Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Charlie Wilson's War - "Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies..."

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
reprehensor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 07:01 PM
Original message
Charlie Wilson's War - "Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies..."
Charlie Wilson's War opens with the silhouette of a mujahidin firing a shoulder-mounted surface-to-air missile at the movie audience. Unfortunately for the target audience, the rocket being fired at them is tipped with "Grade A" U.S. Government-Approved Propaganda.

Admittedly, the mujahidin did use SAMs in their battles against the Soviet army, so the film-makers did get that right. Charlie Wilson is portrayed as a womanizer and a boozehound, and they got that right, too.

Ultimately, however, the film is based on an a priori lie. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan wasn't a Cinderella story that came out of nowhere. It was preceded by a decision from Democratic President Jimmy Carter to green light a CIA covert operation in Afghanistan to support the opponents of the pro-Soviet government in Kabul. The U.S. instigated the military onslaught that the Soviet army brought to bear on Afghanistan. Therefore, later on in the movie when Tom Hanks sees the humanitarian crisis that the Afghan people are suffering, due to the Soviet invasion, he shouldn't be "feeling their pain"... he should be racked with guilt. Those mangled children and widows are the first victims of a covert operation that continues to this day.

To be fair, it wasn't the idea of the film-makers to obscure the causus belli of the Afghanistan invasion. This has been perpetuated by the highly compromised American corporate press for decades, and remained hidden until, ironically enough, current Defense Secretary Robert Gates spilled the beans in his 1996 book, "From the Shadows", and was confirmed in 1998 by CFR frontman, Zbigniew Brzezinksi. By the end of 2001, many critical researchers of 9/11 had seen William Blum's translation of Brzezinski's interview posted at Michel Chossudovsky's Global Research website. (For anyone even moderately familiar with this semi-hidden history, there is a moment of unintentional hilarity when the Pakistani President Zia comments that the CIA "missed" the Soviet invasion. Actually, it's a lie, so not really that funny.)

So by 2003, (when Charlie Wilson's War was first published), any serious writer laying down the history of the CIA in Afghanistan surely would have done a few internet searches that would have turned up this key information. George Crile apparently does not know how to use the "google". It is early in the first chapter of his book where he reinforces the lie that President Carter, with a bag of peanuts in one hand, a Bible in the other, and drunken brother Billy, just had to respond to those evildoers at the Kremlin, and get the CIA involved in Afghanistan. Perhaps sensing that a good chunk of the American population is probably hip to Carter's Machiavellian chess-move, the film-makers just went ahead and skipped the whole "CIA initiating the Soviet invasion" thing.

Interestingly the film explores the relationship between Wilson and Zvi Rafiah, an Israeli who had a long relationship with Wilson, earned his trust, and is suspected by Wilson of being a highly placed MOSSAD agent (Wilson doesn't air his suspicion in the film, only the book). The film depicts meetings between Wilson and Rafiah outside of the congressman's office on the beltway or in Egypt where they broker an arms deal. If you read the book, however, Rafiah is portrayed as someone with exceptional access to Wilson's office and staff, assigning tasks to the staff and using the office telephone. Rafiah had previously been accused of spying for Israel, and was allegedly offered classified documents by one Dr. Stephen Bryen, with an AIPAC director looking on.

The only other foreigner with such unparalleled access to Wilson is Abu Ghazala, who is portrayed in the film by Iharon Ipale. Ghazala hooks up Wilson, and thus, the mujahidin with a wide arsenal of hardware and bombs. Ghazala the Egyptian is later implicated in a missile-supplying scheme for which he is never charged. James Webb calls the scheme the "Condor II" project, (the intent of the project being: to supply Iraq with a nuclear-capable ballistic missile), in his book, "Spider's Web - The secret history of how the White House illegally armed Iraq" (Bantam, 1993, p.33).

Ghazala and Rafiah typify the type of arms dealers that would arm the mujahidin covertly, but Crile, like Steve Coll and other establishment-friendly authors conveniently leave out BCCI, and associated arms dealers like Monzer Al-Kassar, a "Syrian drug trafficker, terrorist, and arms trafficker", who used the BCCI to launder drug and weapon money.

The film, thus, makes no mention of BCCI either, even though CIA director Casey used it to grease the skids for getting weapons to the mujahidin, over and above the few million that the Congress approved. In his recent book, The Road to 9/11, Peter Dale Scott describes BCCI as a definite asset for the CIAs campaign;

"...A book coauthored by Wall Street Journal reporter Peter Truell tells us that in the "campaign to aid the Afghan rebels ... BCCI clearly emerged as a US intelligence asset." A book by two senior writers for Time confirms that in the words of a US intelligence agent, "Casey began to use the outside - the Saudis, the Pakistanis, BCCI - to run what they couldn't get through Congress. Abedi had the money to help." (Both books corroborate that Casey met repeatedly with BCCI president Abedi.) Thus BCCI enabled Casey to conduct foreign policy without the constraints imposed by the public democratic state. Our archival and mainstream histories have not yet acknowledged this.

As the US commitment to the anti-Soviet campaign in Afghanistan increased, the relative importance of BCCI's contribution probably diminished. But one of the causes for the disastrously skewed US campaign in Afghanistan was the importance of BCCI and the drug traffic at the outset." (UC Press, 2007, p.p.116-117)


Oh yeah, the drug traffic. The CIA has always denied being involved with it, but they ran the men on the ground in Afghanistan who were main players in the drug trade, like Gulbaddin Hekmatyar. The only mention in the film about drugs is that Wilson snorted coke occasionally. (Melissa Roddy gives a good rundown of the disinformation in the film that stands in place of the missing Hekmatyar.)

And where did all the mujahidin come from? They were not all Afghans. The CIA helped the ISI recruit fighters from all over the world. (This is one of the few things that Steve Coll fleshes out fairly well in Ghost Wars, but it is really tough reading considering everything that Coll omits.) But you would never know this from watching Charlie Wilson's War. (For further historical failings of the film, Chalmers Johnson's review is worth a look, alas, Johnson still wallows in the mire of "blowback".)

Ultimately, the film is disinformation. It portrays an unrealistic representation of the Afghan conflict, covers up its US-inspired origin, covers up the links to Afghan opium/heroin money laundering, covers up the recruitment of mujahidin from all over the world for the "foreign legion" in Afghanistan by the CIA.

It's bad business, and what's worse, Hanks' Playtone production company is slated to apply its skills to the Kennedy assassination. Fortunately, there is a bit of a firewall in place for that piece of crap coming down the pipe.

I don't have enough thumbs to convey my disgust with this film.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Catch22Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 07:05 PM
Response to Original message
1. I liked it
Of course I know better than to go into it thinking it was a true story through and through. Basically, I thought it was a good movie that based its script on some true events.

Let me ask you this, if it was purely a work of Hollywood fiction, would you have enjoyed the movie? I thought Philip Seymour Hoffman was brilliant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 07:14 PM
Response to Original message
2. I plan to see the movie and will watch it with your review in mind.
Good work.

K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Disturbed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. George Crile is dead.
I read the book. I watched the rehash of saga on TV. I doubt if I will order the film
from NetFlix. Having read at least four reviews of the film, it seems like the film
is mostly fantasy. Wilson was a rabid anti-Commie who now gets paid by Pakistan to
promote whatever they are trying to sell to any US Govt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kelligesq Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 07:31 PM
Response to Original message
4. It was a wonderful movie, but the real Wilson & girlfriend objected
when the ending was going to show that they laid the seeds for bin Laden and so the ending had to be changes..but the guy who played the CIA guy hinted in the movie he knew the blowback would be coming..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShaneGR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. The book details Wilson's attempts to fund an Afghan "rebuild"
He was laughed at in his committee, supposedly, for requesting funding after the soviet war was "over."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShaneGR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 07:51 PM
Response to Original message
5. I read Crile's book (I enjoyed it) and I've seen the movie (decent)
I don't think anyone argues that Wilson's actions indirectly/directly led to 9/11. But Wilson tried to keep the funding going for the rebuilding of Afghanistan after the soviets pulled out. He was ignored

Overall, I think you unfairly criticize Crile's book. If you'd like to focus on the book in a subthread let me know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
I work for workers Donating Member (551 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 08:39 PM
Response to Original message
7. LMAO
I think that's the first time I have ever seen Jimmy Carter and Machiavellian chess-move in the same sentence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 08:58 PM
Response to Original message
8. Your title says it all...There's a deep psychological need to believe that institutions don't lie.
Looks like Hanks will make a fortune pandering to that need.

Great. Just great.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 05:34 PM
Response to Original message
9. The CIA and MI6 Protect A.Q. Khan as the British Government Destroys a True Hero
Yeah. I've got a problem with what passes for history. Here's a real hero in the fight against nuclear proliferation, Mr. Atif Amin of British Customs...



The CIA and MI6 Protect A.Q. Khan as the British Government Destroys a True Hero

Written by Joseph Trento
Monday, 17 December 2007

Many of you may have seen Joby Warrick’s piece in the December 16th Washington Post telling a small part of the story of how the British government has decided to come down on a man who should be a national hero. British Customs agent Atif Amin is being targeted in a criminal probe because the National Security News Service included the story of U.S. and British intelligence halting his investigation of the A.Q. Khan nuclear proliferation network in a book. Dave Armstrong and I recounted his story, as told to us by a variety of senior intelligence and law enforcement sources, in America and The Islamic Bomb: The Deadly Compromise. Now British authorities are conducting a witch hunt on the assumption Amin was not the subject of our book but our source.

The investigation of Amin is a deliberate distraction. By targeting him, the CIA and MI6 hope to stop Parliament and Congress from delving into the issue of why the United States and Britain allowed the Khan network to proliferate for three extra years. Amin had uncovered evidence in Dubai in April 2000 of the Khan network supplying nuclear technology to Libya. When he did, British and American spies, according to top-level CIA officials, feared he was endangering what one described “as our own penetration of the Khan network.” The infiltration, according to those sources, was intended to allow the the CIA to feed faulty bomb designs to Khan’s customers and thereby slow down their nuclear programs. The CIA even started using some of the Khan network’s front companies for its own purposes. But Amin’s investigation threatened all this. As a result, it was shut down—and Khan’s nuclear smuggling was allowed to continue.

CONTINUED...

http://www.storiesthatmatter.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=137&Itemid=29



Yeah. There's a lot more to the story than Hollywood and all their military-industrial wet dreams can imagine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 06:02 PM
Response to Original message
10. One of the BEST public service posts in a long time K*R
I saw this coming out and thought, they're making him a "character," an amusement. A lot of people died in that adventure and a whole lot have suffered because of the blow back. It's unconscionable to make this guy anything other than what he was, a hack politician who caused tremendous problems.

Hands blew this one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lastliberalintexas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 06:17 PM
Response to Original message
11. Neither the film nor Charlie are perfect
But if people who see the movie at least walk out understanding exactly what happened at the end, I'll be happy. Blowback happens because we walk away when the defense contractors can no longer bleed the treasury, and Charlie did at least understand that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lovuian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 06:22 PM
Response to Original message
12. I saw Wilson's war and was explaining to the kids
who Bhutto was and the next morning she was dead

it was freaky
Bhutto's assasination is mentioned in the movie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lastliberalintexas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Bhutto's father's assassination
Massoud was only mentioned in passing. I wish more people knew about his murder as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 12:33 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC