MovieChat Forums > Charlie Wilson's War (2007) Discussion > At the risk of being controversial

At the risk of being controversial

posted 17 years ago by therollerkings
75 replies | jump to latest

What would have happened if the leftist reform government that ruled Afghanistan had been helped to remain in power?

The Muslim extremist war against the indigenous Communists started because women were being taught to read, along with other modernizations. How could we have been so short-sighted as to think that dealing a death-blow to the Soviet Union, with which we had had a peaceful, productive detente since Nixon, was so important as to risk creating another Iran? Remember, the events portrayed in this movie happened AFTER Iran. And Iran happened because we overthrew a populist leftist government that had been legitimately and democratically elected in 1954, and installed a brutal dictator, the Shah. The sad truth is, there would be no Muslim extremist governments, or the open terrorist training camps they supply, without American prevention of the rise of local modernization movements.

And what did we get with the collapse of the Soviet Union? Nuclear safety? Hardly. We ended up with a collection of splintered states with gangsters running most of the operations, and no way to know who was securing, and who might actually be making available, refined uranium or even armed nukes. At least with the Soviet Union intact, Mutually Assured Destruction had pretty much ensured that peace between the two superpowers would last indefinitely. Neither nation was institutionally suicidal. Now we have no idea how to keep nukes out of the hands of vengeful, spiteful, stateless extremists who think of themselves as having nothing to lose.

Has our security improved? Do we have more freedom? Have we been able to lower our Cold War military spending to the benefit of the economy? Is our budget balanced? Is our debt shrinking? Is the value of the dollar improving? How many Americans have been killed by Islamist revolutionaries, vs. how many would have been killed by Soviets? This movie, and its publicity campaign, is propaganda, regardless of whether or not it provides a "blowback-friendly" ending. I argue that the obsession with overthrowing socialism wherever it sprouted has left us teetering on the brink of the same disintegration that happened to the Soviet Union. We held out longer because we had more productive strength, but that's no longer true. Our manufacturing sector is below 20% of the economy. We profit by managing the world's money, but economically, we're all hat and no cattle. The dollar is collapsing, and for the simple reason that we hardly make any products, and the fewer products we make, the fewer dollars foreigners need to obtain to purchase them. We're in free-fall.

This movie and the people here who support its premise have it all backwards. The fall of the Soviet Union was the beginning of the end for America. It will take a miracle to prevent it, certainly more than is in the capacity of whatever Democrats are likely to take over next year. We're in serious trouble, and the events depicted in this film, and the motives behind them, explain why.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] thehobster 16 years ago

That has got to be the longest repsonse I've ever read on imdb. I applaud the effort which must have gone into such a post. Frankly, I'm impressed with the intelligent discourse on both sides of various topics raised here.

While I certainly find points of view on which I both agree and disagree thoughout this thread, let it be known that one who does occasionally read these topics appreciates that this has not turned into a Red State / Blue State "I can p*ss further than you" debate. Nicely done.

[–] devirginizer83-1 16 years ago

I was tickled pink when I read the OP's post. He hit it right on the money and I am glad that someone has the intelligence to see through the propaganda and blind nationalism that surrounds the Afghan Conflict.

The regime that the USSR was fighting to keep in power was a secular regime that was trying to bring Afghanistan out of the Middle Ages and into the 20th Century. Schools were being built, a public health system was being put into place and women were being given rights that they didn't even know existed.

And what does the U.S., the great defender of Democracy and Human Rights do? It employs all its efforts into financing and arming gangs of fanatic religious extremists into destroying the best government Afghanistan had up until then.

There is nothing more hypocritical than a conservative: the same ones who denounce Muslim extremism today were arming and supporting Muslim extremists in Afghanistan in the 1980s. If it is wrong to be a Islamic terrorist today then it certainly was wrong to be a terrorist in the 80s. Not ifs or buts.

[–] GoWallAndBeal 16 years ago

Schools were being built, a public health system was being put into place and women were being given rights that they didn't even know existed.

Which is similar to the USSR during the pre-WWII Stalin years. Doesn't change the fact that they both lived under absolute tyrranny and had terrible quality of life.

And what does the U.S., the great defender of Democracy and Human Rights do? It employs all its efforts into financing and arming gangs of fanatic religious extremists into destroying the best government Afghanistan had up until then.

The US armed the Mujihadeen, most of whom later went on to become the Northern Alliance, who fought AGAINST the Taliban when we invaded in 2001. None of our funds went to Bin Laden himself; the Saudis did that. If there is a lesson to be learned from Afghanistan of the 80s, it's this: after taking the steps necessary to overthrow a tyrranical regime in the muslim world, don't abandon it andlet the radicals take the country once the US leaves. That applies very much to our post-Hussein involvement in Iraq.

There is nothing more hypocritical than a conservative: the same ones who denounce Muslim extremism today were arming and supporting Muslim extremists in Afghanistan in the 1980s. If it is wrong to be a Islamic terrorist today then it certainly was wrong to be a terrorist in the 80s. Not ifs or buts.

Which is why we suppported* Hussein in his fight against the Iranian fundamentalists.

*With less than 1% of his conventional arms and no (weaponized) chemical products, mind you.

Stats are for nerds (fantasy sports players, I'm looking in your direction).

[–] GoWallAndBeal 16 years ago

The Muslim extremist war against the indigenous Communists started because women were being taught to read, along with other modernizations.

So did the USSR during the pre-WII Stalin years. The people still lived in absolute tyranny and had very poor-quality-of-life.

Remember, the events portrayed in this movie happened AFTER Iran. And Iran happened because we overthrew a populist leftist government that had been legitimately and democratically elected in 1954, and installed a brutal dictator, the Shah.

For decades, Mossadegh's ouster has been misrepresented as a "coup d' etat" against a legitimate leader. Nothing could be further from the truth.

First off, the conflict at that time was primarily between Britain and Iran (specifically Mossadegh). And the restoration of power to the Shah and the legitimate Parliament was anything but "CIA led". It was led by Iranians with the assistance of MI6 and, to a far lesser extent, the CIA (Operation Ajax had a "whopping" budget of $10,000. My car is worth more than that...).

The only reason the CIA even got involved at all was because Mossadegh had sought help from the Communist Tudeh party and Dulles perceived a threat as a result. The Brits, on the other hand, were trying to restore their oil industry, which they had built from scratch, for which they provided ALL the technical expertise and funding, and which Mossadegh had stolen by renegging on the agreement between Britain and Iran when he nationalized the industry.

If anyone, Mossadegh was the only one who orchestrated a coup, by sending the then-Shah into exile, disbanding the Parliament and seizing control by forcing a non-secret ballot granting him "emergency powers". His supporters had assasinated the previous PM. He instituted a communist economy that drove the country to ruin (600% inflation) and even the commies who originally BACKED him turned against him!

Mossadegh seized power illegally. This is incontestable. He nationalized the oil industry in Iran, in direct violation of agreements with Britain. This is also incontestable. He drove the Shah who appointed him from Iran, into exile. Also incontestable. He illegally suspended the Iranian Constitution and disbanded its Parliament so he could exercise complete control over the military and the country. Also incontestable. Interesting how none of the CIA-bashing pseudo-exposés ever start off by mentioning these incontestable facts.

Iran's Constitution gave the Shah power to dismiss Mossadegh, but he needed help to do so because Mossadegh had seized control of most of the Iranian military. It was in Britain's and the U.S.' national interests to help him. Power was rightfully restored to the Shah by Iranians, not the CIA. Mossadegh was tried and jailed by Iranians, not the CIA.

Nuclear safety? Hardly. We ended up with a collection of splintered states with gangsters running most of the operations, and no way to know who was securing, and who might actually be making available, refined uranium or even armed nukes.

Pending Musharraf being removed by the Islamists, Pakistan is our aly. Iraq's program was destroyed, Libya's program was surrendered shortly after Hussein was removed (coincidence?), Iran doesn't have any yet and we're making every effort to prevent that from occuring, and North Korea is geographically and culturally isolated, and talks are transpiring. So yes, we have much more nuclear safety than we did during the Cold War

Has our security improved? Do we have more freedom?Have we been able to lower our Cold War military spending to the benefit of the economy?

"Yes" to the first and last items, "a hell of a lot more than we would've had we lost the cold war" to the 2nd.

Is our budget balanced........ We're in free-fall.

The problems you list here are because of the growing entitlement-state in America, not the military. As a % of GDP, we spend less on defense than we did when Eisenhower warned us about the "military-industrial complex." Regarding the weaker dollar, that 's largely due to the aforementioned entitlement state, and Clinton facilitating China's economic boom (we actually had factories here in 1993).

Stats are for nerds (fantasy sports players, I'm looking in your direction).

[–] thepooles-1 16 years ago

Whew! Let's all keep our comments shorter. I saw CW'sW for a second time recently and it was just as upsetting and disheartening. Evidently only a handful are now beginning to understand that WWII kept on rolling with the major players outsourcing their ambitions. Religious nuts are running the global evolution today- we have one leading the "free world". Americans who gloat over the defeat of the USSR by Muslim radicals with our help might want to entertain the thought that the Russians are most likely gleefully helping in a very clever and covert manner the Iraqi insurgency to kill Americans. Geez! Is that right? Well, why not? Tit for Tat (is Tat Russian for tit which Charlie Wilson certainly had a fetish for) We'll have to wait a few decades before the Russians can safely crank out their own CWW movie.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] thepooles-1 16 years ago

I am not familiar with the expression. I'll need enlightening.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] thepooles-1 16 years ago

I'm now enlightened. I did notice a wide split between debaters on the merits and veracity of the film's premise. I still stand on the side that says it reflects a sinister and devious side to the American empire project. disheartened with the prospects of an America ever breaking free of its vile militarism. Not one character in the film was anyone I would have as a friend. They all seem gleefully engaged in debauchery and one upmanship. What a sad revelation of human nature at its worst in high corridors of power.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] spittle8 16 years ago

Indeed. We committed a great error in helping the Afghans fight dirty against the Soviets. We brought about a great loss of men & treasure for the Russians, whilst supporting war criminals and monsters. The real reason the Soviets intervened in the first place was as follows. A Soviet mission in Afghanistan was educating women, and some Muslim extremists got pissed and beheaded entire families of Soviet aid workers.

We chose to kill any chance of secularism in Afghanistan by propping up the most ignorant, vile, vicious people on the planet, just to *beep* over the Soviets. I feel our involvement there was one of the biggest mistakes in our history, as well as being a grossly unethical excursion.

"The spirit is willing, but the flesh is spongy and bruised."

[–] tragic_slider 16 years ago

"War criminals and monsters" -- this is ridiculous. I suppose that if Soviet gunships were strafing your neighborhood and dropping land mines and you fought back that would make you a monster too.

The ACTUAL reason Soviets invaded Afghanistan was because the Communist government in Kabul was fractured and disorganized under President Hafizullah Amin. Most of the pre-invasion massacres were committed by the government in Kabul.

Ironically the reforms the Afghani government was proposing would probably have advanced the welfare of the average citizen. But it was a direct assault on the centuries-old feudal system and there were many tribes across the nation who did not want their religious/cultural traditions suddenly abolished.

The mujahideen may have initally been defending a repressive and cruel culture, but the wholesale slaughter committed by Soviet/Communist forces was inexcusable. Dropping landmines that looked like toys to cripple children? Just sick.

The muj were also incredibly brave in using WWI-era rifles against tanks and gunships to defend their homes and families. It was a good and just action to arm and train them. Remember, even the worst and most untrustworthy of the muj did not plan or implement the September 11 attacks.

As is hinted at in the movie, the two major mistakes the U.S. made were:
1) Allowing Pakistan and its ISI to handle the money for training and arming the resistance. They ended up supporting the most brutal and opportunistic groups for their own ideological purposes.
2) Spending hundreds of millions of dollars to arm Afghans but essentially no money to rebuild roads and schools and support Western-friendly teachers. In the chaos and power vacuum afterward, it was radicalized teenagers from the Pakistani refugee camps who invaded and installed the Taliban regime. Harsh as it was, most Afghans preferred it to endless warfare between warlords. Of course their madrassa-derived beliefs allowed them to harbor ideological radicals like Al-Qaeda.

[–] filmfanaticNorCal 16 years ago

This article by William Blum, gives the true story of the Afghan Soviet war:

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/100.html

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nbjeff 16 years ago

I continue to dismiss "out of hand" the notion that Amin was an American agent, although I do understand how the Soviets arrived at their suspicions.

That article, again, is here: http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/100.html

[–] RParmly-3 16 years ago

All the way back to Naked Steve in December 07;

"How about this for a "what if" instead of embracing the big lie of socialism, how about a strong leader in the developing world finally tries lazi fair capitalism backed by the rule of law, you know Jeffersonian democracy. in exchange for capital investment and technical knowhow the West or whoever gets a fair return on their investment. then instead of our hero stealing everything he can, he invests in his country....and they all lived happily ever after. dosnt sound very likely to me either but it would be original at least."

It HAS been tried, God damn it, and it's been revealed to be as much a crock of $h*t in the third world as it was in the United States during the Gilded Age.

You heard of the Washington consensus? A model for aggressive privatization as the best method of development in the third world, which was pushed through by the Reagan and Thatcher governments during the 1980s through the World Bank and the IMF. So what actually happened? A few, wealthy, well-placed people got very rich very quickly - and that's it (there was never any other point). The majority of the population in these countries continued to stagnate. Contrary to popular myth, the private sector wasn't any more efficient in delivering services, actually less so. Today, the development policy created in the 1980s is being changed to reflect the fact that laissez-faire actually *isn't* such a brilliant idea - too slowly for the tons of people still needing basic services.

France is another country where the "laissez-faire" capitalism logic was installed briefly after the Washington consensus. It was thought, hey, privatization of basic services is all the rage around the world these days - maybe there's something to it. Let's give it a shot.

What actually happened? Well, after privatizing the water supply of numerous French cities, the French quickly discovered that they were now paying more money for worse quality. So they demanded that the water supply be placed back in public hands. "But ze economic theories of Monsieur Adam Smith TELL US zat ze private sektor eez more efficient!!!" lamented the big water companies. "THEN THESE THEORIES ARE WRONG, DAMN IT!!!" the public responded - and now, privatization in most of these cities has been reversed, and no one seems to miss it.

Neither France nor any of the third world countries where "laissez faire capitalism" was implemented are ideologically rigid, nor do they have an irrational prejudice against Adam Smith. They're pragmatists. They tried his system. The system ****cked them over. Let's turn the page and try something else, something that actually works.

By the way, you don't live in a capitalist system, you live in a social democracy with a moderate welfare state to ensure that when you're old, you aren't left out to rot and if you're starving, you have somewhere to eat. After forty years of being called "capitalist pigs" by the Soviets (a label the free-marketers like Reagan were only too happy to embrace), it's easy to forget that that's not actually what we are.

Denny Crane.