PDA

View Full Version : Charlie Wilson's War


Prozerran
12-30-2007, 5:51 PM
Ok, so I watched Charlie Wilson's War, and I'm impressed. If you haven't seen this, I'll give you the broad summary of what this is about. *Spoiler Warning*

So if you don't know how history played out between 1980 and 1990, Charlie Wilson, a Congressman from Texas, sees Dan Rather on the news reporting from Afghanistan. His interest is drawn in more by a rich southerner (played by Julia Roberts' character) who is sympathetic to the Muslims being slaughtered by the Russian insurgence into Afghanistan. So, Wilson meets with leaders of Pakistan and Israel. The long and the short of it is that the U.S. cannot sell weapons to the Afghans without breaking the law, so they arrange for U.S. funding to go for aid to the Afghans, who then purchase large stockpiles of captured Russian arms from Egypt. The Muslims fight off the Russians, the war ends.

In total, Wilson raised $500,000,000 that was matched by Saudi Arabia. So, this covert war's price tag was a nice Billion to defeat the Russians and end the cold war. Now, when Wilson went back to meet with the committees he chaired to raise a small $1,000,000 to help build some schools in Afghanistan, he was denied. He was told, "Afghanistan is old news. No one is talking about it. No one cares Charlie."

And the long and the short of this ends up being that the U.S., after supplying Afghanistan with weapons to fight a war with a U.S. enemy, didn't follow through to help the millions of children left to fend for themselves after their parents were killed. Four years later, the WTC is targeted by terrorists. Seven years after that, we have 9/11. So, what do we think of this? Should the U.S. have continued funding the reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan? Should Wilson have secured enough funds to support reconstruction efforts following the conflict?

Feel free to add any additional discussion relevant to the post.

Prozerran
12-31-2007, 2:56 PM
*Bump*

Maybe I didn't make this clear enough. Just so you know, this is one of the primary reasons why we entered the Middle East. The United States (represented by Congressman Wilson) entered into the conflict between Russia and Afghanistan to help the Muslims, and it seems that our failure to help rebuild Afghanistan is one of the quintessential reasons why we're fighting Muslim extremists today. Wilson even makes the statement in the movie, "We are just letting women and children with weapons from World War 2 fight our enemy [the Russians], who bring bulletproof armored tanks and helicopters that massacre farmers, their towns and villages." He is later quoted at the end of the movie, something to the effect of, "We did the right thing, we helped the Middle East fight our enemy, but we just fucked up the end game [by not providing more aid to help rebuild the region and liberate the refugee camps holding millions upon millions of people]."

This being one of the most important moments in our history (I speak of the conflict in the Middle East), I would think more of you would be interested in discussing the state of affairs. If we are to decide on a foreign policy of nation-building, what should that policy include following conflict? Should we or should we not continue providing aid to these nations after conflict ends? Or should we pull out after the battle is won and forget about the rest? Does anyone really care about any of this?

Battlecruiser
01-01-2008, 12:53 AM
I haven't seen the movie, so I'm not sure I should be commenting. But since you gave a summary, I guess I'll comment and you can ignore it if it is irrelevent/something addressed in the movie.

I think the better policy would have been to never to militarily interfere in the affairs of other nations. It's called non-interventionism. The situation you described reminded me of Iran-Contra, where we were selling weapons to Iran, who was our enemy, while using the profits made from those sales to fund the Nicaraguan Contras to overthrow the government in Nicaragua. Why would we sell weapons to Iran if they were our enemy? Because we wanted them to influence the Hezbollah in Lebanon to release their hostages, some of whom were American. While this was all going on, Iran happened to be in a war with Iraq (Hence, the Iran-Iraq war). As if all this wasn't astounding enough, the U.S. also was publicly funding Iraq, and giving it intelligence and weapons. This is where the famous picture below where Hussein and Rumsfeld are shaking hands comes from. And I'm not even going to mention how Israel was involved in this.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/handshake300.jpg

So basically, we were supporting both sides of a war with weapons and money, while funding revolutionaries to overthrow a communist government in Nicaragua even though most Nicaraguans like their government and voted for them democratically in 1984.

Also, we've been in the middle east since at least 1953, when our CIA overthrew Mossadegh, a democratically elected leader, simply because he would nationalize the oil supply, and we installed the Shah, a puppet for us that wouldn't nationalize the Iranian's oil and instead let our corporations use it. Obviously the Iranians didn't like the Shah or the U.S. so the Iranian Revolution happened and the Ayatollah came into power. In addition, they took our diplomats hostage in the 1979 hostage crisis.

Our policies in the Middle East have caused a lot of blowback, and the hostage crisis was just one example of that. 9/11 is another example of blowback. But as for the reasons 9/11 happened, we can look at Bin Laden's fatwa to know why he attacked us. I think the reasons he cited were that we had troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, we were bombing Iraq from about 1990-2000, we supported Israel, and we were involved in screwing up Iran, and I guess the example that you mentioned is just another reason why bin Laden is pissed off at us.

Is it just a coincidence that after helping Afghanistan (Though not fully, as you say Mr. Wilson was denied the 1,000,000 for schools in the end), Iraq, and Iran, we have already attacked two of them and are occupying them, and now we are looking to attack the last one (Iran)? When will we learn our policies in the middle east have screwed up our country and the world? When will we learn that we have no right to attack countries that haven't attacked us? When will we learn that you can't go to war without a declaration of war which comes ONLY from the congress? When will we learn that we can't act unilaterally and force "freedom and democracy" onto countries by pointing the barrel of a gun at them? When will we learn that it's not our business to butt into the internal affairs of other countries? When will we learn that it's not our job to choose the leaders of other countries?

Until then, until we have learned those lessons, we will not be seeing peace in the middle east, and only more hatred and blowback towards us.