Charlie Wilson's War

Somehow, Mike Nichols and Aaron Sorkin managed to turn George Crile's grimly fascinating book about Rep. Charlie Wilson and his involvement in the clandestine funding of Afghan mujadedeen into a mildly amusing political satire. On one level, it's a pretty extraordinary achievement since nothing about the book really screamed out "this would make a good movie" to me.

The really interesting part of the story, at the end of the day, is the totally-unfilmable micro-level detail about how, exactly, a backbench member of congress with a middling level of seniority gets the necessary legislating done. That's pretty much all telescoped out of the book in a way that's understandable, but winds up leaving the time frame murky and it's not really clear what the story's even about without it. You get some funny moments out of the whole thing, but it gives you no real sense of anything. Mostly, I hop it juices sales of the book, which is must-reading.

The whole saga of this period in US policy toward Afghanistan is worth keeping in mind as we watch the Sunni awakening unfold. I think one can understand why people who happened upon a way to deliver relatively cheap body-blows to the Soviet Union were willing to do so without totally understanding who was getting the guns and what the ramifications of it all might be down the road. The Cold War was serious business and there were no cost-free options available. The current strategy in Iraq, by contrast, seems to have all of the pitfalls of what was done in Afghanistan but nothing even close to the same upside. It's pretty clear what the CIA and Rep. Wilson and others were trying to do in Afghanistan. They wanted to put weapons in the hands of people who were shooting at the Red Army -- a rival superpower. What's the comparable objective in Iraq?

Comments

I quite enjoyed the movie myself (saw it last night), and based on this review am now even more interested in reading the book. I do agree that the movie's message is ultimately about unintended consequences ("We'll see" indeed, to quote the movie). Your point is spot on: if the drawbacks of a policy are difficult to predict and/or control, shouldn't the prospective gains be so large as to make the risk worth it? Seems pretty straightforward to me. If only more people would take a keener look.

Posted by Khaled | December 23, 2007 2:44 PM

What's the comparable objective in Iraq?

Limit losses in the 2008 elections. It's a long shot, but all the shots the GOP have are long.

This has been another edition of Simple Answers to Simple Questions.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | December 23, 2007 3:01 PM

"What's the comparable objective in Iraq?"

US military dominance of the Middle East region in particular, and Eurasia in general.

Posted by Gary Sugar | December 23, 2007 3:53 PM

I really, really have a hard time understanding the mindset that says, post-9/11, "let's lionize the guys that armed the mujahideen." I haven't seen the movie, so I can't judge it, but the basic premise that Charlie Wilson deserves some sort of hero status, I find baffling.

Posted by Freddie | December 23, 2007 4:11 PM

Freddie, you're obviously not clever enough to see a movie such as this. I'm baffled that you are even able to type.

Posted by Mike N. | December 23, 2007 4:43 PM

Mike N, I hope you're being ironic.

Posted by Henderstock | December 23, 2007 4:55 PM

I think the movie was an interesting discussion of the differences between soft power and hard power. Hard power got the USSR out of Afghanistan, but it was a failure of the US to use its soft power properly that turned the muhjahadeen into the Taliban.

One of the points of the movie is that the Taliban and 9/11 wasn't inevitable, we knew it was going to happen and decided not to stop it (which is different from the Sunni Awakening).

The problem wasn't unforseen consequences, but a failure of political will to avoid the forseen ones.

As Charlie Wilson said, "We fucked up the endgame."

Posted by PTS | December 23, 2007 5:53 PM

"What's the comparable objective in Iraq?"

US military dominance of the Middle East region in particular, and Eurasia in general.

Yes, If we are looking for parallels we might have to consider that we are the USSR this time around.

Posted by anon | December 23, 2007 6:20 PM

The U.S.S.R. was willing to mobilize and waste their military resources in Afghanistan, which at least was a neighboring country; the U.S., or the petro gun club that rules in D.C., on the other hand, is not so much concerned with military dominance, although in the wet dreams of the neocons and their constituency, there's something so sexy about that, than as profit opportunity - hence, the way the Bushies allowed Osama bin Laden to escape, and the astonishing frivolity and futility of their real 'war on terror', consisting in such idiotic ideas as requiring passports to get into Mexico and entrapping kids in Miami with the promise of machine guns and fezzes if they'll attack the Sears building. Notice the contrast between the inevitable collapse of that case and the publicity that attended the arrest of the scary scary terrorists. These people are not and never will be serious about terrorism qua terrorism, but love it as a political issue and an excuse for massive corruption.

But in Iraq, both American defeat or victory is meaningless. Matt's question points to the stupidity of the whole enterprise. In this war, you could say that the Americans both won - Saddam Hussein is no longer around - and lost - Iran's biggest ally now officially runs Iraq. In fact, so screwed up is this that the warmonger set both wants to fight for Iran's allies in Baghdad and bomb Iran. Schizoid thinking to the end.

It would be nice if there was more representation of the view that this is pointless in D.C., but at the moment, the idiot WAPO editorial by Hiatt today about the Dem's "blind spot" on Iraq is the DC view. Pitiful, dreadful, immoral.

Posted by roger | December 23, 2007 7:02 PM

Whatever. Why can't they just make a good documentary instead of a Tom Hanks-Julia Roberts romp, huh?

I haven't seen this either (I'm waiting for the documentary), but the previews make it seem like it could be "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels" but not ironic (or insanely funny).

Posted by ed | December 23, 2007 7:56 PM

I haven't read the book yet nor seen the movie but have been reading "Ghost Wars" which covers this same time period.

But given how the US/Charlie Wilson Afghan escapade ended and comparing it with our current situation in Iraq (and Afghanistan), one thing is painfully obvious.

For some reason, the US simply does not understand either the culture or the mind-set of those we have deemed enemy or ally in the Middle East.

This lack of understanding is pretty obvious when you consider the rationale behind US actions in either conflict. The US "experts" believed that 1) the Mujahideen and/or Taliban would eventually become moderates and 2) the Iraqis would greet us as liberators and be grateful for the removal of Saddam and transform into a modern democracy.

The rationale espoused by the "experts" in both cases was painfully wrong because the situations were much more complex.

Further, even if we did have some type of best outcome in mind in either Afghanistan (then and now) or Iraq, it is not as if the US alone could/can force this outcome through either great intentions (freedom for all) or through military strength. This is because there are opposing forces aggressively working to undermine the US. Whether it is ISI in Pakistan or the Revolutionary Guard in Iran or the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. Who's the ally? Who's the enemy?

Wilson isn't correct if he really said/believes that we messed up the end game. We failed to comprehend how our opening and middle game would leave us with an impossible end game (Yeah. Democracy is messy).

In both cases we are short-term winners (bleed the Soviets and topple saddam).

But Long-term losers.

There is no noble, long-term US strategy. Only short-term tactics.

Posted by GPS | December 23, 2007 8:19 PM

The WSJ's Nancy DeWolf Smith, who covered the Soviet war in Afghanistan for Radio Free Europe, makes a distinction between arming Afghans and arming foreign jihadists in her review of a TV documentary ("The True Story") about Charlie Wilson:

"Many resistance leaders and mujahideen argued passionately against the importation of foreign fighters, whom they neither wanted or needed, and generally loathed. The Afghans were vetoed by American and other officials who claimed that the Arabs were necessary to give the impression that this was a pan-Muslim jihad against Soviet communism, and not a Western war."

Posted by Fred | December 23, 2007 8:53 PM

I actually saw both the History Channel special on Charlie Wilson and the movie Charlie Wilsons War last night. Both were amazingly good. In fact, in many cases if not for the fact that I saw one in my living room and one in the theater, I would have been hard pressed to say where documentary left off and movie began. If you haven't seen both, or at least one of the two, it would certainly help you express a more informed and accurate assessment. And Charlie Wilson tried to get money to build schools in Afghanistan after the Soviets left..."after all it was a covert war" and he felt the Afghans should know what we had done... but Congress evidently felt education significantly less sexy than war.

Posted by Dave Kaskela | December 23, 2007 8:58 PM

...but Congress evidently felt education significantly less sexy than war.

Posted by Dave Kaskela

As does the American propagandized media, obviously. Not to mention that education, as profitable as many of today's delivery vehicles are, is still a lot less profitable than war for the select few.

The question remains: What the hell can we, and will we, do about it? At least, that is, those of us who aren't happy, or just willing, to settle for a permanently amoral, unjust, imperial redefinition of this nation with its necessary, attendant repudiation of our founding Constitution?

roger above has it nailed, as do so many writers and commenters (aka American citizens) on so many blogs and in so many forums on-line and off. And yet, nothing changes for the better in the halls of power. Instead, Congress is spreading its disease to Iraq under false prophet claims about "democracy" for those whose land we occupy by force - claims so piously and pompously pronounced from on high by willing, knowing enablers of American Imperialism-By-Mortgage-To-China in today's anything-but-democratic Congress, and in today's American-subservient United Nations Security Council:

At the time, Maliki argued that while he respected the powers given to the parliament, the U.N. mandate didn't count as either a treaty or an agreement, and therefore didn't require a nod from the legislative branch.

Hoping to avoid a repeat of the PM's maneuvers this year, the [elected] Iraqi legislature has tried to put its foot down and assert its rights under the country's constitution.

[snip]

At the end of November, Foreign Affairs Minister Zebari was again called to testify before the Iraqi parliament. He promised, unequivocally, that any request to extend the mandate "will not be presented to the U.N. Security Council prior to its submission to the Iraqi parliament for deliberation."

But that wasn't to be. In the letter sent this week, Iraqi lawmakers' demand was unambiguous: "We ask the Security Council not to accept any letter requesting renewal that is not ratified by the parliament. Such a letter would be deemed illegal and unconstitutional according to the laws of Iraq," it read.

No debate was held in the Iraqi legislature, and on Tuesday the Security Council voted unanimously to renew the mandate.

[snip]

What this story reveals, again, is that U.S. "interests" -- that is, the interests of the U.S. foreign policy elite -- which include establishing a permanent foothold in the Middle East and exerting influence over the political and economic course Iraq takes in the future, are paramount, and that any talk of democratizing missions or "liberating Iraqis" has never been more than political theater.

The renewal is the latest in a string of instances in which the Bush administration and its allies in Iraq's executive branch have shut down a nonviolent, political avenue for Iraqi citizens to resist the presence of foreign troops in their country. By denying them those avenues, Bush and Maliki have effectively done what they accuse advocates of withdrawal of doing: "emboldening" violent insurgents and getting more innocent Iraqis and more U.S. troops killed.

One can only wonder, now that the United States has "liberated" Iraq from Saddam Hussein, just who will liberate Iraq from the United States?

http://alternet.org/module/printversion/71144

The "United Nations," no less, in lockstep with our Congress, is watching the next form of out-of-control, resource-rich, conniving Hitler-wannabe rise right in front of it, and can do no more than rubberstamp its dictates.

Not in my name, Congress. Not in my name. Except that, until further notice, it's all in my name. And yours. And there doesn't seem to be a damn thing any of us can do about it.

Posted by pow wow | December 23, 2007 10:00 PM

"imperial redefinition of this nation"

This sounds like a criticism of President McKinley.

Posted by Fred | December 23, 2007 10:15 PM

If you value oil at 100 barrell over time - Iraq is worth several trillion dollars - Add on Iraq's water resources etc

Keeping this wealth out of other people's hands - not necessarily stealing for ourselve - as a value.

But the admin has been dishonest about all this.

Posted by Comment | December 23, 2007 11:02 PM

I remember that during the USSR - Afghan conflict we (the US) did not support Afghan democrats much and preferred to support the Jihadist part of the resistance. I thought it was pretty stupid at the time, and still can't understand why we keep making such basic strategic errors. I would love to know who was really behind this - I bet they had a major role in the W administration too.

Posted by Marshall | December 24, 2007 7:54 AM

Afghanistan used to be a nice friendly place to visit. I know some old geezers that were in Afghanistan for Peace Corp. The Soviets supported a secular government trying to modernize an underdeveloped country and met resistance from religious fundamentalists. The US backed the fundamentalists against the secular forces trying to bring science and modernity to the country. All in the name of the "red menace". The country was destroyed by the proxy war.

Posted by bakho | December 24, 2007 8:39 AM

Our goal in invading Iraq?

1.) Invading Iraq. A son trying to prove himself to his father, to simultaneously pay tribute to and to overshadow him. Parsecs away from being an original observation on my part, but still true.

2.) The stated reasons. It's not "lying" if you believe yourself, it's merely tortuous incompetence and dereliction of duty.

3.) Dumbed-down Zionism. I'm Zionist, my father was fanatically Zionist, and we both were against this war as bad for U.S. and terrible for Israel. Unfortunately, some Zionists with access to power didn't agree with us, always a bad idea and a very bad one in this case. Fortunately, Tsar Georgi didn't blame the whole debacle on The Jews (see: what happened to nearly every Court Jew, ever) and suggest a pogrom as a cure; fortunately, those advisors were so publicly humiliated that they couldn't find any positions better than CORE ADVISORS TO GIULIANI.

...and, most importantly:
4.) Applied sociology, pimp/prison style: if someone hits you, you must _smash_ someone, and quickly. It's a little better to stomp the guy who hit you, but if you could do he likely would have chosen someone else or else is Fledermausesscheisselich insane and hard to hit; saving that, it doesn't matter who, so choose someone weak whom no-one likes much.

Posted by Dabney Braggart | December 24, 2007 12:57 PM

Talk about 'nothing about the book really screamed out "this would make a good movie" to me.'

I just finished "Oil!" the Upton Sinclair book upon which "There Will Be Blood" is based. That movie better be about four hours long! It was a big shaggy wandering story covering a decade in the life of a young man entangled in both the oil business and the Red era surrounding WWI.

Posted by Hedley Lamarr | December 24, 2007 1:09 PM

bakho: Yes, and Fidel Castro is an admirable statesman (instead of a murderous tyrant) and Stalin's purges never happened (despite the truckloads of evidence proving it did). Any more communist propaganda you'd like to spout?

Posted by firebrand | December 25, 2007 12:42 AM

Hey, what matters here is Julia Roberts in a bikini - and to my surprise, she looks damn good!

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 25, 2007 6:52 AM