Charlie Wilson’s War is one of several movies I saw over the weekend, and I am glad to say I can recommend it. Directed Mike Nichols from a screenplay by Aaron Sorkin, there were certainly reasons to be concerned that the ostensibly fact-based film would stray too far into the realm of liberal fantasy. It does do this on occasion, but not so much as to interfere with enjoying the film, which most reviewers correctly note plays more like a screwball comedy than serious historical drama.
Surprisingly, most of the reviews I have read that touch on the subject echo the criticism from former Reagan officials that the movie downplays the role of Pres. Reagan and others in the Afghan covert action program (esp. the decision to supply Afghan fighters with Stinger missiles, which Wilson was lukewarm on, but which Reagan had advocated during the 1980 campaign).ÂÂ
The notable exception here is the review from Roger Ebert, whose reviews increasingly suffer from becoming a venue for ill-informed politics.
The other concern about the movie actually says more about many movie reviewers than it does about the final product. As Bill Gertz wrote in the Washington Times story:
The Reagan-era officials said the movie promotes the left-wing myth that the CIA-led operation funded Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda and ultimately produced the attacks of September 11, 2001.
Bin Laden, the officials said, never got CIA funding or weapons, and was not directly involved in Islamist extremist activities until years after the Afghan operation ended after the withdrawal of Soviet troops in 1989.
That anti-American aspect of the film, namely that the Afghan operation ultimately caused the September 11 attacks, reportedly was altered after protests from Mr. Wilson and his former fiancee, Joanne Herring.
Gertz is right about this. The final version of the movie contains one allusion to the CIA being concerned about “crazies” moving into Afghanistan after the Soviets are defeated. It also quotes Wilson about the “end game,” though this can be read as a reference to the failure of the US Congress to fund reconstruction projects after the Soviets left.
Unfortunately, these meager allusions were enough of a dog-whistle for lefty film critics. The New York Times and the New Yorker, perhaps knowing better (or knowing the limits of their knowledge), merely allude to the talking point.
However, Ebert wrote that:
“unfortunately, the “freedom fighters” later became the Taliban, and some of those weapons were no doubt used against American helicopters.”
CNN’s Tom Charity asks:
Maybe it wasn’t his fault those chickens came home to roost in the form of the Taliban, but you have to wonder: Would Nichols have given Oliver North such an easy ride?
In the Christian Science Monitor, Peter Rainer writes:
 And when irony finally rears its ugly head and we are informed that the freedom fighters of then are the terrorists of today, it’s too little, too late.
Time’s Richard Corliss sets up his analysis of the movie by writing:
This was back in the 1980s, before the mujahedeen had flowered into the Taliban and backed Osama bin Laden’s war against the U.S…
Newsweek’s David Ansen saved it for his wrap-up:
Of course, hanging over this ironic tale is the deeper historical ironyâ€â€that many of the “good guy” rebels Charlie is funding (and we’re cheering) will become our mortal enemies. At the end of this story, any informed viewer knows, lies big-time blowback. Surprisingly, Nichols and Sorkin play this trump card timidly. Is this admirable restraint or cold feet? Are they afraid of spoiling the feel-good uplift of Charlie’s victory with the harsh downdraft of history?
As noted above, the answer to Ansen’s question rests in the first instance with Charlie Wilson, who recently addressed the question in Reader’s Digest:
RD: Speaking of the big picture, there have been reports recently that Al Qaeda is using our own leftover weapons against us, and that fighters we trained 20 years ago are attacking Americans and our allies. True or false?
Wilson: No way. There’s not a bullet that’s still on the shelf over there. They fired up everything they got from us a hundred times over. And they don’t have anything but AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenades. The Afghans never gave Al Qaeda Stinger missiles, for instance, thank the Lord.
Indeed, had any of these critics bothered to find out about the Taliban, they would discover that they were not on anyone’s radar screen before 1994 — significantly after the events depicted in the movie. For that matter the Taliban were ethnic Pashtuns. The movie notes that the US was funding the Tajik faction, and that doing so was going to bother the Pashtuns. Richard Miniter notes that it was the Saudis who funded the “Arab Afghans,” not the US. At the other end of the ideological spectrum, even Bill Moyers concedes that bin Laden was involved in funding the foreign fighters and participated in few battles himself.
Moreover, as Charlie Wilson recently told ABCNews:
We would have had something like 9/11 anyways. I think that bin Laden had his course pretty well set… But when you fight a war, you do what you think you need to do at the time. What seems right at the time is what you do.
That is certainly one lesson one could take from the movie. Another lesson would be the import of follow-through on reconstruction efforts, as opposed to leaving a failed state that can become a breeding ground for terrorists. That lesson was noted by Entertainment Weekly’s Owen Glieberman, though he apparently rejects it:
Hovering over the film is the audience’s realization that the Afghan war, while it hastened the downfall of the Soviet Union, created the breeding ground for an arguably more toxic threat: the jihad radicals who had nothing but hatred for the West (even as they were only too happy to use its rocket launchers). Instead of running with that irony, though, the movie grows pious about it. The unconvincingly abrupt finale snuffs ambiguity. It says Charlie was right to fight his war  if only Congress had had the will to support his reconstruction dream! All of which sounds a little too close to recently made rationalizations for a certain other war.
It would be easy to nail Glieberman as suggesting we should not have gone about winning the Cold War in the 1980s, but I doubt he really thinks that as much as he feels a need to show off his presumed knowledge of world events. Talk about blowback! Proof — if any were needed — that if there is one source worse than a movie from which to get your history education, or education about world events, it is movie critics.
I had glanced at listings for Charlie Wilson’s War over the weekend, but dismissed it as a probable leftist grenade, like the fortunately-bombed Loins of Lames. With this review, I’ll have to consider seeing it.
On DVD, of course…I last sat in a theater for Borat. Which was an excellent piece of work, btw…
But Karl, movie critics just KNOW things. They learn them from movies, plus the MSM of course.
– I suppose some would say the whole Talibon/Soviet clash was an opportunity for the US to give a nudge to an already foundering ideology, although a previous piece on THC revealed that the populice back in Mother Russia had had it with the body bags long before the ratcheting up of our help in the conflict. Probably one of those questions that will never be fully resolved into the good or bad columns.
– But one thing to keep in mind. This entire cycle was initiated by the great “peace maker” Jimmah the idiot. So the next time a Lefty crabs about America’s help in that area, you might want to gently point that out to them. More to the point, most serious observers would notice that the entire Celiphate hornets nest can be traced back to the peanut farmer and his handling of the Shah, versus the dissidents in Iran of that time.
– Sometimes I wonder if the man ever did a damn thing in his entire political career that you could put in a positive light. But of course 9/11 is all ChinpyMcHitlerBurtonBush’s fault because with a Liberal, there is no prehistorical fact, only self-serving revitionist propoganda.
It was the Carter administration that set up the original pipeline; with
Zbigniew Brizinski te Polish wannabe Kissinger. They allowed the ISI and
Saudi General Intelligence to allowwho would receive the funds. They picked Gilbuddin Hekmatyar,who spent more time killing his rivals than killing Soviets Raisul Abu Sayyaf (a Saudi trained Afghani cleric) who recruited the bulk of the Afghan Arabs, and Maulvana Younis Khalis; this fellow was the mentor of Mullah Omar and the Taliban. Ahmed Shah Massoud, the Lion of the Panjir Valley did most of the
fighting (he would organize the Northern Alliance after the Soviet retreat)Sayyid Ghailani and other
‘liberal’ followers of former Afghan King Zahir Shah; were basically cut out. According to Gust Avrokoto’s account; one of those who prevented
ant investigations of the disturbing
trends among those three factions from
which UBL would recruit was a former
viceconsul in Jiddah who had been burned by Phillip Agee in 1975. That fellow was Vincent Cannistraro, part
of the Plame rumor mill since 2003. Among the behind the scenes players was Ray Close, a former US station chief in Riyadh who was working for a Saudi concern; National Chemical Industries. Close, a life long Arabist
whose family background was profiled by
Robert Kaplan in the Arabists; seems to have gone native at some point in his seven year stint in Saudi. After
Sept 11th, he would form the core of the ‘let’s whitewash the Saudi’ lobby.
I’ve been seeing the ads on this flick. Thanks for the intel!
Has Oprah endorsed this movie? I wouldn’t want to postpone my re-read of the Oprah-approved book, The Secret.
narciso refers to Gust Avrokotos, whom I should mention is played with great aplomb by Philip Seymour Hoffman in the movie (which leaves out that Gust was actually transferred from the Afghan desk before the Soviets left, though he was there for the important decisions). Unfortunately, iirc, Avrokotos is not alive to enjoy it.
it’s time we stop, hey, what’s that sound? everybody look what’s going down.
As if there never was any Islamofascist terrorism before the Soviet invasion of Afgahnistan. How many seem to forget that Col. Higgins was hanged by them in Lebanon before the fall of the Soviet Union. And you could argue that the Soviets started it with their support of Arab terrorist groups in the early 1970’s.
This is too big a thing to blame on one man. I think it would have gone this way no matter what we did then. The Islamofascists are humans and they can make their own decisions and plans quite seperate from what the United States does or does not do.
Funny how these critics fail to credit the terrorists with minds and wills of their own.
Karl, thanks for your work on this topic. This is one of those festering sores of myth making history that drives me nuts.
First of all, Osama’s “Holy Warriors,” in addition to receiving no help from CIA proxies (he probably would have refused it, anyway) had their hand in very little fighting. His contribution was pretty much limited to funneling his and other Saudi money into the pipeline and, most importantly, bringing in heavy equiopment for infrstructure work like roads and cave and bunker complexes. The shining myth of the hordes of foreign Arab freedom fighters endures even though the record is clear that the Arabs had virtually nothing to do with offensive operations and were limited to scattered defensive fighting.
To suggest that bin laden’s antipathy and motivation was secured because of Afghanistan flies in the face of historical fact. His concept of jihad against the West and America was crystalized by his hatred of the Saudi rulers for the allowing of “infidel” troops on “sacred ground” during Gulf War One. The fact that this has been explained ad nauseum doesn’t stop the myth mongers from crowing about America “creating” bin laden and al qaeda.
Couple this fantasy with the persistant fable of America arming Iraq during the 1980’s as a real politique against Iran and it makes for several very uncomfortable conversations I’ve had over the years with those who have swallowed the “blame it all on America first” cadre. Just as a reminder: The U.S. provided less than 1% of the total military support received by Iraq during the war with Iran.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#Iraq.27s_armament_and_support
Mild Kudos to both Nichols and Sorkin for not dumping the myth whole cloth on moviegoers. Movie reviewers should stick to the particulars of storytelling and stop demonstrating their insular ignorance of history.
The movie critic for the Tampa Trib lamented the fact that the movie left out so much truth regarding the evil repercussions of Charlie’s war that he (the critic) didn’t really say much about the movie itself. All he did was bitch about how in reality our own weapons are being used to kill Americans, etc. He also complained that everyone knows that the real Charlie was a heavy cocaine user, and Tom Hanks apparently doesn’t snort even one line in the movie.
“This is too big a thing to blame on one man.”
Except fot Jimmah Carter.
His shoulders are broad.
Great post. Thank you for defenestrating the silliness of movie reviewer’s reviews of history.
Hell, I thought A.J.P. Taylor was a revisionist; these movie guys seem compelled to turn revisionism into an art form. Which isn’t a surprise considering the straight-faced reviews of Brian DePalma’s latest suspension of disbelief, etc.
It’s sort of the anti-It’s a Wonderful Life that way, innit? Jimmah’s just living proof that one man can indeed make a tremendous difference; and also, that said difference isn’t always for the better.
The movie is excellent. Charlie Wilson is a flawed American who rose above his failings to do what he could do. Aron Sorkin is a Hollywood Coke Ho who remains a Hollywood Coke Ho. Take yer pick.
Also, the movie suffers from the usual stock footage sloppiness. Once the Afghans get their beloved Stinger missiles, we are treated to a stock footage montage of F-16’s, Phantoms, A-6 Intruders and Hueys getting blown out of the sky…
“Movie reviewers should stick to the particulars of storytelling and stop demonstrating their insular ignorance of history.”
No doubt. Call it the Olbermann Effect. Wannabe journalists, who aren’t good enough to actually be journalists, wind up reviewing movies and reciting the weekend sports’ scores. One must really suck to not be good enough to report the news.
Thanks again, Karl, for the details to help rebut the “blowback” BS about Afghanistan and the Taliban. Until now I might have had to resort to paraphrasing Rumsfeld:
…although that argument was certainly good enough for Americans in WW2.
What is amazing to me is how President Clinton’s forray into Afghanistan vis a vis the Iranians in 1998 has been elided from discussion of the lead-up to 9/11. Were “we” aware of the Taliban in 1998? We, as in the President of the United States?
The filters of responsibility are firmly in place. If everyone is responsible, then no one is.
“The Afghans never gave Al Qaeda Stinger missiles, for instance, thank the Lord.”
And it’s worth noting that, even if they did, it’s still highly unlikely that any of them would be worth a damn in the 21st century, as their (specialized, not easily replaced) batteries and rocket propellant went bad long ago:
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2007922221713.asp
Those of you waiting for DVD — great chance to read the book first. It’s well-written and fast-paced. I read it a number of years ago and give it 5 out of 5 Armadillos. A good follow-up read: The Hunt for bin Laden — which is worth it just for the anecdote about the Northern Alliance taunting the Taliban on a Radio Shack walkie-talkie.
Which is a pretty lame complaint, considering that Wilson’s cocaine use figures pretty heavily in the subplot.
Warfare Math 101
Mujahedeen + Talibon = Al Qaeda
Mujahedeen + Talibon always equals Al Qaeda
Mr. Wilsons Grade – ( F )
Good writeup, Karl.
I had not read any of those reviews that you mentioned. I tend to go to Liberty Film Festival’s LIBERTAS blog to get the review from a Conservative perspective. Here is their review: Charlie Wilson’s War
I always check on the politics of the movies I see. Makes perfect sense. Anyone know what some conservative website says about Alvin and the Chipmunks? Bunch of collectivists radicals?
Happy Feet was a kids movie that was filled with really sort of propagandy environmentalist cant. So, it happens. Probably not with Alvin though, but you never know I guess. The global warming people are the worst. They’re pretty promiscuous about inseminating their “consensus” into stuff for kids.
“Anyone know what some conservative website says about Alvin and the Chipmunks? Bunch of collectivists radicals?”
Underground agitators to their core.
Please, then, explain to me this picture, of Bin Laden with a Carter aide?
http://i6.tinypic.com/1z5p7ki.gif
If we place the blame for 9/11 on anyone, it should be on the Left, considering it was Jimmy Carter’s Cabinet, *photographed* with Bunt Laden. Why, also do the BBC and Canadian media explicitly state that he was involved in fighting the Soviets?
See here:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html
and here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/155236.stm
What possible motivation could they have for lying on this issue? I believe that saying the United States caused 9/11 is a bit (OK, a stretch large enough to send a blue whale through) of a stretch. That they funded Bin Laden is not.
Wait, I did more looking, Washington couldn’t have caused it anyhow. They financed weapons through Pakistan, which sent them to Bin Laden. It wasn’t the US’s fault, certainly not in the All Powerful Government Conspiracy (TM) that the Libs seem to think. Pakistan was a sovereign ally at that time, and no US mumbo-jumbo could have prevented them from financing Bin Laden, not without hindsight, and certainly not while the Iran Crisis and the impending Iran-Iraq War, as well as a general perception of weakness relative to Moscow distracted Washington. Afghanistan was a little blip on the radar, if thought of at all.
If your looking for even more information on PC security then I would head over here as they have plenty of stuff on identity theft, antivirus software etc.
I am not sure I understand why most of the comments above are irrelivent and ridiculous…