Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • 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.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Tom Hanks' Charlie Wilson Movie: An Imperialist Comedy

By Chalmers Johnson, Tomdispatch.com. Posted January 8, 2008.


Charlie Wilson's War is a truly dangerous piece of pro-war propaganda from Hollywood.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

I have some personal knowledge of Congressmen like Charlie Wilson (D-2nd District, Texas, 1973-1996) because, for close to twenty years, my representative in the 50th Congressional District of California was Republican Randy "Duke" Cunningham, now serving an eight-and-a-half year prison sentence for soliciting and receiving bribes from defense contractors. Wilson and Cunningham held exactly the same plummy committee assignments in the House of Representatives -- the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee plus the Intelligence Oversight Committee -- from which they could dole out large sums of public money with little or no input from their colleagues or constituents.

Both men flagrantly abused their positions -- but with radically different consequences. Cunningham went to jail because he was too stupid to know how to game the system -- retire and become a lobbyist -- whereas Wilson received the Central Intelligence Agency Clandestine Service's first "honored colleague" award ever given to an outsider and went on to become a $360,000 per annum lobbyist for Pakistan.

In a secret ceremony at CIA headquarters on June 9, 1993, James Woolsey, Bill Clinton's first Director of Central Intelligence and one of the agency's least competent chiefs in its checkered history, said: "The defeat and breakup of the Soviet empire is one of the great events of world history. There were many heroes in this battle, but to Charlie Wilson must go a special recognition." One important part of that recognition, studiously avoided by the CIA and most subsequent American writers on the subject, is that Wilson's activities in Afghanistan led directly to a chain of blowback that culminated in the attacks of September 11, 2001 and led to the United States' current status as the most hated nation on Earth.

On May 25, 2003, (the same month George W. Bush stood on the flight deck of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln under a White-House-prepared "Mission Accomplished" banner and proclaimed "major combat operations" at an end in Iraq), I published a review in the Los Angeles Times of the book that provides the data for the film Charlie Wilson's War. The original edition of the book carried the subtitle, "The Extraordinary Story of the Largest Covert Operation in History -- the Arming of the Mujahideen." The 2007 paperbound edition was subtitled, "The Extraordinary Story of How the Wildest Man in Congress and a Rogue CIA Agent Changed the History of Our Times." Neither the claim that the Afghan operations were covert nor that they changed history is precisely true.

In my review of the book, I wrote,

"The Central Intelligence Agency has an almost unblemished record of screwing up every 'secret' armed intervention it ever undertook. From the overthrow of the Iranian government in 1953 through the rape of Guatemala in 1954, the Bay of Pigs, the failed attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro of Cuba and Patrice Lumumba of the Congo, the Phoenix Program in Vietnam, the 'secret war' in Laos, aid to the Greek Colonels who seized power in 1967, the 1973 killing of President Allende in Chile, and Ronald Reagan's Iran-Contra war against Nicaragua, there is not a single instance in which the Agency's activities did not prove acutely embarrassing to the United States and devastating to the people being 'liberated.' The CIA continues to get away with this bungling primarily because its budget and operations have always been secret and Congress is normally too indifferent to its Constitutional functions to rein in a rogue bureaucracy. Therefore the tale of a purported CIA success story should be of some interest.

"According to the author of Charlie Wilson's War, the exception to CIA incompetence was the arming between 1979 and 1988 of thousands of Afghan mujahideen ("freedom fighters"). The Agency flooded Afghanistan with an incredible array of extremely dangerous weapons and 'unapologetically mov[ed] to equip and train cadres of high tech holy warriors in the art of waging a war of urban terror against a modern superpower [in this case, the USSR].'

"The author of this glowing account, [the late] George Crile, was a veteran producer for the CBS television news show '60 Minutes' and an exuberant Tom Clancy-type enthusiast for the Afghan caper. He argues that the U.S.'s clandestine involvement in Afghanistan was 'the largest and most successful CIA operation in history,' 'the one morally unambiguous crusade of our time,' and that 'there was nothing so romantic and exciting as this war against the Evil Empire.' Crile's sole measure of success is killed Soviet soldiers (about 15,000), which undermined Soviet morale and contributed to the disintegration of the Soviet Union in the period 1989 to 1991. That's the successful part.

"However, he never once mentions that the 'tens of thousands of fanatical Muslim fundamentalists' the CIA armed are the same people who in 1996 killed nineteen American airmen at Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, bombed our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, blew a hole in the side of the U.S.S. Cole in Aden Harbor in 2000, and on September 11, 2001, flew hijacked airliners into New York's World Trade Center and the Pentagon."

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: empire

Chalmers Johnson is the author of the Blowback Trilogy -- Blowback (2000), The Sorrows of Empire (2004), and Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic (paperbound edition, January 2008).

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

Advertisement
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:
I'm so disappointed
Posted by: leener on Jan 8, 2008 1:15 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I haven't seen this movie yet, but for some reason I was under the impression that it was a tongue-in-cheek, blustering promotion of itself. How can it not be? Can the filmmakers honestly think, after all our country has been through, that we are stupid enough to believe that someone like Charlie Wilson is a hero? Does anyone know the recent history of Afghanistan or are we just in denial that, as we promote dictators and regimes on a political whim that down the line there will be fallout to deal with?
No, it has to be farcical. Please. I can't deal with this much stupidity in one nation.

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

» RE: I'm so disappointed Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: I'm so disappointed Posted by: civilsociety
» RE: I'm not so disappointed Posted by: Moore Hognutz
The Same Old Game
Posted by: johnjmccarthy on Jan 8, 2008 4:02 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where in the hell did Chalmers Johnson get the blatant lie that the Mujahadeen members, or even their friends, later flew hijacked aircraft into the WTC?

George Crile did NOT mention it because he was rightly aware that such information was credible only in the minds of the true perpetrators of 911.

Those who persist in this disinformation campaign are a discredit to retired CIA operatives, Special Ops veterans, and some of his former Agency Associates, whom Chalmers will not debate.

Sorry, guys, ya just don't get it. The damn manifest did not contain ANY of the so called 19 hijackers names for any aircraft 'hijacked' on 911.

Just remember that NO ONE has ever boarded a flight before 911 without a boarding pass with their damn name on it! Copies are maintained at the boarding gate and then turned over for security and information in the event of an "accident".

And the only photo of ATTA was when he was at the airport in Portsmouth, Maine on 911.

Are there not enough holes in the government's conspiracy theory to wake up the writers on this subject?

Hopefully, Chalmers Johnson will sit back and look at just a few of the FACTS of this matter and somehow come to the realization that, indeed, 911 was an Inside Job!

http://johnmccarthy90066.tripod.com/id472.html

Related articles on Cui Bono, who benefits on 911 are located in the left column.

Johnson, and those who read this, may also wish to visit www.911truth.org and take on any member on any subject on their site.

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

» Bingo, johnjmccarthy. Bingo. Posted by: Centavo
» Typical conspiracist canard Posted by: brunowe
» Manifest canard Posted by: brunowe
» RE: The Same Old Game Posted by: wisenup
» RE: The Same Old Game Posted by: brunowe
» RE: The Same Old Game Posted by: wisenup
» RE: The Same Old Game Posted by: brunowe
» RE: The Same Old Game Posted by: wisenup
» RE: The Same Old Game Posted by: brunowe
» RE: The Same Old Game Posted by: wisenup
» Try Rushkoff, for example. Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» Now, you're sounding a little desperate. Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» He has a point Posted by: wisenup
» RE: The Same Old Game Posted by: Doubtom
Were Charlie Wilson's actions legal?
Posted by: oscarg on Jan 8, 2008 5:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I loved this article and the author's willingness to confront the wisdom or stupidity of Charlie Wilson. But it skipped over one question I haven't seen confronted by anyone. I do not have the answer. The question is: where Charlie Wilson's actions to help Afghanistan legal? Is funneling money off-books legal? Was it legal under international norms to instigate a civil war in another country? Was President Carter legally able to sign off? Did the CIA violate it's charter?

I'm curious.

Oscarg

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

The Gift!
Posted by: williameon on Jan 8, 2008 5:17 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
More Propaganda from THE WAR MACHINE!

Glorify WAR and the Religion of Violence,
While everyone else suffers.
Except Dead Eye and the Shrub!
They get ranches, pensions, health care and a long vacation.
Everyone else gets the shaft!
The Military Media Industrial Complex
Spews endless BU__! SH__! while
Fossilized Cor‘pirate’ clones lead the country down the wrong path.
The same old path of:
Death and Destruction.
They belong in a insane asylum!
For the Criminally insane.
All we have left is a
A phallic symbol,
My bomb is bigger than yours!
The Nuclear Bomb.
One of which,
Has already gone missing.
Who will we march off against this time,
While the traitors stay at home?
When will we free this country from these torturous, murderous, hypocrites?
Rise up and take back what is rightfully ours!
Freedom and Democracy should start at home, first.
Lead by example.
Peace, health and prosperity is a worthy cause that’s unattainable as long
As these Jackals ruin this country.
No health care for 50 million.
Ten Million Million DOLLARS in debt!
Fixed voting machines.
That’s the horrible reality we must face.
Fix it or
Forever hold your piece!
But,
Deadeye wants it to all end right here,
While he is Watching.
This last wish must go unfulfilled!
Dead eye will be just that,
The petty little hunchback he is.
The Fascists have stolen everything already,
Now they want your life too!
May they drown in their own poison.
Life to them is a Greedy little game.
They missed the point!
It’s a Gift.

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

Not Propaganda
Posted by: Jim Ramelis on Jan 8, 2008 5:46 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry but Chalmers Johnson read a lot more into this movie than was there.After viewing the movie I left with the feeling that this flick certaintly illustrates the drunken stupidty and haphazard methods used by our leaders to determine foreign policy. Charlie Wilson's own personal life and the influence of the Christian fundamentalist played by Julia Roberts certaintly were well presented. Ther movie concluded with a Zen proverb that left the movie goer with doubt that we did the right thing and that results of actions are yet to be seen.It also had a line that suggested that Ronald Reagen was totally out of it. I am definetly weary of Big Brother but don't think this particular movie was propaganda.

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

American Imperialism 101
Posted by: Forrest on Jan 8, 2008 5:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
great article!

didn't read the book, will not see the movie!

What you wrote about H. W. Bush walking away from Afghanistan in 1989 is precisely the modus operandi of American Imperialism. "We" were there in Afghanistan to fight against the Soviets, not to fight for the people. That was "our" interest.

I have a friend who was in Grenada when another American president invaded in 1983. Operation Urgent Fury. "We" were there not to rescue anyone, but rather to fight against the Cubans. And after the invasion we didn't even clean up the mess that we made. The hospital that American forces accidentally bombed was still a ruined shell when my wife and I visited in 2003. The only construction projects(water plants and schools) were being financed by the Chinese (ROC) and the Cubans!

A selfish person has no friends, only victims.

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

Propaganda From All Sides...
Posted by: LookOut on Jan 8, 2008 7:11 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"When bin Laden and his colleagues decided to get even with us for having been used, he had the support of much of the Islamic world. This disaster was brought about by Wilson's and the CIA's incompetence..."

Bin Laden never ceased being a CIA asset as was proven the summer of 2000 when visited by the local Mid East CIA station chief at the American hospital in Dubai. (Bhutto herself mentioned Osama had been dead for some time before she herself was killed by CIA controlled ISI goons for Musharraf). "Al-Qaeda" named the day of 9/11 was created by CIA, funded by Saudi Arabia and run out of Pakistan's ISI (with cooperation of Mi6) as a protection racket operation cum boogey man. One that western corporate Fascists constantly use to instill fear, do genocide and extort the gullible by snake oil “war on terror” after 9/11 cover-up.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7705

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7699

No doubt the Tom Hanks’ film is a propaganda clunker. But of course, that could also be said of this article.

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

» More bogus nonsense. Posted by: thoughtcriminal
Draws links that only exist indirectly
Posted by: brunowe on Jan 8, 2008 7:15 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To argue that the mujahadeen turned into the Taliban is misleading. Although US actions in Afghanistan certainly contributed to the milieu that led to al-Qaida becoming what it is and doing what it did to say that they became al-Qaida isn't accurate.

US aid was channeled through Pakistan which gave it to Afghani groups. al-Qaida was a Saudi-financed organization. It certainly operated with the suffrance of Pakistan and the US but it's inaccurate to call it a US creation.

Likewise, it's misleading to say that the US built bin-Laden's base at Khost. The US built-up a mujahadeen base that, almost a decade later, because an al-Qaida base.

President George H.W. Bush promptly lost interest in the place and simply walked away, leaving it to descend into one of the most horrific civil wars of modern times.

This statement is more on point in terms of US responsibility for the anarchy in Afghanistan that provided an opportunity for the Taliban. It is this not-so-benign neglect that one should start looking at. The Taliban themselves were largely the proteges of Pakistan's ISI and didn't even come into existence until 1994.

The bottom line is that there were many developments and missed chances between the withdrawal of the Soviets and the entrance of al-Qaida into a Taliban-dominated Afghanistan that could have changed things. To consider 9/11 the direct blowback of supporting the mujahadeen is inaccurate.

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

» I never said it didn't Posted by: brunowe
Hmmmmm....
Posted by: Cybershaman on Jan 8, 2008 7:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And here we are, supporting another dictator in Pakistan because he has been bought by our tax dollars, while the people rise up against him. Burma, Congo, Rwanda, and we never stand with the people who are taking to the streets demanding freedom. Instead we back the oppressive state while it labels the freedom fighters 'terrorists'. When will we stop this cowboy mentality that leads us down this path of destruction? When will we actually stand up for the same principles that our founding fathers understood instead of falling back to the failed logic of King George I when dealing with his 'insurgents'. This man, Charlie Wilson, and all those like him should be exposed as the redneck psychopaths that they are rather than being glorified and given honors by those who share their myopic vision.

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

You idiot.
Posted by: abbadon2007 on Jan 8, 2008 8:06 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This movie was, if anything, as harsh and clear a critique of imperialism, Soviet and American, as I have ever seen.

And it gives some hope that, somewhere in the halls of power, somebody might actually be moving behind the scenes to DO something about the present. Because God knows nobody in the public eye is doing jack squat.

There were many excellent facets to this movie, too many to list. But here's one example for your benefit: tons and tons of work to intelligently place ONE BILLION dollars ended the USSR's occupation of afghanistan. Even adjusted for inflation, we are orders of magnitude more reckless in our current expenditures and for nothing.

Here's another. The movie illustrates, clearly, why it is that Afghanistan and the terrorism from that region is predominantly OUR FAULT.

Thank you Tom.

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

» RE: You idiot. Posted by: Blix
» This movie was worse than Rambo III Posted by: thoughtcriminal
Balancing global interests IS the UN's job
Posted by: Bobsays on Jan 8, 2008 9:11 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
America looks after its own interests: that doesn't surprise me. The bigger story is all the weasals, cowards and wimps who don't stand up for their own country's interests, or who do not put the effort in to making the UN really work.

Some of the worst offenders are European countries, happy to leave the US to take all the heat.

The only hope for humanity is a UN that works. One that can use military force and civil reconstruction to deal with the world's failed nations.

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

Forrest Gump Strikes Again!
Posted by: susanhathaway on Jan 8, 2008 9:52 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The most accurate review so far is James Rocchi's summing-up for Cinematical: 'Charlie Wilson's War isn't just bad history; it feels even more malign, like a conscious attempt to induce amnesia.'"

I'm reminded of Peter Travers's comment on "the Gumping of America: the cynical marketing of ignorance as bliss."

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

Gollywood
Posted by: Floresta on Jan 8, 2008 12:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you Mr Johnson for your always thoughtful articles.
I worked in/for "gollywood" for 20 years in the art depts on over 30 films. In between shots, there is a certain amount of 'down time' and frequently the subject of Gollywood's role as propaganda provider would be chewed over. We used to have a good laugh over such topics as alien invaders, climate change hell and wonder if these topics were, well, some kind of 'public notice'. For the well-read and curious among you, take a peek at Gore Vidal's novel, "Hollywood" a rocking good read and quite sobering in it's assessment of how the Washington pols and the film industry elite work the masses.

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

Black and white thinking is what got us here to start with
Posted by: MrIntuition on Jan 8, 2008 12:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Blaming Charlie Wilson or any one person or reason for 9-11 or the rise of extremists in the Middle East is an affront to genuine understanding. It's like blaming Neville Chamberlain for WWII or saying Pearl Harbor started it. For every "event" in history there are labyrinthine "causes" behind it. We -- Americans especially -- gravitate toward black and white thinking. There always has to be a good guy and a bad guy. In the case of Afghanistan, what if the Chinese had helped the rebels? What if the Russians had beaten the rebels anyway? And here's another, more important point: Since when do we make life altering decisions based on a movie? Let's face it, "Charlie Wilson's War" is no "Jaws."

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

» WW2 Black and white thinking ? Posted by: zipper696
We don't need no education
Posted by: stilldreaming on Jan 8, 2008 1:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wilson acted without bothering to research history and background on Afghanistan.

The consequences of acting without bothering to learn about an issue -- say, Afghan history, culture--are disastrous.

I wish the movie, and critics, would spotlight the fact that Wilson (and the rest of our lawmakers, scratch that..lawbreakers) ought to spend time poring over "boring" books, talk with experts, read, read, read ... BEFORE making decisions.

Lobbyists should be pretty much ignored.

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

CIA Incompetent?
Posted by: Jeff Hoffman on Jan 8, 2008 2:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hardly. The CIA works at the behest of the president and in the interests of U.S. big business. Its efforts described in the article were totally successful for what it was trying to accomplish. As political scientist Dr. Michael Parenti said regarding the ruling class, just because you don't know what they're doing doesn't mean they don't know what they're doing.

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

Charlie wilsons Legacy, Vs. Future George Bush Legacy by the "Spinners"
Posted by: common intelligence on Jan 8, 2008 2:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This whole media spin job is a mind blowing propaganda machine.
On the right they say the movie industry is controlled by the left. But from the left it sure seems like it's being controled by the right. All I can summise from the drek being put out is they lure both sides in, charge a phenominal amount to listen and watch the shit and charge over $5 for genetically engineered pop corn that cost about 10¢.

The movie industry doesn't give a rats ass what the truth is as long as they can lure both sides in and charge the shit out of us.

Just the act of writing about this stupid movie promotes it, and all you that comment on it over shadow movies that should be remembered such as Robert Redfords latest or "Loose Change", or "Zeitgeis"t - The Movie, 2007, or "America Desent into Fasicm" or.......
These are the movies that need to be focused on to write Georges legacy

Remenber 300. Funny thing was after seeing it and pondering it a while I couldn't figure out if the Spartans were the republicans or the the Egyptian demi gods.

In any case when we do go to the show we're all channeled into watching the recruiting commercials for the Marines, and Army.
(yup, there is no draft because that would end the war right away)

So now when it comes to Charlie Wilson, is the spin any different than the wish of Bush the propaganda machine in writing the future Bush lagacy that the media has been promoting dialog about so much?
Unless the Truth is revealed, the treasonous actions by the whole of everyone complying with Bush in congress, and 911 truth is not revealed and written by us, the true observers, of how the magnitude of failures made and deceptions used by the Bush Machine a lagacy is just another stupid fiction story like the Charlie Wilson movie.

Even is people stop paying to see it, it will be on the TV for free soon!The movie will be in the archieves of historical story telling. And the future children will use it to debate and weigh in as evidence to what the truth actually was.

Now is the time to cannonize the real truth, by impeaching and bringing forth the compilation of evidence that proves without doubt that there actually was an undeclared coup de ta, just as there was an "undeclared" war on Iraq and that facsism has been inch-wormed into position by the Imperialistic Bush Regime. The economy has been calculated and ruined by these bastards in order to accomplish paving the path for the neocon agenda while they have a short repreive during the next 4 yrs.

Keep watching the Spinners spin, until we're all so dizzy we can't tell truth from alzheimers disease.

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

I know it late and we are ready for bed
Posted by: rhbee on Jan 8, 2008 3:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
but I have something that this discussion has brought to mind that I want to add. Here's what I wrote for my blog today:

Heck of a discussion over on the Alternet, revolving around conspiracy, licit and illicict, and around the facts of the story, the filming of the story, and the hopes and fears of the author of this post, Chalmers Johnson, who writes regularly at Tomdispatch.com. One thing came to me after I had read the post and comments and had even commented myself, and that was that any thinking person who goes to this film will come away thinking. Thinking about the way bad people can have good intentions go wrong. Thinking about the connections between the church and the state. Thinking about the purchasable attention span of our politicians. Thinking that if this is the way it has been working then things have got to change. Thinking like The Graduate did back then when his father’s friend said, “Plastic”. Hanks, Roberts, Hoffman, and especially Nichols have had their say and it made me laugh at how sad it all is.

My hope is that the film’s growing popularity is because word of mouth is telling people that what they saw underneathe the story was the real deal - the Charlie Wilson at the end of the story, who knows what he has done, and is stunned by the enormity of the coming side effects of his “just getting guns so they could shoot down the helicopters.”

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

I saw the movie; it was NOT pro-war
Posted by: olderworker on Jan 8, 2008 4:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At least, my perspective (and that of the members of the film club with which I saw this movie) was that, in fact, the movie showed how fruitless war is. The movie showed both sides of the Russian-Afghanistan conflict at a human level, and showed how really hideous and barbaric war is.
At the end, the movie shows how stupid the war was, because although the characters (in the U.S.) think they did a good thing by ridding the country of Russians, they unwittingly set up the Taliban and promoted anti-Americanism.
So I disagree with the writer of this Alternet article.

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

CAL
Posted by: cal on Jan 8, 2008 8:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am now wondering if I saw the same movie that Chalmers Johnson and others did. "Happy ending"??? The ending spelled out clearly that as long as Wilson was asking for money for weapons he was able to get it. When he was asking for money for schools, everyone else lost interest, from Bush on down. (Sound familiar?) The reason the mujahedeen turned into the Taliban wasn't because we helped them get rid of the Soviets. It was because we abandoned them after the Soviets were gone and their country was nearly destroyed. We didn't stick around and help them recover. Read "Three Cups of Tea, One Man's Mission to Fight Terrorism and Build Nations...One School at a Time" by Greg Mortenson and David Oliver Relin. Greg Mortenson has taken up where Charlie Wilson was stonewalled. The last frame of the movie - which Chalmers Johnson inexplicably quotes and then ignores - says it: we f****d up the end game.

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

» RE: CAL Posted by: liberalibrarian
Like with most of the issues and events today...
Posted by: Pirate1 on Jan 8, 2008 8:54 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most here seem content to accept the premise of this article without having ever seen the movie or even intending to see it. I thought the film was a good indictment of the haphazard way in which our nation's "Foriegn Policy" lurches along from good intention to disaster. Tom Hanks plays a boozing, womanizing creep in the halls of power very convincingly. The sense among the actors playing the congressmen that it was all some abstract game with a very real sense of disconnect from the real world consequences of sending money and weapons into an already volatile situation was very well done, I thought. You come away realizing that somewhere in the world today, some other well meaning fool is setting similar wheels in motion today in Africa and South Asia and South America. Don't let others live your life for you, see the movie and talk about it from your own experience.

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

Bin Laden, CIA's child, coming home to roast
Posted by: Ydotheyhateus on Jan 9, 2008 6:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
According to Ahmed Rashid, a correspondent for the Far Eastern Economic Review, in 1986 CIA chief William Casey committed CIA support to a long-standing ISI proposal to recruit from around the world to join the Afghan jihad. At least 100,000 Islamic militants flocked to Pakistan between 1982 and 1992.

John Cooley, a former journalist with the US ABC television network and author of Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism, has revealed that Muslims recruited in the US for the mujaheddin were sent to Camp Peary, the CIA's spy training camp in Virginia, where young Afghans, Arabs from Egypt and Jordan, and even some African-American “black Muslims” were taught “sabotage skills”.

The November 1, 1998, British Independent reported that one of those charged with the 1998 bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Ali Mohammed, had trained “bin Laden's operatives” in 1989.

These “operatives” were recruited at the al Kifah Refugee Centre in Brooklyn, New York, given paramilitary training in the New York area and then sent to Afghanistan with US assistance to join Hekmatyar's forces. Mohammed was a member of the US army's elite Green Berets.

The program, reported the Independent, was part of a Washington-approved plan called “Operation Cyclone”.

In Pakistan, recruits, money and equipment were distributed to the mujaheddin factions by an organisation known as Maktab al Khidamar (Office of Services — MAK).

MAK (later Al-Qaeda) was a front for Pakistan's CIA, the Inter-Service Intelligence Directorate. The ISI was the first recipient of the vast bulk of CIA and Saudi Arabian covert assistance for the Afghan contras. Bin Laden was one of three people who ran MAK. In 1989, he took overall charge of MAK.

Osama bin Laden, one of 20 sons of a billionaire bin Laden family is a prominent pillar of the Saudi Arabian ruling class, with close personal, financial and political ties to that country's pro-US royal family.

Osama's military and business adventures in Afghanistan had the blessing of the bin Laden dynasty and the reactionary Saudi Arabian regime. His close working relationship with MAK also meant that the CIA was fully aware of his activities.

Milt Bearden, the CIA's station chief in Pakistan from 1986 to 1989, admitted to the January 24, 2000, New Yorker that while he never personally met bin Laden, “Did I know that he was out there? Yes, I did ... [Guys like] bin Laden were bringing $20-$25 million a month from other Saudis and Gulf Arabs to underwrite the war. And that is a lot of money. It's an extra $200-$300 million a year. And this is what bin Laden did.”

In 1986, bin Laden brought heavy construction equipment from Saudi Arabia to Afghanistan. Using his extensive knowledge of construction techniques, he built “training camps”, some dug deep into the sides of mountains, and built roads to reach them.

These camps, now dubbed “terrorist universities” by Washington, were built in collaboration with the ISI and the CIA. The Afghan contra fighters, including the tens of thousands of mercenaries recruited and paid for by bin Laden, were armed by the CIA. Pakistan, the US and Britain provided military trainers.

Tom Carew, a former British SAS soldier who secretly fought for the mujaheddin told the August 13, 2000, British Observer, “The Americans were keen to teach the Afghans the techniques of urban terrorism — car bombing and so on — so that they could strike at the Russians in major towns ...”

Al Qaeda (the Base, formerly MAK), bin Laden's organisation, was established in 1987-88 to run these camps and other business enterprises

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

» RE: No arguing with a patriot fanatic Posted by: Ydotheyhateus
» Words matter Posted by: brunowe
» RE: MAK was CIA operations center Posted by: Ydotheyhateus
CIA intrigues and fuckups
Posted by: daw13 on Jan 9, 2008 6:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
in Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Middle East in general are brilliantly outlined and analyzed by prize winning Swiss journalist Richard LeBeviere in a book title Dollars for Terror. The process began with the CIA's predecessors, the OSS, when FDR established relations with Saudi Arabia.

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

CIA created Taliban with the help of ISI
Posted by: Ydotheyhateus on Jan 9, 2008 7:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) worked in tandem with Pakistan to create the "monster" that is today Afghanistan's ruling Taliban, a leading US expert on South Asia said here.

"I warned them that we were creating a monster," Selig Harrison from the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars said at the conference here last week on "Terrorism and Regional Security: Managing the Challenges in Asia."

Harrison said: "The CIA made a historic mistake in encouraging Islamic groups from all over the world to come to Afghanistan." The US provided $3 billion for building up these Islamic groups, and it accepted Pakistan's demand that they should decide how this money should be spent, Harrison said.

Harrison, who spoke before the Taliban assault on the Buddha statues was launched, told the gathering of security experts that he had meetings with CIA leaders at the time when Islamic forces were being strengthened in Afghanistan. "They told me these people were fanatical, and the more fierce they were the more fiercely they would fight the Soviets," he said. "I warned them that we were creating a monster."

Harrison, who has written five books on Asian affairs and US relations with Asia, has had extensive contact with the CIA and political leaders in South Asia. Harrison was a senior associate of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace between 1974 and 1996.

Harrison who is now senior fellow with The Century Foundation recalled a conversation he had with the late Gen Zia-ul Haq of Pakistan. "Gen Zia spoke to me about expanding Pakistan's sphere of influence to control Afghanistan, then Uzbekistan and Tajikstan and then Iran and Turkey," Harrison said. That design continues, he said. Gen.Mohammed Aziz who was involved in that Zia plan has been elevated now to a key position by Chief Executive, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Harrison said.

The old associations between the intelligence agencies continue, Harrison said. "The CIA still has close links with the ISI (Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence)."

Today that money and those weapons have helped build up the Taliban, Harrison said. "The Taliban are not just recruits from 'madrassas' (Muslim theological schools) but are on the payroll of the ISI (Inter Services Intelligence, the intelligence wing of the Pakistani government)." The Taliban are now "making a living out of terrorism."

Harrison said the UN Security Council resolution number 1333 calls for an embargo on arms to the Taliban. "But it is a resolution without teeth because it does not provide sanctions for non-compliance," he said. "The US is not backing the Russians who want to give more teeth to the resolution."

Now it is Pakistan that "holds the key to the future of Afghanistan," Harrison said. The creation of the Taliban was central to Pakistan's "pan-Islamic vision," Harrison said.

It came after "the CIA made the historic mistake of encouraging Islamic groups from all over the world to come to Afghanistan," he said. The creation of the Taliban had been "actively encouraged by the ISI and the CIA," he said. "Pakistan has been building up Afghan collaborators who will sustain Pakistan," he said. (1)

[(C) 'Times of India', 2001 Reprinted for Fair Use Only

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

Osama = CIA asset "Tim Osman" = "Al-Qaeda" Fraud
Posted by: LookOut on Jan 9, 2008 1:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“Tim Osman” better known as Osama Bin Laden worked with the CIA hands-on from the beginning. There is no evidence he ever stopped being an asset.

There are several stories confirming it including this one.

Hardcopy evidence of his CIA asset codename is here.

Re-pumping that Fascist Arabian Nights fable of Osama & the 19 Cave-Boys is getting harder for establishment hacks all the time… especially with several “highjackers” apparently still alive and several hundred illegal Israeli spies on the ground tracking “highjackers” on 9/11.

Some say Bhutto was snuffed for going off the reservation and letting it slip old Tim Osman had been dead for some time. What is certain is “Al-Qaeda” is a joint CIA-Saudi project run out of the Mid East, London and Washington. The House of Saud and CIA have been deep in bed together for such endeavors from before their “Safari Club” days.

Of course there is no evidence the relationship ever stopped.

And then there is former Italian President Francesco Cossiga who exposed U.S. CIA backed “Operation Gladio” designed to cook false-flag bombings and killings throughout Europe from the 60s through the 80s and pin them on the “left”. Cossiga has lately accused the west of setting up and executing 9/11 via CIA and Mossad operations for a de facto global extortion-protection racket.

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

IPSI DIXIT
Posted by: Ipsi Dixit on Jan 10, 2008 8:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Can anyone here give a brief summary of what's wrong with the movie (if anything) viz telling untruths, etc?

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

Did anyone actually see this movie?
Posted by: srimbael on Jan 12, 2008 2:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I saw this movie yesterday with a friend. Both of us are in our sixties and female. First I would like to respond to Johnson's comment that the author of the book did not include or even hint at the subsequent outcome of the covert operations in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion. First of all, the book was about Charlie Wilson's war, not a history of Afghanistan or the war on terror or covert operations. If the author continued on to say that the weapons and training supplied to the Mujahedeen were ultimately turned against us, where then should the author stop? Shouldn't he then go on to discuss our need to invade Iraq because it invaded Kuwait? Because that led to the US presence in the Middle East to grow which led to the the extremists to resent our presence on Islamic soil which led to the bombing of The Cole, and eventually to 9/11. Should he stop before or after also reminding his ignorant readers of the attacks all over the world that have occurred since 1990? Secondly, I don't like Johnson's use of third-party "inside" information, a completely unprofessional, even juvenile, tactic.

Reading Johnson's comments, I wonder whether he paid any attention to this "boring" movie. He certainly seems to underestimate the intelligence of this country's movie goers, as well as people who read. All of the salient points that he claims were not addressed in the movie, were in fact well addressed. Made clear in the dialogue were these points: the money Wilson wanted for Afghanistan would be buried in legislation; the legality of what he/they were doing was constantly in question and usually glossed over, as in "don't ask, don't tell"; the glibness and self-importance of several key players was blatant; the self-interest of other key players was obvious; the sincerity of Wilson's motivation was also obvious; the maneuvering and sleaziness of politicians was clear; and the necessity of "getting in bed" with certain despicable world characters was well covered.

My friend and I and the other members of the audience were enthralled and entertained. My friend and I both followed the news at the time of the Soviet invasion, and we are well aware that the many of the people whom our country helped are now our enemies. One point that is mentioned quite clearly in this movie is the fact that the Afghan people did not know that our country was helping them in their fight against the Soviets, and that they hated us as much as they hated the Soviets. It is mentioned several times in the film that this was a covert operation. Also mentioned quite clearly is that this covert action had two benefits - one to help the Afghan people, the other to embroil Russia in it's own version of Vietnam. Johnson says that none of these things are presented to the viewer. Well, I beg to differ. He must have been so deeply involved in himself that he fell asleep and missed the movie. Also made clear was the evident desire of most of our government officials not to offend our enemies (during the Cold War) by overt aid to their enemies lest they decide to nuke us.

As the movie progresses, the amount of money that Wilson wants designated for covert use in Afghanistan starts out rather low, but keeps growing and growing as years go by, necessitating more and more requests and schemes and huge amounts of money being buried in legislation. This clearly demonstrated how such operations can get out of control, but it also shone a spotlight on the hated "earmarks" and the way they are buried in legislation. Then in a particularly poignant scene near the end, Wilson is begging for money to help the Afghanis rebuild. The response to him is that we succeeded in defeating the Soviets, and "Afghanistan is old news." The film then cuts to the secret ceremony in the airplane hangar. Wilson looks like he is either embarrassed or ready to vomit.

Continued...

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

Did anyone actually see this movie? (continued)
Posted by: srimbael on Jan 12, 2008 2:25 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When the film ended, many of the audience did not immediately get up and leave. People were discussing what they had seen. My friend and I loved the movie. We both thought it was a funny, irreverent, tongue-in-cheek, and serious comedy. The feeling that I shared with my friend was that helping the Afghanis was a decent thing to do, even if self-serving, and it is very sad that the help we gave has been turned against us. But as I said, I am in my sixties, and I have seen a lot of wars, famines, floods, genocide, and on and on. Every country that we have attempted to aid in one form or another - whether with food, weaponry, or education - every one of those countries hates us. They hated us before we gave aid, and they hated us after we gave aid. They demand that we, as a wealthy country, have a responsibility to help them, and oh, BTW, we hate you; we also hate you because you don't stop our government leaders from stealing all your aid for themselves instead of giving it to us starving, poor, drowning, illiterate sick and dying people. Damned if we do, damned if we don't. So I do not hold Charlie Wilson or his cohorts responsible for the state of our country or our world today. Perhaps extremists would not have bombed the WTC, but some group of some moslem sect somewhere would have struck with deadly consequences.

I highly recommend this film. It is entertaining and educating. I would be interested in reading the comments of others who actually see the movie or read the book.

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

Freedom Fighters My Ass!!!!!!!
Posted by: Stoney 12+1 on Jan 12, 2008 3:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If a fire-fighter fights fire, and a crime fighter fights crime, just what the fuck do you think a freedom fighter fights?!

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

History written by winners?
Posted by: Joanna38 on Jan 14, 2008 1:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We haven't won anything. The country continues to stay in denial about what it does. Reminds me of Naomi Wolf writing about our torture amnesia in The Nation.

Has anyone sent this review of Charlie Wilson's War to Hanks, Roberts and/or Hoffman? I'd love to hear their responses defending their collusion in keeping Americans stupid.

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