Om Puri’s trailer
Check out the trailer for Charlie Wilson’s War (Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Om Puri), about a congressman who funded the mujahedeen in Afghanistan against the Soviets:
Like The Last King of Scotland, this is yet another film about major historical events viewed through the keyhole POV of a peripheral white guy. In pursuit of middle America, Hollywood rises to the level of a bad Bollyflick.
It’ll be interesting to see how (or whether) the film deals with the ISI and the bin Laden blowback.
… [Charlie Wilson (D-TX) became] known for leading Congress into supporting the largest ever CIA covert operation to supply the Afghan Mujahideen during the Soviet-Afghan War. He was even made a general by the Pakistani Military, though he was asked to not wear his uniform inside Pakistan…
… he won the approval of $40 million more, with $17 million especially earmarked for anti-aircraft cannons that could take down the Soviet Mil Mi-24 helicopters, known as the Hinds, which caused heavy damage to the Afghan Mujahideen.[… Wilson later succeeded in moving $300 million of unused Pentagon funds into the Afghan operation… [Link]
on Saturday, October 13th, 2007, 8:18 pm in Film, History, Politics, Video clips › 
Email this
› 
Facebook this
› 
Reddit this
› Link
› Reader links
Manish:
I don’t know why you’re negative on this film. It’s a Mike Nichols film after all, and should be somewhat good. Nevertheless, do read the book, it is really good–more like a novel than a piece of non-fiction.
I read it awhile ago, so some of the details are sketchy. Let’s just say the ISI ran the show, it was they who fed funds and weapons to the mujahadeen (sic), and they picked the ones they can control, which included some rather unsavory characters.
I believe Osama bin Laden was, for the most part, independently financed by the Saudis themselves given bin Laden’s wealth of connections.
I haven’t seen Last King of Scotland but Charlie Wilson was surely not a peripheral character. The author of the book George Crile didn’t think he was peripheral. I’m quite looking forward to this movie; my bet is that Nichols will make the connection to the blowback aspect. And even if he doesn’t overtly make the point; i suspect the audience will make the connection… how can one not.
The good news is that America’s unfortunate relationship with Zia and A Q Khan is now coming out into the open…thanks to Charlie Wilson’s War (the book), William Langeweische in the Atlantic Monthly (and a new book), Gordon Corera of the Beeb, Adrian Levy and Catherine Scott-Clark’s excellent “Deception”, and Armstrong & Trento’s “America and the Islamic Bomb”.
But nothing like a Hollywood starrer to drive the point home. But it would do a tremendous disservice to the spirit of these books if the movie glossed over the ugliness of America’s compromise. For Hollywood aims to entertain, not inform. And certainly not introspect.
Eww. It has Hollywood cheesy written all over it. Julia Roberts’ accent sounds over the top, the congressman sounds like a buffoon. I suppose they had to throw in the gratuitous belly dancer, and the reference to No Alcohol in the presidential palace. I’m also curious about the rogue-congressman story line that seems to suggest that the US aid to mujahideen was largely the doing of a few people. It makes for a good story, and particularly of the “one man’s fight for x” format beloved of Hollywood, but sounds rather improbable from a historical perspective.
If you were going to do a movie on Indian independence, would you focus on Gandhi or Margaret Bourke-White first? Wilson was less peripheral to Afghanistan than a fictional Scottish doctor in Uganda, but he also wasn’t on the battlefield.
He may not have been on the battlefield, but he was instrumental in securing funding for the Afghans. Most Americans, even cold-warriors, were initially not all that concerned about Afghanistan. But Wilson took it on himself to keep this going. I wonder if the film will address the contempt he had for Indians. In the book, it states that he could not stand Indian diplomats’ pompous manners (an opinion shared by friends of India, BTW), but even so far as to being annoyed with the Indian head wiggle.
The guy was a banker, not the spear. Columbus got a movie before Elizabeth. To not focus on Haqqani, Hekmatyar, Massoud is silly. It’s like randomly making Jackie Shroff the police chief every time a Bollywood production films in Malaysia, Singapore or Korea.
This movie couldn’t be further from ‘Last King of Scotland’ - the whole point of the book (and I hope the movie) was to show how much damage a bunch of clueless, rich, arrogant Americans did to one region and consequently the entire global political fabric. (The book was quite explicit about the link to the rise of the Taliban and the radicalization of all extremists in the region.) It’s not a story meant to tell the complete story of the Afghan/USSR war - it’s a story about the terrifyingly ignorant and easily manipulated Americans who were involved, the incompetency of a USA government and CIA that let it happen. If ever there was a time *not* to be upset about something coming from a white perspective, this is it!
I haven’t read the book, but regardless I think you guys have more faith in film adaptations than I do :)
Haldiram:
I think it’s unfair to leave all that goes wrong in Afghanistan, and in the world, at the feet of the United States. This typical knee-jerk reaction, in my opinion. There is plenty of blame goes around. For one thing, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan role should not be discounted: the former offered the funds and the fighters, and latter the logistics.
And nobody could have forseen the rise of the Taliban, or Al-Qaeda, both whom came long after the Soviet Union left Afghanistan. The goal was to drive the Soviet Union from Afghanistan, which the United States wanted as well as much of Muslim world. It succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. It eventually spelled the death knell of Soviet Union and communism.
I don’t know what the alternative would’ve been if things were left as they were.
To follow-up on Niraj’s point, in Steve Coll’s excellent Ghosh Wars, there was numerous attempts by the U.S. to decide which Afghan groups they should support, but the Pakistanis insisted they be left in charge of that. So, the Pakistanis supported the most radical groups and kept telling the U.S. not to worry, they had everything under conrol.
Typo - that should be Ghost Wars
I assume Ghosh Wars is the story of a tenure fight at U of Calcutta ;)
Interestingly, one way the US support was enlisted against the Soviets by Pakistan by raising the specter of USSR marching into Pakistan, but the US was more than willing to do its fair share to enmesh the Soviets in the Afghan quagmire. And Pakistan was able to successfully divert the Mujahadeen towards Kashmir operations. Coincidentally, the Kashmiri jihadi movement started becoming virulent around the same time and the movement effectively died after the US attacks on Afghanistan after 2001. I wonder if that angle is pursued in this movie.
Or a novel that, say, Amitav would write about Bobby ….
(or better yet, something Shashi might write about Amitav :))
Niraj and KXB, I absolutely agree - the USA was not the only player by a long shot! But there certainly was a link, and they were certainly one of the major players. The book and hopefully the movie did a great job of capturing the USA role in the whole complicated affair.
As for my faith in movie adaptations, well, I do have faith in the politics of Nichols and most of the stars in the film - pretty far left, all of them! If anything, they might be too far on the “blaming american politician for bin laden” end of the spectrum. ; )