To me he did nothing impressive except use U.S. tax money to fund U.S. imperalism and to help the oil idustry who ten years latter would benifit form the taliban controlled Afganstan. That money could have gone to help U.S. citezens .
P.S. I am a liberal and I think that he should be in jail for mismangment of U.S. funds
I don't know if Charlie Wilson was a hero or not, and I don't know if what we did in Afghanistan back in the 1980s was the smartest thing we ever did (I'm leaning toward 'not', since we never do seem to have ultimately good intentions when we give out guns instead of helping to build infrastructure). But I do know that there is most certainly oil in Afghanistan and that we knew that during the 1980s. Central Asia contains some of the greatest oil reserves in the world.
As for the person who claimed that the USSR would have instituted a fair and "civilized" government in Afghanistan if left to their own devices, first, they certainly weren't doing it in the 1980s. Quite the opposite. Regardless of our intentions in getting involved, the Soviet presence in Afghanistan up to that point was a humanitarian disaster. Not a good start on that whole "civilized society" thing.
Second, the Russians' record in other Islamic and Central Asia countries has not been good (Think "Chechnya"). Granted, their general attitude toward Central Asia has deep roots going back to the medieval khanates, so that kind of paranoia and xenophobia does have some historical basis, but that was also a very long time ago. Past time to get over it. The Great Game was at least two cold wars ago.
Third, "secular" and "humanist" do not automatically preclude a country from committing genocide. If you looked at the horrendous record of ethnic cleansing the Soviets (and their Imperial predecessors) had in Siberia, alone, you would never, ever suggest that they were golden examples of cultural tolerance. And no, I'm not just talking about the Gulag.
This is not to let America off the hook (We've done some pretty nasty things in our own history). I'm just pointing out that, at the time, the Afghanis had good reason to see American help against the Soviets as the lesser of two evils.
Innsmouth Free Press http://www.innsmouthfreepress.com
[deleted]
Indeed. The whole thing is borderline offensive : sympathetic portrayal of slimy debauched congress critters and their elite minders orchestrating covert proxy wars in foreign countries. The movie is enjoyable on many points, but is insufficiently critical of what amounts to secretive corruption and warmongering. The attempted ambiguity at the end only hints at the real horror behind the work of militarists like Wilson.
Apologists for the character are apparently unaware how his political trajectory goes counter to democracy in any sense of the word. I hope they enjoy being ruled by unaccountable petty tyrants as much as they apparently do.
To agree with this comment, one must either deny that the USSR was a threat, or be ignorant enough of geography to understand what could have happened if the Persian Gulf oil shipping was under threat from Soviet interdiction. Any country that controls Afghanistan, and has a strong enough hold over Iran to get flyover rights can easily control the straits of Hormuz.
The US won the cold war because the Soviets couldn't afford to compete with the west, and driving up prices of oil would have done wonders in making the Soviets more competitive by driving down US productivity.
Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state.
No, you are not the only one. How many times has the US been bit in the a$$ because we had previously backed the other side to manipulate conditions to our favor at the moment? Money has been stolen from the working tax-payers to pay for this manipulation, innocent lives have been lost, over and over again. How dare we help execute Saddam Hussein when we're the ones who put him there!We created bin Laden by financing his fight in the very same Afghan war of this movie.
shareExactly. He is a crook and war crimminal like soo many others are and just because they may visit breifly and witness the devastation and horror their covert/clandestine occupational wars for private elitist monetary making racketeers of the Military Industrial Complex as Dwight Eisenhower WARNED in his 1961 farewell public address speech.
share" I am a liberal and I think that he should be in jail for mismangment of U.S. funds"
I wonder who else you think should be in jail at this point? Hmmm...
How about being not only in jail, but preferably vilified for the unintended results of his insufferably naive, ignorant and cowboyish actions? That a movie was made glorifying this guy is almost beyond belief.
Calling him a hero is an insult to everyone who died as the ultimate and still ongoing results of his actions and to everyone who has to live with the same - from Afghanistan to Iraq to Syria ... count up the dead and the amount of wasted national wealth on all the endeavors and the ongoing, endless seeming turmoil and war that flowed from his unsanctioned actions and he belongs up high in a Hall of Infamy.
He is no hero, just a fool who imbezelled tax payer money. He should be found guilty of treason.
shareWelcome to the club. We helped overthrow a secular government under the administration of which women could become doctors and scientists. There was universal education and basic needs of the rural people were slowly being met. Until Hanks made this film, I was a great fan of his. Now I wonder about his stance on various world social issues. Is he proud of his work here? To think that this film was made well after 9-11. By then it would have become obvious to anyone that our meddling in Afghanistan just to poke Russia in the eye was a grave mistake. It recalls to mind the poisoned chalice that we prepare for others and end up taking ourselves that Shakespeare wrote about in Macbeth (Act I, Scene 7). In other words, the blowback. Same with Iran with what we did to Mosadegh.
share