied interview access because of how their words might have been spun out of context to fit another's opposing agenda. That could be true too.

The author is only showing what he chooses to show, but I must admit he did a pretty good job of persuading an opinion that seems more probable of proving the dirt on our leader's hands. He carefully created a persuasive tapestry of political hypocrisy—showing how remarks made by certain members of the Administration contradicted what was actually taking place out in Iraq. For example, cabinet member Rumsfeld told political news analysts and journalists that there was no insurgency or anarchy in Iraq—the on-sight film footage, however, proved those statements false; President Bush is shown speaking about giving Iraq food, freedom and prosperity—again, the footage contradicts his words. The author uses other contrapuntal and ironic devices to stress the idea of the Administration's corruption: US soldiers listening to country music while killing Iraqi citizens, as well as other juxtapositions of the Administration joking with the newsroom about the situation at hand.

Both pieces are powerful in their aims. Stuff Happens falls slightly behind No End in Sight regarding credibility, while No End in Sight secures a very sturdy position in its attempts to awaken more Americans to political awareness and activity. It's a formidable piece that will not easily be conquered and will be remembered for many future years to come. All Americans can benefit from watching this film closely and pondering upon what is shown. I highly recommend it.