Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Tom Hanks Tells Hollywood Whopper in 'Charlie Wilson's War'

By Melissa Roddy, AlterNet. Posted December 21, 2007.


Hollywood wants to avoid a key truth about 9/11.
HOLLYWOOD HANKS TELLS CHARLIE WILSON’S WHOPPER
Advertisement

"We just can't deal with this 9/11 thing. Does it have to be so political?" from an anonymous source at Playtone Productions

Charlie Wilson's War purports to be the true story of a hard-partying U.S. congressman from Texas who engineered the defeat of the Soviet Union by the Afghan Mujahiddin. Now there are true stories, and there are true-ish stories. It is a given that, in creating a film narrative, sometimes the truth gets a little bent, but it's against the rules to change facts that change the outcome of history. When telling the story of Antony and Cleopatra, they gotta die at the end, n'est-ce pas? It's inappropriate, for example, to tell the story of World War II and pretend that, because the United States might have given a box of guns to the French Underground, there was no Holocaust. That's a pretty good analogy for what's been done in Charlie Wilson's War.

In the latter half of the movie, there is one big lie and one item of anti-Afghan propaganda. The lie is that U.S. support to the mujahiddin went only to the faction led by Ahmad Shah Massoud, the Afghan leader who was assassinated on Sept. 9, 2001. I spoke with Rep. Charlie Wilson, D-Texas, in 2002, at which time he called Massoud "a Russian collaborator." I find it disingenuous that Wilson and his Hollywood biographers now want to throw their arms around him. (Note: George Crile's book does not make this false claim.) Moreover, if this movie succeeds in convincing Americans that the U.S. support went to Ahmad Shah Massoud alone, it will have effectively let the CIA and Wilson off the hook for their contribution to the circumstances leading up to 9/11. During the 1980s, Wilson engineered the appropriation of approximately $3.5 billion to help the Afghans fight the Soviets. According to Milt Bearden, CIA chief of station to Pakistan, Massoud received less than 1 percent of it.

So, if Massoud was not receiving the $3.5 billion that Congress was sending, who was? There were seven factions based in Pakistan who were the recipients of American largesse, but about 40 percent of it went to a blood-thirsty, fundamentalist, loudly anti-American bastard named Gulbaddin Hekmatyar.

However, instead of using the resources the United States sent him to fight the Soviets, he frequently used them to fight his mujahiddin allies. It was Gulbaddin Hekmatyar who turned Kabul to rubble -- not the Soviets and not the Taliban. Gulbaddin Hekmatyar regularly rocketed his own capitol during his term of office as prime minister. Hekmatyar is renowned for having killed more Afghans than Soviets. He so habitually attacked his mujahiddin allies that many people suspected he was actually a Soviet agent.

Not only is Hekmatyar anti-American, but he and another anti-American fundamentalist, Abdul Rasul Sayaf, received lots of support during the 1980s from the Saudis. That support included cash and thousands of Arab volunteers, including a wealthy young engineer named Osama bin Laden. It was Hekmatyar and Sayaf who, with bin Laden, established terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is why after 9/11, Wilson went on Fox News and said, "This was as much my fault as anybody's." He understood the link between U.S. support for these thugs and the events of that terrible day. But Wilson's mea culpa is not included in Charlie Wilson's War, nor is there any mention of Gulbaddin Hekmatyar, Abdul Rasul Sayaf or Arab volunteers. Interestingly, Hekmatyar and the Arab volunteers did make an appearance in an earlier draft of the script, making it clear that their absence from the final cut was no oversight on the part of the filmmakers.

Getting back to Ahmad Shah Massoud ...

As it so happens, Massoud did not receive any financial support from the Saudis, because they mistakenly thought he was a Shia Muslim. He was Sunni. Nevertheless, he was not altogether displeased with the situation, because it meant he didn't have to deal with the Arab jihadis. This is one of several reasons why, had we actually supported Massoud and not Hekmatyar, there would have been no 9/11. To be sure, there were quite a few people during the 1980s, including several U.S. Senators and various journalists, trying to warn Wilson and the CIA that the consequences of supporting Hekmatyar would be globally catastrophic. In response the CIA would always throw up its hands, exclaiming, 'We have no control over the distribution. It's all handled by Pakistan, and the Pakistanis liked Massoud even less than the Saudis.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: 9/11, september 11, tom hanks, hollywood

Melissa Roddy, like several of the principals in the saga of Afghanistan, is a native Texan. An actress based in Los Angeles, she is currently producing and directing a documentary film on the history of Afghanistan from 1979 to 9/11 entitled The Square Root of Terror.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
ah, americans at their best
Posted by: KaptainSpiffy on Dec 21, 2007 3:04 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the public doesn't know or care (it's so far away- just look at the rest of the states and the disaster that is new orleans, in our own front yard) and the government is corrupt to the core (CIA). welcome aboard the uss titanic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ah, americans at their best Posted by: starvinmarvy
» RE: ah, americans at their best Posted by: Badger1492
» The Murder of Nataline Sarkisyan Posted by: malcolmartin
9/11 was an inside job...
Posted by: rt968 on Dec 21, 2007 3:29 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seems to me that whoever wrote this drivel hasn't done their homework about the 9/11 event. It's still with the presumption that a bunch of Neanderthals from a cave half a world away brought down 3 buildings with 2 planes!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
» RE: It never pays... Posted by: boydranchitos
» RE: 9/11 was an inside job... Posted by: thekidde
» RE: 9/11 was an inside job... Posted by: davesilvan
» 9/11 truthiness Posted by: brunowe
» Nothing scares me Posted by: LeftWright
» Their own footprint Posted by: Axiom69
» RE: Their own footprint Posted by: realtruther
» RE: Their own footprint Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: Their own footprint Posted by: aichbe
» RE: Their own footprint Posted by: Turiye
» RE: Their own footprint Posted by: aichbe
» RE: Their own footprint Posted by: JSquercia
» RE: 9/11 was an inside job... Posted by: audiodef
» That's because... Posted by: 2dogarage
» RE: 9/11 was an inside job... Posted by: britknee
» RE: 9/11 was an inside job... Posted by: nopartygal
» RE: 9/11 was an inside job... Posted by: meremortal
» RE: 9/11 was an inside job... Posted by: meremortal
» RE: 9/11 was an inside job... Posted by: meremortal
» Give it a break EncinoM Posted by: 2dogarage
» RE: 9/11 was an inside job... Posted by: nopartygal
» RE: 9/11 was an inside job... Posted by: nopartygal
» RE: 9/11 was an inside job... Posted by: nopartygal
» You sir, have no case... Posted by: jimidee
» RE: 9/11 was an inside job... Posted by: monkeywrench
» Love it... Posted by: JMTulip
» RE: 9/11 was an inside job... Posted by: radicalchic
» RE: 9/11 was an inside job... Posted by: johnjmccarthy
» RE: 9/11 was an inside job... Posted by: sui_generis
old pete
Posted by: old pete on Dec 21, 2007 3:59 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is important to ask why George Crill's excellent expose is being turned into a whitewash as a film. I haven't yet had the opportunity to watch the movie, but I'll bet that in addition to playing down US responsibility for creating bin Laden's gang of thugs, the Israeli connection as the driving force behind Wilson's efforts is missing, as well.
According to the book, Wilson was recruited surreptitiously by Jewish-American supporters of Israel to aid the anti-Soviet actions, voted onto the House Appropriations Committee by a coalition of Jewish Congressmen(where he could write checks for the cause), introduced to Mossad agents by Ed Koch (another beautiful woman), and goaded into supporting Israeli policies, etc.
The Afghan war was the first step in the neocon war plan to eliminate the enemies of Israel.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: old pete Posted by: harrob2
» RE: old pete Posted by: waitingforgodel
» RE: old pete Posted by: old pete
» WRONG Posted by: gellero
» RE: old pete Posted by: Doubtom
tom hanks can't deal with 9/11?
Posted by: Zuma on Dec 21, 2007 4:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and yet made this movie anyway?
to me, that makes 'not dealing with it' a way of [falsely] dealing with it.
and pointedly so.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You Mean, Tom Hanks Publicist Couldn't Deal With 9-11
Posted by: rgoalierob on Dec 21, 2007 5:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hanks doesn't have the balls to kill his Golden Goose.
Actors like Danny Glover are more courageous every day.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I must disagree...
Posted by: tlv on Dec 21, 2007 5:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I do not think 9/11 was about JUST the oil or JUST past relationship with various Mujahadeen leaders that probably should have never taken place. I believe it was about restoring the cash cow that the CIA depended on to fund their operations in the Middle East - HEROIN. Opium poppy production is in full swing since we "liberated" the Afghanis from the Taliban.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: An Afghani is a bank note Posted by: DesertStone
» CIA-Heroin connection??. Posted by: gellero
Thanks for saving me eight bucks
Posted by: sausage on Dec 21, 2007 6:13 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I read George Crile's "Charlie Wilson's War when it can out in '03. The book should be required reading for anybody interested in the prelude
to September 11, 2001.

From what I remember Crile painted Wilson as a idealistic, albeit flawed, Cold Warrior who took Carter National Security AdviserZbigniew Brzezinski's wish to hand the Soviet Union its own Vietnam literally. Of course now, with typical American 20/20 hindsight, it's clear that once the Afghan war was won by the Mujahideen the US government should have stepped in with massive amounts of foreign aid and diplomatic expertise. Either than or we should have let the Soviets win, the world might be a safer place.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» So What .... Posted by: gellero
» Say what, gellero? Posted by: LeftWright
How amerika manufactured 'islamofacsists'
Posted by: PakiBoy on Dec 21, 2007 6:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Washington Post investigators reported in 2002 that during the past twenty years the US has spent millions of dollars producing fanatical schoolbooks, which were then distributed in Afghanistan.

"The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then [i.e., since the violent destruction of the Afghan secular government in the early 1990s] as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books..." -- Washington Post, 23 March 2002

According to the Post the U.S. is now "...wrestling with the unintended consequences of its successful strategy of stirring Islamic fervor to fight communism."

So the books made up the core curriculum in Afghan schools. And what were the unintended consequences? The Post reports that according to unnamed officials the schoolbooks "steeped a generation in [Islamist] violence."

How could this result have been unintended? Did they expect that giving fundamentalist schoolbooks to schoolchildren would make them moderate Muslims?

Further "Even the Taliban used the American-produced books, though the radical movement scratched out human faces in keeping with its strict fundamentalist code." -- Washington Post, March 23, 2002.
Other than their objections to the human face, the Taliban were perfectly happy with the US-produced primers.

These bad *old* schoolbooks "were developed in the early 1980s under an AID grant to the University of Nebraska-Omaha and its Center for Afghanistan Studies." -- Washington Post, March 23, 2002)

What about the US government? Have any US congressmen demanded an investigation to find out who in the US government was involved in the production of jihad primers that "steeped a generation in [Islamist] violence"?

No they have not.

See - Washington Post, March 23, 2002, "From U.S., the ABC's Of Jihad; Violent Soviet-Era Textbooks Complicate Afghan Education Efforts."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: How Pakistan helped along Posted by: DesertStone
» America LOVES dictators! Posted by: madaha
hanks
Posted by: cwilsondrum on Dec 21, 2007 6:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
come on tom. you're better than that. George Clooney,Matt Damon, meet this kind of stuff head on(Syriana) , and it only makes them more bankable. we're out here,you can do it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Oh, come on Hank Posted by: agathena
Why do "liberals" keep depending on Hollywood for cash and living up to the libel?
Posted by: maxpayne on Dec 21, 2007 6:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article begs that very question. After all, Hollywood could not only care less but is happier about the plight of the working/lower/middle class despite the fact that most Hollywood snobs didn't even complete high school but got to dodge everything just like the neocons dodging Vietnam. By the way, try asking your Democrats how comfortable they really are in allowing Big Media/Entertainment to TRASH the constitution by suing individuals frivolous million dollar lawsuits for even simple file sharing. This is why they aid the GOP in crushing people's rights to privacy all the while shielding bad corporations like AT&T and Halliburton with full "privacy protection".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Melissa Roddy adds to the torment of Afghan people with added anti Afghan propaganda
Posted by: DesertStone on Dec 21, 2007 6:49 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While Hekmatyar may have been all that is claimed it is an outrage for anyone let alone an westerner sitting in the warm comfort of their western home to diminish the brutality of the Soviets against Afghan people. How very righteous of this American woman to have such lofty opinions about a misery she never had to live a day of.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Posted by: DesertStone
» Read Ghost Wars Posted by: Philip Newton
Maybe...
Posted by: PROFPETE on Dec 21, 2007 7:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I still don't get it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Small point
Posted by: Indiosmith on Dec 21, 2007 7:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's n'est çe pas not n'est pas. You mustn't trust your ear when it comes to French.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Small point Posted by: Balanchine
» Wrong Posted by: gellero
» You're not quite right, either Posted by: drcyflowers
love 4 R plan8
Posted by: love R plan8 on Dec 21, 2007 7:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dear Melissa Roddy: I sincerely hope before you finish your documentary that you do a lot more research. For starters go to PatriotsQuestion911.com where you will find a who's who of military officers, CIA, and government officials who refute the authenticity of the 9/11 Commission's conspiracy theory. On other sites,pilots, scolars, theologians, scientists and even Republicans point out the Commission's inaccuracies. Read the books by architect Richard Gage and theologian David Ray Griffin. If Senate Bill 1959 passes after Christmas, they risk being called terrorists for their opinions and imprisonment in the new Haliburtin-built prisons. Why would they risk that? Because the evidence is so overwhelming that 9/11 was a false flag terrorist event, staged to propel us Americans into endless war and giving up our Constitutional rights. They are trying to warn us to act before the coup is completed. Please take the time to check how many executive orders Bush has made and laws Congress has passed which take away our liberty. If you are too "busy" to read very technical books, I suggest David Ray Griffin's movies "9/11 The Myth and the Reality" and "Let's Get Empirical". Wilson may have been foolish but 9/11 would have happened anyway.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Read "Ghost Wars"
Posted by: Philip Newton on Dec 21, 2007 8:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This author offers an surprisingly cogent and interesting article, especially given its short length.

Grade: B+

For an in-depth and well-written tome on the Afghan wars -- especially concerning the life and death of Massoud and his realations with the other Afghan warlords -- read "Ghost Wars" by Steve Coll. Superb book.

Massoud was no saint, but he was a patriot and a man of the people. The Mithridates of Afghanistan.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Things really haven't changed that much
Posted by: willymack on Dec 21, 2007 8:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our popular media has always been saturated with politics, ficticious and otherwise. This includes the movies, some of which portrayed Jesse James as some kind of benevolent Robin Hood type. In one particularly egrigious film, Victor Mature portrayed Doc Holliday. For those of you who don't remember Victor Mature, he looked as if he could walk off the movie set and play as linebacker on any NFL team, but there he was playing a sickly, tubercular Doc. Then there were the short films, during times of war, portraying our enemies as subhuman monsters and wildly exagerating the danger they posed. We've ALWAYS bent the truth for entertainment or political purposes. The only difference today is the matter of DEGREE and INTENT. I'm with those who want a REAL investigation of 911 because it's a moral imperative to do so, and instead of doing so, this regime has attempted to cover something up, and has done a sloppy job of it. Aren't you just a teeny bit suspicious of that?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden
Posted by: michael098762001 on Dec 21, 2007 8:32 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Excellent book.
On Hekmatyar and Massoud,
http://tinyurl.com/2eojek
http://books.google.com/books

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THIS ISN'T A BIG DEAL
Posted by: olenholm on Dec 21, 2007 8:42 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most American movie going audiences, especially ones going to see Hanks and Roberts (blech) and most likely ones NOT reading this article, aren't politically sophisticated enough to draw any conclusions about the details of this situation. This isn't that big of a deal.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: You got that RIGHT! Posted by: sumwoman
» don't be so sure Posted by: PaulC
tom hanks is just an actor
Posted by: olenholm on Dec 21, 2007 8:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
saying lines written by a writer whose words are realized through the work of a director.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Good article... but was it really Reagan & Bush's war?
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Dec 21, 2007 8:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's the classic photo: 1983, Ronald Reagan welcomes the Afghani freedom fighters to the White House and stages a photo with them with George Washington's portrait in the background.

The Reagan and Carter administrations were the driving force behind the covert support for Afghani "freedom fighters." Covert operations were the hallmark of the Reagan era - in El Salvador, in Nicaragua, in Afghanistan, in Iraq and Iran - and those same people are still in power - Elliot Abrams, the Bush clan, James Baker III, etc.

Trying to fob all that off onto some "independent operator" named Charlie Wilson is a bad joke itself. The fact is that the Saudi government, the Pakistani government, and the U.S. government all worked together to covertly supply troops and weapons to anti-Soviet forces in Afghanistan. The U.S. movie business even chipped in to promote the war by producing Rambo III.

Take what Juan Cole had to say about Reagan and the Taliban:

"In fact, of course, Ronald Reagan bears substantial responsibility for September 11. He and his administration were so gung ho to roll back Communism that they funneled billions of dollars to scruffy far rightwing radical Muslim mujahidin in Pakistan and Afghanistan to fight the Soviets. Orrin Hatch even flew to Beijing for Reagan in 1985 to ask the Chinese to pressure Pakistan to allow the US to provide the Mujahidin with ever more sophisticated weaponry. Even the Pakistani military had initially balked at this crazy idea, knowing who the Gulbuddin Hikmatyars and Usama Bin Ladens really were (unlike clueless Reagan, who called them freedom fighters). But the US twisted the Pakistanis’ arms, and they gave in. Likewise, Reagan forced the timid Saudis to match US contributions to the Mujahidin. (And then after Sept. 11 the former Reagan officials who had twisted the arms of the Saudis, like Richard Perle, turned around and blamed Riyadh for spreading radical Muslim ideas!!) It was the CIA that first established terrorist training camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan, to hit the leftist government in Kabul. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the camps used by al-Qaeda had been built originally by the Reagan administration.

So, not only is this movie trying to change history and rewrite the past about who received the support, it's also trying to obscure who gave that support.

The same story, of course, applies to Saddam Hussein, who was encouraged to invade Iran by the United States and who received billions in U.S. agricultural loans, freeing up Saddam's oil revenue, which he then used to buy weapons from Italy, West Germany, Britain, and the U.S., via Saudi Arabian and Egyptian cut-outs. He even got military intelligence from the DIA as well as extra arms up through 1989. That's why his 'trial' was such a hush affair and ignored so many of his crimes - the whole story would have revealed extensive U.S. involvement in his crimes.

The cherry on top of all that was the Iran-Contra scandal, in which the covert operations in the Middle East got in bed with the covert operations in Central America in a bid to ignore Congress and continue to promote 'revolution' in NIcaragua. That effort extended to, at the very least, the CIA looking the other way while the Contras raised funds by shipping cocaine into major U.S. cities.

Obviously, the movie business doesn't want to get into all that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Colonel, ret.
Posted by: Spock on Dec 21, 2007 9:19 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've long since begun to wonder if anyone who comments publicly on anything ever knows what he is talking about. "Copasetic?" This is co-pathetic. "Square Root?" This is simplistic to the fourth power. As I've pointed out again and again in my own writing www.judoknighterrant.com (where the reader will learn that - having been its victim - I'm just about the CIA's most relentless critic), speaking and writing publicly includes something called "responsibility." Someone might actually BELIEVE what you say (consider the nut cases who think the Trade Center was brought down by controlled demolition). This - and, yes, so is the damned movie - is irresponible twaddle. Sorry, but if anything irritates me more than the opposition's strident bullshit mongering, it's when my side does the same.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Colonel, ret. Posted by: oregoncharles
Roddy needs to go further
Posted by: johnny woods on Dec 21, 2007 9:51 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Roddy is right to point out the unsavory types the Charlier Wilson-CIA-and ultra rightists supported in Afghanistan But what remains unexplored and unsaid is that the Afghan government was not some sort of externally imposerd lame puppet. They were the most progressive people and organizations in that country, veterans of struggles for mass public education, women's rights, trade unionism and so on.. The USA stuck a Pol Pot/Noriega/Saddam Hussein type named Amin in leadership. The Afghan group that got rid of him were the Good Guys--and Gals--more like the Sandinistas, or the Lumumba group in Congo, and similar CIA targets in Iran and Guatemala. Unfortunately, the dualistic Cold War lens obscured the complex realities to most left forces here. And the Soviets' fiasco showed basically that an occupying army, no matter its intentions, can be bled dry by a well-armed resistance funded by outsiode forces with deep pockets.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: oddy needs to go further Posted by: DesertStone
Disappointed
Posted by: AndreaN on Dec 21, 2007 10:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After reading the book, I was delighted to hear there was a film in the making. How disappointing to read the truth injures an actor's delicate sensibilities such that history is revised. I had been anxious to see the film, and was planning to go today. Thanks to this article, I think I'll pass.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Carter, not the Russians, started the war
Posted by: ahilgart on Dec 21, 2007 10:57 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Before the Russians entered Afghanistan to protect the secular feminist government, we armed the homicidal fundamentalists. And our triumphs were to install the Taliban and create bin Laden.

Reaping What We Have Sown
By David Morris, AlterNet. Posted May 4, 2004.

The seeds of fundamentalist Islamic terrorism were planted in 1979, when Jimmy Carter decided to fight back against the expansion of global communism...

Full story at:
http://www.alternet.org/story/18598/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

old pete
Posted by: old pete on Dec 21, 2007 1:40 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Once again, you are leaving out the Israeli connection. Read the book (and Ghost Wars), you might not believe the amount of effort that Wilson put into making Reagan successful in Afghanistan.
Israel made a fortune by selling the CIA Soviet weaponry seized from the Arabs in its wars (to attempt to cover-up the American source of the arms).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» So?? Posted by: gellero
whose bucks?
Posted by: mammamaia on Dec 21, 2007 1:42 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
makes me wonder whose money was invested in this bush-friendly propaganda flick... if we checked out the list of production-funding entities, think we'd find any good ol' boys' oil money in there???... or any names we'd find on a roster of haliburton execs?

sheesh!

love and hugs, maia
www.saysmom.com
for 100% free writing help: maia3maia@hotmail.com

"You must BE the change you wish to see in the world." Gandhi

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ah, the nuance...
Posted by: JMTulip on Dec 21, 2007 8:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"There were seven factions based in Pakistan who were the recipients of American largesse, but about 40 percent of it went to a blood-thirsty, fundamentalist, loudly anti-American bastard named Gulbaddin Hekmatyar."

Gee, could you be any more subtle? When do we get to the part where he ate the baby?

I realize this is an o-ed piece, but seriously, grow up. This isn't a Rambo flick, it's a site that supposedly purports to be engaging in thoughtful political commentary. Labeling people as "blood-thirsty bastards" really does a disservice to anyone reading the piece. And it makes the author look like a petulant child.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

9/11 - at best, is a case of chicken coming home to roast
Posted by: PakiBoy on Dec 21, 2007 9:25 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
at worst, is the "catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor" that neocons executed in order to push their imperial agenda.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Geneaology
Posted by: talkville on Dec 21, 2007 11:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"In The Beginning...." was Charlie Wilson, et al:

"Moreover, if this movie succeeds in convincing Americans that the U.S. support went to Ahmad Shah Massoud alone, it will have effectively let the CIA and Wilson off the hook for their contribution to the circumstances leading up to 9/11. During the 1980s, Wilson engineered the appropriation of approximately $3.5 billion to help the Afghans fight the Soviets. According to Milt Bearden, CIA chief of station to Pakistan, Massoud received less than 1 percent of it."

Then...... Blowback, The Great Unraveling, Curveball, etc. etc. etc.

What happens when you train, teach, encourage, arm and organize by reliance on Religious Fundamentalist elan?? You got it: Al Qaida. All they had to do was change the Object.

And the clever Texan is made out a Hero and focus of hagiography. The very meaning of sanity and civilization is up for grabs today. This is no "New American Century"; it's merely the attempted Restoration of much darker ones preceding us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Please study Posted by: talkville
mike nichols dean of satire seminal second city pioneer
Posted by: melindyrose on Dec 22, 2007 9:00 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
geez, grow up and get a sense of humor
you'll get your bill o'reilly minute
peace & love
melinda
ps see "there will be blood"
based on upton sinclair's "OIL!!!"
le