Charlie Wilson vs Osama bin Laden

Posted January 2, 2008 | 10:40 AM (EST)



stumbleupon :Charlie Wilson vs Osama bin Laden   digg: Charlie Wilson vs Osama bin Laden   reddit: Charlie Wilson vs Osama bin Laden   del.icio.us: Charlie Wilson vs Osama bin Laden

The movie Charlie Wilson's War is good light hearted entertainment which can also trigger a serious discussion about a pivotal and painful event in recent history. It is based on a book which records the true story, a sober, almost unbelievable account of one man's power to earmark billions of dollars with the help of the Speaker of the House whose motivation was to protect a "good buddy" from embarrassment.

Charlie Wilson, described by Molly Ivins as a "pussy hound" is a swashbuckling, heavy drinking, dope sniffing all American Texan that the guys in the bar can admire.

When told stories of the Soviets cutting the throats of children and bayoneting babies in the wombs of Afghan women, Charlie appropriately weeps.

After brief moments of culture at the Kennedy Center he works out sexually in his well placed Washington apartment. We cheer for Charlie and hope that he'll stay sober and score big.

Meanwhile, between his chosen projects of passion, Charlie masters the earmarking game, pinpoints a devastating Soviet military weakness, and launches a "Stinger Missile" manufacturing, distribution, training and deployment movement that turns the tide of the war.

Instead of building a huge embassy in Kabul and digging in, the Soviets pull out. Trained by Charlie's well financed Pakistan Intelligence Service, the Taliban march in. They are fundamentalist idealists who don't cut throats and use bayonets on women. For dressing improperly they stone their women to death.

As a postscript to the obligatory happy ending the movie infers this latter part of the scenario above by shocking the smug audience with a phrase including that FCC forbidden four letter word: "And then we fucked it up."

To explore this last confession further you are invited to play the IF game:

-If the autocratic House leadership had not granted such awesome earmarking appropriation powers to Charlie Wilson, there would have been no covert Czar conducting foreign policy with Pakistan.

-If there had been no federally endowed "money-bags Charlie Wilson" to hand feed the Pakistan Intelligence Service, the Service would have never been able to create the Taliban.

-If Charlie Wilson had not been able to finance the production and target the delivery of a large number of "Stinger" shoulder mounted missiles, the Taliban would have never become an effective modern fighting force.

-If the Taliban had not successfully forced the Russians to withdraw and then defeated all internal foes to overrun Afghanistan, there would have been no anti-western, anti U.S. nation willing to welcome and coddle Osama bin Laden.

-If Osama bin Laden had not been able to establish a protected sanctuary under the umbrella of the Taliban, bin Laden would have had no headquarters for training assassins and planning violent terrorist attacks.

- If bin Laden had had no secure base in Taliban controlled Afghanistan he would not have been able to successfully launch the attack on the World Trade Center.

In conclusion, consider the fact that the U.S. has the most powerful government apparatus the world has ever seen. If any organ of this complex and gigantic machine is treated as a toy or corroded, or distorted or corrupted the consequences can be devastating. Foreign policy left in the hands of one patriot with tunnel vision can spawn decades of conflict and misery. A more traditional process to end the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan would certainly have taken more time and been less exciting; however, a wider debate, even if limited to the members of the Intelligence Committee, might have prompted some answers to these questions:

-Who are we training to replace the Soviets in Afghanistan?

-Which factions do we consider to be the best possible allies?

-What is the ideology and outlook of the strongest military faction?

-Would anything more than the national American ego be injured by a continuing Soviet occupation?

-Is it not possible that such an endless occupation of a vast land with a hostile population could bleed the already weak Soviet economy into total bankruptcy?

Comments for this post are now closed

 
 

Comments
32
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 Next › Last » (2 pages total)

You ask if is it not possible that such an endless occupation of a vast land with a hostile population could bleed the already weak Soviet economy into total bankruptcy?

Perhaps but not in the time frame of the mere decade that Charlie Wilson's did. The Afghans were hopelessly losing the war. They were literally fighting tanks with stones and sticks and their Hind gunships were winning the war. We were acquiescing in a genocide. Should our response to the Soviets been overt rather than covert? Absolutely. The same holds true today for Darfur.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:06 PM on 01/06/2008

American foreign policy is often short-sighted and motivated by response to crisis. When we act to influence an event it usually takes greater action later to steer the forces we have let loose. It would be difficult to forsee a force like the Taliban. But we should learn a democratic response is often not the first instinct of those we choose to help.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:11 AM on 01/06/2008

Thank-you for this commentary. Huffpost would not let me write a blog stating the same "charactor" of who he is and outlining this dispicable CIA person, who represented East Texas under the guise of being a U.S. Congressman. Unfortunately, there are still MANY holdong "offices". Thankfully, CIA Prisoner Torture Chief in Vietnam/IndoChina and a Bush Family facilitator, Rob Simmons (CT) finally (Nov 2006)was defeated and is out of Congress, albeit too late to protect us from his expertise in the Rendition and Torture Program. He has been proposing and backing numurous "Nazi" type laws. Charlie Wilson and these people are Traitors and serve their masters, that is why they hold their "oaths to secrecy" and allegiance to agency (secret society) as the Supreme Duty, and NOT to the Oath they only take subsequently to Our U.S. Constitution!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:37 AM on 01/04/2008

Thank you Rep. Owens, the perspective and historical lesson is much needed at this time. I will most definitely forward this on.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:12 PM on 01/02/2008

have anyone considered that the narrative of the story was to make charlie the central fiqure. heelooo, it ain't REAL HISTORY. do you think it could be so simple? just maybe charlie was a PATSY, do you really think he would have been allowed to do this without a guiding hand? remember iran-contra? get it?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:33 PM on 01/02/2008

Was aiding the Taliban a bad thing, given the context of the times? It's the scenario that followed the liberation, that is the tragedy, and it wasn't all due to our involvement in Afghanistan. Had Saudi Arabia allowed Bin Laden to bring his mujahedin home to fight Sadaam during the first gulf war, instead of relying on the US military, things might have been entirely different. With the mujahedin off to fight for Kuwait, perhaps the Taliban would not have been able to establish a lasting presence, and would have dwindled to a lesser opposition party in Pakistan. But Bin Laden and his Wahabi extremism was a threat to Saudi Royal power, and they didn't want him to come home. The US, always interested in a good fight if oil is at stake, got it's foot in the door, for both the first and second wars in Iraq. Bin Laden repeatedly claimed that the US military bases in Saudi Arabia were to blame for his attacks on the USS Cole, our embassies in Africa, and 9/11.
In Saudi Arabia, the "chickens have come home to roost", as it were, resulting from their lack of foresight. Wahabi and Shiite extremists are huge threats to their national security, keep their country in the throws of turmoil and repression in the name of religion, and the AlSauds don't dare try to stop the fanatics, less they become targets themselves. The BIG IF? what would have happened IF we had just waited, let the Afghanis fight the Soviets, the Arabs fight it out amongst themselves, and minded our own business? It is likely that Bin Laden would have died fighting Sadaam, and 9/11 would never have happened. Tragically, IF we had to pick a fight, why couldn't we have freed Tibet from China? The human rights violations are just as severe. Was China less of a threat than the USSR? Given their population, their military industrial complex, our economic dependence on trade, and the impact on global warming from their industrialization, perhaps that would have been the better fight.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:14 PM on 01/02/2008

All discussion of US intervention in Afghanistan seems to start with the fight against the Soviet occupation. But what was the US role (if any) in instigating the anti-communist uprising that led to that occupation? To what extent was that uprising motivated by the communist regime's granting rights to women? Is it possible that most Afghans (at least the female half) were better off under the communists than they have been at any time since?
These are not rhetorical questions; I'm genuinely curious and would be grateful to anyone who can provide informed, honest, non-ideological answers. Anybody?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:36 PM on 01/02/2008

Osama didnt attack us because Russia lost a war, he attacked us because of our foreign policy in the Middle East.

1.Israel.
2.The destruction of Iraq.
3.American soldiers in Saudi Arabia, considered Muslim Holy Land.

Bin Laden was very clear, why do American politicians insist on obfuscation?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:42 PM on 01/02/2008

"And then we fucked it up." pretty much sums it up for me.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:26 PM on 01/02/2008

Oh, but you miss the point!

This was glorious PAYBACK for the Russians supplying AK's and SAMS to the North Vietnamese.

Forgive your enemies? Hell no. Seek revenge, decades, even generations later just like the non-Christians. An eye for an eye.

Like the current quagmire, we couldn't win that war either (Arms are no match for ideology) but in Afghanistan we could sure as hell siphon a few thousand gallons of Russian blood by supplying the mujahadin with Stingers and all our other neat toys.

We got even all right. Right up to 9-11. All because of a proxy war the idea of which Republicans adored.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:31 PM on 01/02/2008
Page: 1 2 Next › Last » (2 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in


Bloggers Index›
Read All Posts by
Rep. Major R. Owens›
 

 Site  Web ask.com