Iraq, a conflict-ridden, sectarian, and corrupt country, has been in crisis for the longest time, attributable to Islamic extremists’ control and concurrent civil war. The US involvement in the conflict was a costly affair. The big question remains, was the war worth the cost? The movie Losing Iraq attempts to explain what went south and how the chaos unfolded, pulling the US back into the war. The documentary draws on military leaders and policymakers’ interviews tracing US involvement since the 2003 raid to present violence and what has remained of Iraq. The film depicts the tragic accrual of several miscalculations and mistakes, and the crisis witnessed now is due to fateful choices. In the film, critical political stories are exposed which are behind some of the defining moments in Iraq’s warfare, from the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s statue to Abu Ghraib and Fallujah, also highlighting the US part in forming Nouri’s Al-Maliki government who, was then a prime minister and the attempt to restrain this regime. The film also touches on the violent escalation of ISIS – a radical jihadist group and the leaders of Sunni tribes. US involvement in the war was considered iconic but eventually turned out to be ironic.
In the movie’s first scene, commotion in Firdo’s Square lays out Chandrasekaran’s opinion that the Iraq war would last for many days despite US forces’ victorious trudge into Baghdad and a series of mistakes and fiction. The story accumulated here – built on many years of frontline reporting – is filled with flawed assumptions, abject ineptitude, mistakes, and arrogance. In observation, such faults may seem obvious since many speakers range from military leaders like Daniel Petraeus and Jack Keane to journalists like Dexter Filkins and Chandrasekaran to government officials like Ryan Crocker and Paul Bremer made this case.
The film comprehensively details key happening that resulted in Iraq’s invasion in 2003 and the subsequent efforts to restore the country that eventually failed. This film seems to be a valuable educational tool for history students as it strives to simplify the intricacies of American overseas policies and the implications of military involvement. Some scenes in the film highlight crucial themes and moments that have historical relevance.
The film starts with an opening that prepares how events will unfold. This prologue brings to light the repercussions of the 1991 Gulf War and the sanctions imposed on Iraq after that, causing a devastating effect on Iraq’s infrastructure and economy. Still in the opening, key players responsible for influencing America’s plan towards Iraq are introduced, including George Bush- the President, his deputy Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld, the defense secretary.
The film probes into the occurrences that resulted in Iraq’s invasion in 2003, highlighting the Bush regime’s claim that Iraq has links with Al-Qaeda and possessed mass destruction weapons (WMDs) which justified the attack (Kirk 5:00). The film continues to demonstrate how these claims were later recognized as false and how the intelligence instigating these assertions was flawed.
Seventeen minutes in the film seems particularly relevant as it digs into the Bush regime decision-making progression that resulted in the invasion (Kirk 17:00). Neoconservative ideologies’ roles in influencing American foreign policies are highlighted, and how the desire for Iraq’s regime revolution influenced Bush administration move to be involved in the conflict. Also, the film depicts how nonconformist articulation within the regime was silenced and marginalized, resulting in a groupthink approach that eventually occasioned the attack.
The movie transitions to highlight the challenges Iraq faced in rebuilding after the invasion phase. Besides, the failure and incapability of the Coalition Provision Authority (CPA) to offer Iraqi citizens basic services is shown (Kirk 28:00). Also, CPA’s move to disperse the Iraqi military and Ba’ath party purge members from the administration agencies led to Iraq way into chaos as per the film.
Thirty-eight minutes in, the film explores the upsurge of Iraq sectarianism and how this facilitated the state’s instability (Kirk 38:00). The movie shows how the minority- Sunni tribe, which had subjugated Iraq during Saddam Hussein regime felt excluded and sidelined from the establishing political order which resulted to the growth of insurgency groups from Sunni including Al-Qaeda responsible for waging a violent campaign against the government led by Shiite.
The files explore Iran’s role in influencing Iraq’s post-invasion period. The movie depicts how Iran leveraged its power to back Shiite militias and the political party’s facilitation of Iraq’s sectarian divide. It is also shown how the failure of the US to engage Iran with its resolve on an isolation policy led to Iraq’s continued instability.
The intensification of violence that unfolded in Iraq between 2006 and 2007 seems a relevant historical event. The US decision to adopt a new counterinsurgency strategy and to surge troop levels headed by General Petraeus saw a drop in violence (Kirk 55:00). Besides, the film exemplifies military force limitation in attaining lasting stability and just how the basic social and political problem in Iraq persisted unsettled. The US extraction from Iraq and its legacy are explored at the movie’s end.
This movie is a great educational tool because it helps unravel the occurrences that resulted in Saddam Hussein’s downfall and the succeeding rise of ISIS. As an edification film, a comprehensive scrutiny of complex social and political dynamics that have molded modern Iraq has been explored. The motives behind the Iraq attack have been highlighted in the movie, including the Bush regime’s unsure conclusion that Saddam had mass destruction weapons, which endangered the US. The invasions aftermath was also represented in the film, including the upsurge of sectarian conflict and the challenge the US military encountered when trying to stabilize Iraq.
What stands outs about this film is that it utilized primary sources such as military personnel and key policymakers’ interview from those involved in the war. Besides, these sources offer firsthand explanations of the processes that resulted in Iraq’s invasion, including decision-making. The sources help understand the following Iraq’s occupation and assist in contextualizing events that unfolded during and after the war. Also, a nuanced exploration of social and political dynamics resulted in all this. The film examines how different religious and ethnic groups had a complex relationship and the tension between Iraq citizens and the US military.
Regarding aesthetics, the movie utilized various news clips, key events, dramatic responses, interviews, and archival footage. The sound design and visuals used in the film convey tension and urgency feeling, while the editing approach is disorienting and fast-paced, showing the nature of the chaotic conflict. From the context, it offers a good experience and, more so, acts as a warning tale regarding the likely implication of military engagement in politically and intricate fraught situations.
Work Cited
Kirk,Jim, Michael. “Losing Iraq.” PBS, 29 July 2014.Accessed from www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/losing-iraq/.
write