MovieChat Forums > Charlie Wilson's War (2007) Discussion > Is Charlie Wilson a hero? Educate me, pl...

Is Charlie Wilson a hero? Educate me, please

posted 17 years ago by dgioia-1
69 replies | jump to latest

I have yet to see the movie, but I’m not sure that I want to.

It is my understanding that Chalie Wilson pushed Congress to support the CIA in a secret operation that included supplying the Afghan Mujahideen with weapons to help them defeat the Soviets during the war in Afghanistan.

This is what the movie is about, correct? Doesn’t it make Mr. Wilson out to be a sympathetic character?

With my limited political knowledge, it is my understanding that the Mujahideen evolved into the Taliban. So wouldn’t that make Charlie a bad guy, and the USA partly responsible in the rise of the Taliban? (I know we didn’t deserve it. That isn’t what I am saying at all, BTW.)

Please note that I am not pro Democrat or Republican and don’t want to argue about which party is most responsible. I’m just surprised that Hollywood would glorify a person who, in some capacity, helped make 911 possible.

I haven’t seen the actual movie, so I can’t comment on how anything is handled.

But is my basic understanding of Charlie Wilson correct?

I welcome your comments.

[–] Beyond-92 17 years ago

In no way did Charlie's actions facilitate or make the events of 9/11 possible. The very idea is preposterous and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of Post-Invasion Afghanistan.

The Taliban did NOT "evolve" from the mujuahideen. The mujahideen is still there and still contains pro-Western elements. Furthermore, these elements have been essential assets to the U.S since the events on 9/11.

[–] nbjeff 17 years ago

The Taliban did NOT "evolve" from the mujuahideen

No, actually the Taliban was largely the creation of Charlie's pals, the ISI.

[–] Defenseman13 12 years ago

Here's what I posted on a similar thread:

Of course he's not a hero, he's a gear in a big machine.

Regardless of how he helped, remember that those same weapons are currently being used against our troops right now via Taliban etc.

When the Russians left, we also left... without helping with schools, aid, et al.

So, I guess you could say that nothing has changed. This book (and film adaptation) is more of a peek behind the curtain for me than it is a character study or a "hero vehicle".

-that being said, it's a book worth reading, or watch the movie if you're not a reader. It's a bit scary how politics work, if you're not already familiar... and the influence that this one man had is equally scary as well.

http://us.imdb.com/name/nm2339870/

[–] RealVirtuality 17 years ago

Watch the movie for detailed answers to your questions. That is exactly what the movie is about.

In life, as they say in the film, the consequences of an action are never finished.

[–] twarnock 17 years ago

I also recommend watching the True Story of Charlie Wilson that is airing on the History Channel. Charlie Wilson indirectly did help terrorists in Afghanistan and it is talked about by the real Charlie Wilson. Very interesting!

[–] notspecialist 17 years ago

Here's a more critical look at the role of the United States during the Afghan war and how hollywood distorted some of the facts for the movie. I wouldn't look to the movie for factual answers the way someone else suggested, not that it isn't a good flick!

http://hnn.us/articles/45974.html

[–] grolsch 17 years ago

Yes the movie is typical Hollywood (USA propaganda) historical garbage.

Don't let the facts get in the way of making a buck and of course the merkins are always the champions of good and righteousness fighting agin the tyrany of evil, in persuit of truth, justice, freedom, and the meeerkin way.

After all if they have to decimate a few other cultures so that the oil can be secured then so be it, running those V8 RV's is essential damit.

Anything goes for merka because afterwoods a movie can be made that makes everything look just dandy agin.

[–] mjfern 17 years ago

"With my limited political knowledge, it is my understanding that the Mujahideen evolved into the Taliban. So wouldn’t that make Charlie a bad guy, and the USA partly responsible in the rise of the Taliban? (I know we didn’t deserve it. That isn’t what I am saying at all, BTW.)"

The Taliban didn't evolve from the Mujahadeen, most of them were too young to have fought the Soviets and grew up in refugee camps on the border, many of them were former seminary students which helps explain their radical religious proclivities. There were at least 140 armed groups resisting the Soviets in Afghanistan but aid was divied up among the seven most powerful warlords, which the CIA termed the Seven Dwarves. The foreign extremist contingent was headed up by a Warlord named Abdul Rasul Sayyaf who was privately funded by the Saudis and didn't recieve any American aid, bin laden was supposed to be subordinate to Sayyaf although his charisma and family reputation would lead some of the Arab Afghans to swear loyalty to him rather than Sayyaf, later on bin Laden would take advantage of his own legend contrived in Afghanistan to start Al-Qaida.

The infighting between Afghan warlords following the Soviet withdrawal is what is most responsible for the rise of the Taliban. American aid may have helped stabilize the situation somewhat but its my belief that Hikmatyar, Massoud and others were never going to share power peacefully so the country endured years of civil war. Mullah Omar was viewed by many a prophetic figure and when he led the Taliban back to Afghanistan many Afghans flocked to him seeking stability and that's basically how they were able to take most of the country.

"Please note that I am not pro Democrat or Republican and don’t want to argue about which party is most responsible. I’m just surprised that Hollywood would glorify a person who, in some capacity, helped make 911 possible."

It's unfair to say "helped make 9/11 possible" Islamic fundamentalism was a new and complex phenomenon and really remains so for a lot of people. That's not to say some people didn't recognize the danger as the movie points out albeit with 20/20 hindsight but given the realities at the time and the ultimate goal (the defeat and destruction of the Soviet Union) I couldn't honestly say we should have done anything differently. There's a lot of misinformation on this board in terms of people asserting that intervention in Afghanistan leads directly to 9/11 and I just don't believe that's the case, again in my opinion. Osama is a Saudi of Yemeni descent most of his hierarchy and ideological guides were Egyptians, the only things Afghanistan provided him was a reputation as a courageous holy warrior which he would have had without American intervention in Afghanistan and sanctuary when he left the Sudan. If he hadn't constructed training camps in Afghanistan he would have done it somewhere else and we still would have had 9/11. The 9/11 attacks are his legacy, he didn't need our help to warp hundreds of years of theological tradition into a mad compulsion justifying the killing of the innocent.

[–] premont 17 years ago

So we get to pat ourselves on the back for the outcomes we like, but assume none of the responsibility for anything that goes wrong? It seems to me that if you get in bed with fanatics and they go on to do bad things, you're partially responsible.

[–] dwendt_99 16 years ago

Premont, are you then sympathetic with Soviet interventionism in Afghanistan (1979 - 1989)? What about Soviet intervention in Czechoslovakia in 1968? What about Soviet intervention in Hungary in 1956? What about the Soviet invasion and annexation of the three Baltic states in 1939-40? Yet you are the type who condemns the U.S. for its intervention in Southeast Asia (1965-1973).

[–] moviegoingcat 16 years ago

We were on the wrong side with regard to Afghanistan. We should have been WITH the Russians. Afghanistan is a place with a majority that is lower than the stone age.

[–] CaliCurmudgeon 14 years ago

Worse than that, he's one of the types who fellated the Sandinistas, and is still fellating Castro.

[–] cisned 16 years ago

There is a saying "Victory has a hundred fathers, but defeat is an orphan." Nobody wants to take the blame to what goes wrong in the world, but the reality is that we are all partially responsible, one way or another. Maybe because we let it happened, or because we refused to acknowledge it we are responsible for what goes wrong. Premont there a lot of fked up things in the world, taking responsibility of when something goes wrong is one of them.

[–] sirseph 16 years ago

Thanks for the unusually well-educated response. I would agree that none of the people fictionalized in the film did anything to help cause 9-11. However I would qualify that by causing what was basically an anarchistic dead zone by failing to follow through, the US government (albeit unwittingly) created the right conditions for the events that followed.

As just a single example; at the end of the film Charlie Wilson is trying to get a one million dollar foreign aid grant to rebuild schools. Had a secualr school system been recreated it would have helped to dilute the radicalization of the general public via the madrasas.

The greatest failure of the Pax Americanus has been the repeated inability to take the long view in world events.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sayedshazee 17 years ago

I think the last line in the movie said it all.

"These things happened, they were glorious and changed the world....and then we *beep* up the end game."

If you see the ending you will see him asking the committee to approve just 1 million dollar for schools, which is nothing when considered to the billion spent to defeat the soviets because it was in Americas interest.

The same is going to happen in Iraq.

[–] Yellowlab 17 years ago

Agree with sayedshazee. Allow me alittle humor here; there is a line from (of all movies Austin Powers) that is so true. "Number 2" says to "Dr. Evil", "you just don't get it, there are no countries anymore, just corporations".

Yes, Wilson, and his gang were heroes,so was Reagan...etc..

In every party, democratic or republican, heroes and villains.

Good film. Don't miss the doc. on the History Channel. (I love that channel, think I am one or two on IMDB that loves it)

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bigsteven34 17 years ago

The chapter about Afghanistan provides a much better picture of actual history
rather than this revisionist corporate whitewash. Zbiegniew Brzezinski national security advisor for Carter even said in an interview that we wanted to give the soviets their own vietnam.

Is there something wrong with that...there was no outrage over the Soviets supplying the VC and NVA with their latest weaponry. Payback is a B!tch.

[–] lavernep 17 years ago

Actually, it isn't happening in Iraq, because Iraq is much more important strategically then Afghanistan ever will be.....

I won't apologize for self-interest, no one else in the world ever does.....

[–] hosstbl1 17 years ago

IMO the final point of the film implied that it was our lack of funding for rebuilding and education in Afghanistan after the Soviet pull-out that enabled a climate where Bin Ladens and al-qaedas could ascend to power. I don't think it implied Mujahideen evolving into the Taliban or the US funding Bin Laden, just that we dropped the ball in the rebuilding effort when Afghanistan was at a very critical and volatile state.

[–] daimposter 12 years ago

Everybody is going off on a tangent about the outcome and the role of the people involved ---- and you stated exactly what the film described. I don't think people on this thread understand politics and history. It's common knowledge, even before the film, that issues in Afghanistan is that no one helped them rebuild after the war with Russia --- it created a vacuum that allowed Taliban to eventually take control and allowed Al-Qaeda to grow.

[–] AtheistRevolution 12 years ago

That's not entirely true. Taliban doesn't exist without ISI. After Soviet withdrew from Afghanistan. CIA continued to supply Islamists with money and weapons through the ISI to topple the government Soviet Union put in place.Pakistan ISI still supports Taliban to this very day which is why Bin Laden was found in Pakistan next to the military academy.One of the retired CIA said one of the mistakes that time was supplying the Islamists when they should have also supplied moderates,secularists,etc

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.

[–] daimposter 12 years ago

Citation please --- regarding the CIA continuing to fund Islamists with money and weapons through the ISI AFTER the Soviet-Afghan war ended.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] marc-387 17 years ago

There's much more to it - this tells the WHOLE truth:

"But the movie distorts or leaves out a number of crucial details."

... the most glaring omission in the film is the fateful trade-off
accepted by President Ronald Reagan when he agreed not to complain about
Pakistan’s efforts to acquire a nuclear weapons capability in exchange for
Pakistani cooperation in helping the Afghan rebels.

and there's more:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/010608a.html

MS

[–] nbjeff 17 years ago

Another question about Charlie, known in some quarters as The Cocaine Congressman, is how he managed to live like a millionaire on a $70,000 a year salary. He was investigated many times about kickbacks and cocaine use, but never convicted, although he came close at one point.

Charlie was also a drunk driver who managed to elude responsibility for the hit-and-run accident he caused. Apparently this is one of many scenes in the movie that was ultimately dropped.

[–] oliver-michael 17 years ago

This was a movie about what he did, not who he was. Those things are not important in telling the story of the Afghan - Soviet war.

[–] nbjeff 17 years ago

This was a movie about what he did, not who he was. Those things are not important in telling the story of the Afghan - Soviet war

While I understand your line of reasoning, I ask you to consider the possibility that Charlie's greed, ambition, reckless irresponsibility, and corruption (sybaritic lifestyle, brushes with the law, kickbacks from arms sales, support for and socializing with dictators) does have something to do with what he did in Afghanistan. Also germane is a knowledge of where Charlie's support was coming from: chiefly the AIPAC lobby and defense contractors.

Charlie never hid the fact that he "sold" the covert war to different people in different ways. The questions we should ask are whether what he sold has any bearing on the truth and why Charlie chose to sell the war the way he did. In that respect, knowing who is was is very relevant indeed.

[–] Ithilfaen 17 years ago

I still think who he was is irrelevant to the story and to History as a matter of fact.

Whether he did it for greed, power, out of real beliefs or to impress a woman, what's important are the results.

Bottom line is the enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend as the US have often naively believed. They were so intent on winning the cold war that they used anyone who was against the Soviets, including religious terrorists and nazi refugees.

The movie is trying to show that consequences of even things that might be done for good can be devastating, especially in the context of global dynamics and that if you're going to mess with those dynamics to defeat an enemy, you might end up with another one instead.

For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco

[–] nbjeff 17 years ago

what's important are the results.

The results were more than a million Afghans dead; the globalization of jihad; massive opium production; the rise of a Kalashnikov culture and terrorism in South Asia; civil war in Tajikistan; the Taliban; and the Afghan economy and environment in ruins. All because the US, like Charlie, refused to address Moscow's legitimate concerns, abetted Pakistan's sabotaging of moderate Afghan leaders (who could have negotiated with Moscow), and had a stake in prolonging the war (i.e. fighting to the last Afghan.) Understanding Charlie's emotional and financial stake in the Cold War is part of the picture:

You don't get to live the life of a millionaire playboy by voting like Henry Waxman.

Understanding Charlie's vanity and his provincialism also explains how he could be so seemingly uninterested in the details of the Afghan conflict, including the warfare between mujahideen factions and the bloody extremism of a man like Hekmatyar. And so uncurious about the implications of this violence for the future of the country.

They were so intent on winning the cold war that they used anyone who was against the Soviets,

Agreed. More than that, the US, Casey most of all, actually encouraged a global jihad to show that the Soviets were the enemies of the Third World, not its friends (Casey, like Brzezinski before him, also used the Islam card to destabilize Islamic Central Asia. As did Charlie Wilson.)

[–] timundanita 17 years ago

As we now know President Carter agreed to $500,000,000 for covert operations in Afgahnistan on 3rd July 1979 (thats about 6 months before the soviet invasion and before the start of the movie). So did Charlie Wilson and the Julia Roberts character know this? Or were they being manipulated? The film does not mention this but expects us to believe that the 8th richest woman in Texas just really, really cares about Afgahn peasants, something I find hard to believe.

While I never expected Hollywood to be historically accurate, I feel cheated. I expected to see a well made conspiracy movie and what I got was a boring, one dimensional piece of amerikan propaganda.

[–] andiam-1 17 years ago

I don't see this as pro-American propoganda. Charlie Wilson was an outsider fighting the system, and in the opinion of the film-makers, America clearly abandonned the Afghans when our help was most needed. Our government comes across as very short-sighted.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] F6Pilot 16 years ago

The 8th richest woman in Texas didn't care about Afgahn peasents. She cared about what most right wing conservatives cared about -- KILLING RUSSIANS!!

IN searching for ways to kill Russians, they found out that -oh, by they way they can look like heros to the Afgahn peasents.

Politics 101.

[–] nbjeff 16 years ago

It didn't start out that way and I'm surprised that more people aren't incensed by the fact that Herring's entirely ill-founded libel threats led to major changes in the script's political orientation. Do Americans still treasure freedom of expression?

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] daimposter 12 years ago

How is this pro-American propaganda? It portrayed the US government and US corporations in a negative light.

You do know this is a film, right? They can't fit every detail in a 2hr movie. if you want all the details of any event, read a book or watch a mini-series.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] daimposter 12 years ago

The film is mostly involved with the events/results, not so much the back stories of the characters. 'Ithilfaen' put it well just above your statement.

What you are looking for is not the film this was intended to be. It isn't about Charlie Wilson's life (not a biography) but about the events surrounding the Russia/Afghan war and how Charlie Wilson's actions affected it -- for good or for bad.

[–] dwendt_99 16 years ago

Ithilfaen, you supported the Soviet invasions of Afghanistan, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia?