And of course ...

Zbigniew Brzezinski is now one of Obama's foriegn policy advisors. The more things change ...

by Mr M (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 1436 comments) on Monday, February 25, 2008 at 10:45:27 AM
 

The film and the book had a point of view

It's not really fair to view the film as some evil corporate conspiracy to cover up the truth and exploit actors. George Grille's book, and the film fairly literally based on it, express a point of view. The author makes no secret of his admiration for Wilson, who in turn made no secret of his admiration for the Afghani "freedom fighters". The critical reader or viewer can't help be taken aback, as I was, by the enthusiasm the principles had for killing Russians in revenge for Vietnam. I found it illuminating on how things actually get done in Congress.

Should Hollywood only make films that express a particular viewpoint? Should actors only take roles that portray themselves in a good light? Javier Bardem didn't seem worried.

Brezhinski was a Polish imigrant and cold warior who firmly believed--probably still does--that the defeat of the Soviet empire was worth almost anything. You can criticize Carter all you want--and rightly--for everything that happened on his watch, but I personally would much rather have him than the president we have now.

Right now I'm wading through Peter Dale Scott's "The Road to 9/11", which provides a much more nuanced view of that particular period in history. The world, it turns out, is not so neatly divided into black and white. Except maybe the current administration, which is pure evil.

by Maxwell (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 240 comments) on Monday, February 25, 2008 at 1:25:37 PM
 

Yes, of course it's fair to see it precisely as an "evil

corporate conspiracy," because that's exactly what it is. Your argument amounts to claiming that because Criles' book has a "point of view," that it should be immune to having its point of view criticized. The question is whether its point of view is honest and in accord with history -- not simply whether it has a "point of view" (something that people like Rush Limbaugh & William Kristol also have).

As it happens, the movie's (and book's) "point of view" is a stinking lie and a perversion of history -- exactly like George Bush's "WMD" lie, or all the lies the US government told while murdering millions of people in SE Asia several decades ago. Books that were premised on accepting those lies as real history also had a "point of view." And they should also be exposed for their immensely dishonest renderings of historical events.

You ask, "Should Hollywood only make films that express a particular viewpoint?" Actually, that's pretty much what it DOES do. It's basically verboten in Hollywood, to ever seriously challenge the underlying presumption that whatever the US government (and/or its military) does in the world, is ipso facto automatically to be regarded as benevolent and motivated by "good intentions."

In the Charlie Wilson movie, for example, there's a scene where Charlie visits a camp of Afghan refugees. One of the kids has an amputated arm. He lost it when a Soviet cluster bomb exploded. Charlie is moved to feel great sympathy for the kid (& thus more determined to get funding for the anti-Soviet mujahadeen). The filming leaves the clear implication that "only" the mean, nasty Soviets ever use such horrible weapons. There's no mention whatsoever of the inconvenient fact that the US is by far the world's leading developer & user of these horrible weapons.

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1168 comments) on Monday, February 25, 2008 at 3:53:42 PM
 

Hollywood is Pro-America?

No, we were talking about Hollywood, California, not Hollywood, Florida.

by larry booth (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 279 comments) on Monday, February 25, 2008 at 6:53:57 PM
 

Criticism, yes

I didn't mean to suggest it was above criticism.  Far from it.  Yours is a little off the wall, though.  One doesn't call an editorial a "cover up" because it fails to mention facts that don't support it.  I don't believe it presented blatant lies, unlike that 9/11 propoganda piece that aired on network television.

I don't do surveys of political points of view from mainstream movies (I think that's meaningless) but Fahrenheit 9/11 and Oliver Stone's JFK come to mind (yes, I know Disney pulled out of F9/11).  Many people believe Hollywood is unappologetically left-wing, not that it means anything. 

by Maxwell (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 240 comments) on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 at 4:08:39 PM
 

No, the film does indeed present blatant lies (as the above

article makes clear). The film tells viewers that Charlie Wilson resolved to secretly channel weapons to the mujahadeen, AFTER he saw the suffering caused by Soviet soldiers in Afghanistan. Actually, though, President Carter signed Brzezinski's proposal in 1979, almost 6 months before the Soviets went into Afghanistan. And the whole point of the secret US action was to lure the Soviets in!

In other words, the story is presented as though the time sequence was 1) Soviet aggression & wickedness, followed by 2) Afghan suffering, followed by 3) good-hearted & humanely-motivated US attempts to strike back at the wicked Soviets. When in reality, the events occurred in almost the reverse way: a deliberate attempt by the US to lure the Soviets in, hoping to ensnare them in "their own Vietnam" -- with the suffering of Afghans having little to do with the whole thing, except as a dishonest cover story.

You also remark, "I don't do surveys of political points of view from mainstream movies (I think that's meaningless) but Fahrenheit 9/11 and Oliver Stone's JFK come to mind."

- I disagree entirely. First of all, it's far from "meaningless" that virtually 99% of what comes out of Hollywood uncritically swallows official US state dogma, about American "goodness," the "rightness" of our cause in every single military conflict, and our so-called "democracy."

It's true that if you looked for exceptions to this pattern, the JFK film & the Moore film would be among the very first things you'd think of. However, Hollywood makes thousands of movies, and you'd be very hard-pressed to think of more than just those 2. And even those two were famously savaged by the mainstream press. To this day, over 15 years since 'JFK' hit the screen, Oliver Stone has still not been forgiven for having dared to challenge the official story in the courageous way he did. (I understand, in fact, that his stepping out of line in that way seriously curtailed his career; & that his latest project is an attempt to make amends for it by doing a film clearly intended to be more pleasing to conservatives.)

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1168 comments) on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 at 8:09:43 PM
 

Wilson is not Carter is not Brezhinski

Wilson acted independently of Carter. He was a Democrat, hawk, war veteran and "social liberal", much like his friend John Murtha. He did not necessarily know of any previous efforts by Carter or the CIA to bait the Soviets into invading. Avrakotos probably did, but would have had no reason to mention it to Wilson. The film presented a story involving these two men, but you're suggesting that in the interest of historical accuracy that narrative should have been prefaced by efforts to goad the Russians. Someone else might demand that in order to present those events you have to go back to instances where the Soviets screwed the west.

Brerzhinski is not only a scholar of international relations but someone who lived part of his life under the Soviet empire. He may have been wrong--in fact, I will say that he was-- but to dismiss him as evil is not helpful. It's like our current president describing the "folks" who allegedly pulled off 9/11 as "evildoers who hate our freedom". Usually, people don't do horrible things because they have evil genes, there are reasons. Peace requires understanding. In my own efforts to acquire understanding, I don't just read things that support my preconceived opinions.

If you can show me that Brezhinski personally profited form the Russian invasion of Afghanistan (as, for example, Richard Woolsey did from the US invasion of Iraq) I may revise my opinion and concede he is evil.

by Maxwell (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 240 comments) on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 at 10:41:59 AM
 

Yes, it's true that Wilson is not Carter is not Brezhinski -

but the film's viewing audience is given no reason to be even faintly aware of such distinctions. Most viewers will simply assume that the film is a reasonable portrayal of how it came to pass that the US supported the mujahadeen.

Every aspect of the film's narrative presents the US as the guys in white hats, and the Soviets as "evil." There's a scene where a Soviet pilot strafes unarmed terrified Afghan villagers with machine gun fire -- seemingly for the pure sadistic pleasure of it. The CIA guys, on the other hand, are portrayed as swashbuckling -- perhaps a bit rowdy, like frat boys, but still "good guys." Charlie is portrayed as motivated mainly by compassion, and when he tears up in the final scene at a ceremony where the CIA is giving him a special award, the viewer is supposed to swallow the idea that being honored by an outfit like the CIA is indeed a grand life achievement. // The Julia Roberts character, similarly, though a rich Texan John Birch Society type, is portrayed very sympathetically. The idea seems to be that as long as she hates the Soviets, she must be pretty cool; & that her using her sexual charms to get a Congressman to secretly divert a billion dollars of taxpayer funds to her personal pet foreign policy cause -- Why, that's pretty cool, too!

There's nothing about this film that in any way challenges the standard propaganda theme of "All US actions are Virtuous; All Soviet actions are Evil."

BTW, I never specifically called Brzezinski "evil."

You also write, "Someone else might demand that in order to present those events you have to go back to instances where the Soviets screwed the west." // When exactly did the Soviets "screw" the West? I'd say that the screwing was overwhelmingly done BY the West.

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1168 comments) on Thursday, February 28, 2008 at 9:53:59 PM
 

You, folks

give too much credit to the Soviet leadership in the ideology and  much less in  decisionmaking. The upper levels in Moscow knew very well what was happening and Zbig should just eat his shoe. The 1979 invasion  was not about ideology. It was ( and now it is also) about opium and  who controls the  market. Until 1979 there were virtually no drugs in the Russian schools. In 1980  it became a drug problem in every major city.  After the Golden Triangle  countries started hanging the drug couriers the Russian mafia at power saw an opportunity in controlling the Afghan opioum fields and also in opening the Russsian market to the drugs. That's why they invaded and that's why  young Russians died. No one gave a damn ( on both sides as a matter of fact) about people. And  if there was some progress there during the Communist period that progress could be achieved without  the occupying force ( like same in Iraq).  Zbig, Wilson and Co. were evil. The people on the other side ( Soviet mafia in power) were evil too. They should all hang on one tree.

by Mark Sashine (51 articles, 19 quicklinks, 244 diaries, 3462 comments) on Monday, February 25, 2008 at 1:48:21 PM
 

BACKGROUND ON PAKISTAN

After the death of Daoud and Mir Akbar Khaiber, the winner finally was the Popular United Mass (Khalk) Party, and the first Marxist government was thus established in Afghanistan. Moscow signed a new bilateral treaty of friendship and cooperation with Afghanistan, and the Soviet military assistance program increased significantly.

Meanwhile, the Shah of Iran, the main pillar of Western security policy in the Persian Gulf, was overthrown by the Islamic Revolution, and this encouraged the Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan. Military officers led by Captain Ismail Khan, a member of Jamiat, took over the garrison and city of Herat for several days, killing Soviet advisers. The army and administration seemed headed for collapse. The government of the Soviet Union expected strong reaction from Washington to events in Iran, such as an attempt to install a pro-American government in Kabul with Pakistan's assistance. To forestall this, the Soviet Union carried out a defensively motivated aggressive act: sending a "limited contingent" of troops to take control of Afghanistan. The anti-communist -Afghan guerrilla (Mujihadeen) movement was born. The conflict set off the first major flows of refugees to the Pashtun areas of neighbouring Pakistan. The Islamists declared a jihad against the Communists from their exile in Pakistan. They were soon joined by representatives of the conservative clergy and the elites of the old regime, although former high state officials generally made their way to the West. Dozens of exiled leaders competed to form resistance organizations in Peshawar, supported by Pakistan and wooed by the US. Faced with a deteriorating security situation large numbers of Soviet airborne forces, joining thousands of Soviet troops already on the ground, began to land in Kabul. Hafizullah Amin became Prime Minister on March 28, 1979. As revolts continued, the Amin regime asked for and received more Soviet military aid. Taraki was killed in a confrontation with Amin supporters on Sept. 14, 1979. While Amin tried to interest Pakistan and the US in supporting Afghanistan, on the night of Dec. 24, 79, the Soviets began their invasion of Afghanistan, and Amin and many of his followers were killed on Dec 27. Babrak Karmal returned to Afghanistan from the Soviet Union and became Prime Minister, president of the Revolutionary Council, and secretary general of the PDPA. Islamic opposition to the Soviets and Karmal spread rapidly either inside Afghanistan, or in Peshawar. Karmal replaced Assadullah Sarwari, a people's party member with Sultan Ali Keshtmand, a Banner member, who then became prime minister. Karmal was replaced by Mohammad Najibullah as secretary general of the peoples party. Rebel leaders rejected a proposed cease-fire in January '87. In November 1987 a new constitution changed the name of the country back to the Republic of Afghanistan and allowed other political parties to participate in the government. Najibullah was elected to the newly strengthened post of president. Massive Soviet ground forces invaded from the north. Soviet officials were concerned that Moslem fundamentalists would emerge in Afghanistan and turn the republic into a theocracy. The Soviets spent 10 years trying to wipe out U.S.-financed mujahedeen, or holy warriors, one of whom was a young Saudi named Osama bin Laden.. In time it became apparent to the Soviets and the rest of the world that crushing the resistance was not a task that could be accomplished easily or quickly. 1980s, —About 3.5 million Afghan refugees lived in Pakistan and another 2 million in Iran; thousands more fled to India, Europe (mainly Germany and France), the U.S., and elsewhere. In addition, an estimated 2-3 million people were internally displaced by the war, taxing the meagre resources of Kabul (whose population grew from about 600,000 to over 2 million) and other towns. The Afghan anti-communist movement--aided by the United States, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and others--was exacting a high price from the Soviets. The intervention cost the Soviet Union about US$ 5,000 million per year, compared to the total of about $ 2,500 million of aid over the previous 25 years. During 1986-1989, total aid to the mujahedin from the US and others exceeded $ 1,000 million per year.. The seven principal Peshawar-based guerrilla organizations formed an alliance to coordinate their political and military operations against the Soviet occupation. The mujahidin were active in and around Kabul, launching rocket attacks and assassinating high government officials. In 1988,the last Soviet soldiers left the country, at the same time that the US-backed reactionary nationalists launched a great offensive upon Kabul, in spite of which they were not able to take the capital, due to many disagreements and ideological differences among the guerrillas themselves. Peace accords were signed in Geneva by the Gorbachov government. Total withdrawal by the Soviets occurred on Feb. 15, 1989. The downfall of socialism in the USSR cut the supply of arms to Afghanistan. When the flows ceased, the party and army dissolved. Afghanistan had become the scene of civil war fuelled by competition among regional states, including Pakistan, Iran, India, and Uzbekistan and, to a lesser extent, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Turkey.

1990s--- Najibullah, without the support from Moscow after the coup in the USSR, agreed to leave open the way to take the matter to the united Nations, upon the constitution of a provisional Government, and announced that would step down. Under pressure from their US, Pakistani, and Saudi Arabian supporters, the Sunni groups chose an Afghanistan Interim Government-in-exile (AIG) at a shura (council) held in Pakistan. With the help of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and of the Pakistani military intelligence, new military campaigns were launched by the mujahedin in the latter half of 1992. However, as the victorious mujahidin entered Kabul to assume control over the city and the central government, a new round of internecine fighting began between the various militias, which had coexisted only uneasily during the Soviet occupation. With the demise of their common enemy, the militias' ethnic, clan, religious, and personality differences surfaced, and the civil war continued. The conflict in Afghanistan has continued to have an international dimension, both from political and economic perspectives. The United States is intent on offseting Iranian influence on the spread of terrorism and expansion of markets in the region. Russia had backed Burhanuddin Rabbani’s government in Kabul fearing that a Pakistani backed Pashtun movement such as the Taliban would be expansionist, threatening Russia’s interests in Central-Asian countries. An ethnic Tajik, Rabanni he was a former professor of Islamic law at Kabul University, and spent time studying at the prestigious Al-Azhar Islamic University in Egypt. In his early political career, he founded the Jamiat-e Islami party to work against plans by the Afghan government to introduce greater secularisation. In 1992, he became president of the mujahedin-led government in Afghanistan Russia had provided General Abdul Rashid Dostum with 500 T55 and T62 tanks . Russia had also provided Dostum with a large number of Frog 7 and Luna M missiles. Uzbekistan’s President Islam Karimov had clandestinely supported his fellow Uzbek, Dostum, with tanks, aircraft and technical personnel, with an expectation that Uzbek dominated provinces in northern Afghanistan would provide a buffer against the spread of fundamentalism from Afghanistan.

1994 Benazhir Bhutto of Pakistan reached agreements with both Ismail Khan and Abdul Rashid Dostum, who controlled Afghanistan's border with Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Four days later 30 trucks laden with food, clothes, and medical supplies left Quetta, reportedly escorted by personnel of Pakistan's intelligence services. Soon after crossing into Afghanistan, on 1 November, the convoy was stopped by Afghan tribesmen who had long exacted tolls from travellers and had served Mohammad Najibullah as a militia in the area. The convoy was freed and sent on its way , but by a new group – armed Taliban, organized by Mohamed Omar, including both Afghan refugees and Pakistani Pashtuns, who had streamed across the border armed with new weapons. After a quick battle they dispersed the tribesmen and quickly swept into Qandahar city, where with little resistance they captured the city.

by Guajolotl (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 131 comments) on Monday, February 25, 2008 at 3:24:28 PM
 

This is documented...

in even greater length and detail in John Cooley's "Unholy Wars".

by Maxwell (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 240 comments) on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 at 3:45:06 PM
 

erratum

Sorry, Afghanistan and Pakistan

by Guajolotl (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 131 comments) on Monday, February 25, 2008 at 3:26:30 PM
 

St. Jimmy

Despite my general cynicism of government, I did not initially believe when I read (over 5 years ago) the report regarding the Carter-Brzezinski involvement in arming the Mujahadeen even before the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.

So I did some research, and found out a lot more about St Jimmy. It was Carter, not Reagan who initially started funding of the Contras in Nicaragua.

Ah well. Business as usual.

by Marta Barbosa (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 8 comments) on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 at 5:43:44 AM
 

I don't buy that.

The 1979 invasion was not about ideology. It was ( and now it is also) about opium and who controls the market. Until 1979 there were virtually no drugs in the Russian schools. In 1980 it became a drug problem in every major city.

It's pretty well known that the CIA used opium trade to undo the Soviets and that it had far-reaching consequences.  You're suggesting drug trade wagged the entire dog of international relations?  Few major events in history have one simple cause.

Nothing to do with ideology?  Today ideologues argue about Terry Schiavo and "socialized medicine" while opportunists line their pockets.  It was no different then.

by Maxwell (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 240 comments) on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 at 10:13:15 AM