I think this belongs in the history and propaganda section, though it's about a movie that's still playing in theaters.

I saw the trailer to Charlie Wilson's War somewhere around New Year's Eve, I think, and I got a really nauseous feeling about it almost immediately. I quickly scratched it off my list of possible movies to see in a theater, even though I'm not likely to go see one. But I doubt I'll look for it on DVD, someday, either.

I know lots of people like Tom Hanks, and he's a passable actor, and I've enjoyed some of his movies. But, I guess for me he's just not edgy enough to get into that category where I'd put the greats. No offense to Tom, he seems like a nice guy. Then, Jimmy Stewart wasn't all that great an actor for me, either, and Hanks kind of reminds me of his kind of home spun popularity. Different time of course, so the parallels might be a little tenuous to see. And this Hanks movie looks like a rousing attempt at a subtext of good ol' American patriotism, kind of Jimmy Stewart like in that sense.

What's probably appealing about it for the liberal set, is when the movie's over, Ronald Reagan didn't take down the Soviet Union, Charlie Wilson did. And if you are aware that it was Carter who signed the "finding" document authorizing the CIA to get involved with the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, thus potentially luring the Soviets into their Vietnam and a financial quagmire that brought them to their knees, then the Democrats get even more credit, practically writing ol' Reagan right out of the book on that one. But there's a down side to all that credit, and the movie makes no effort to acknowledge that, it seems from my investigations into the reviews.

First I noticed that there's the usual thundering herd hoopla in favor of this latest Tom Hanks vehicle, a movie he was integrally involved in making, and for which he purchased the movie rights to the book back in 2003, originally titled:

Charlie Wilson's War: The Extraordinary Story of the Largest Covert Operation in History -- the Arming of the Mujahideen.

But retitled when it came out in paperback in 2007:

Charlie Wilson's War: The Extraordinary Story of How the Wildest Man in Congress and a Rogue CIA Agent Changed the History of Our Times.

Retitled, I think, for obvious reasons to me, but possibly not so for many others. Certainly not anyone I've talked to about it so far.

In hopes that what I now suspect to be its propagandistic mind numbing qualities can be in some way curtailed, I recommend the following before rushing out to view this movie:

Read this review of the book from 2003, by Chalmers Johnson:

The Largest Covert Operation in CIA History

Read this recent movie review:

'Charlie Wilson's War'
'Charlie Wilson's War' celebrates events that came back to haunt Americans.

And this recent movie review:

Review: Charlie Wilson's War -- James's Take

If none of that, at least read this edited update of Chalmers' 2003 review of the book, tailored for the movie itself:

Imperialist Propaganda: Second Thoughts on Charlie Wilson's War

The last paragraph from the latter as follows:



I'm somewhat surprised at myself that I somehow got that from an internet trailer. Or maybe it was just the vision of Tom Hanks trying to be a playboy in a hot tub that didn't quite work...

Yeah, for all the hoopla Charlie Wilson basically manipulated his position on different committees to buy guns for Muslim extremists (but they were our Muslim extremists!).


Not exactly the best civil servant.

Yeah, as long as they are "ours" then it's ok, and Charlie's a hero.

I haven't seen the film, but it's on my list of things-to-do.
Wow, I'm unsurprised, sadly. "Our" side propping up decidedly dodgy characters..
Actually, it's more the fault of the Saudis who supplied the vast amount of the funding for the covert campaign and drone-soldier madrasas in Afghanistan than the possibly naive Americans, like Zbignieu (actually, I don't really think that he was naive. He was a realist zealot who never saw how fast the Soviets would crumble, nor that the casualties for the Mujaheeden would be so low, or that the extremist teachings of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood would become so crazed...)

The real issue, and the reason everything turned to shit after the Wall fell, was that the lazy, arrogant, smug and pompous Western politicians and many of their tin-pot advisors turned away from the Eastern bloc and the Islamic front-line with their noses in the air once the desired result had been achieved, and never made any effort to resolve the Israel/Palestine crisis, and completely ignored Commandant Massoud when he implored the West to stop aiding the ISI and block the Saudi funding of the Taliban.
The West went into a navel-gazing arrogant strut and pretended not to see the misery in the ruins of the "Evil Empire" or the potential powder-keg of the Middle East, and whilst we were possibly correct in ousting Saddam from Kuwait, the real ramifications were never seen, or thought of, or were superceded by our love of easy-oil.
The quasi-permanent stationing of Western forces in hotly contested Holy land was the oil-on-the-embers that militant Islam, running out of steam, running out of gullible young men and ideologically bankrupt, needed to rejuvinate itself.

The Jewish terrorists murdered their country's hope of peace, the hardliners took over, and Intifada's were a dime a dozen as the Muddle East started going dumb seriously..

Then came Bush and the neocons, the answers to any fanatics prayers ! Stupid crusaders ! Praise Allah !!

Rousseau, good rendition of US foreign policy, especially as it expanded across the Continent. Pretty much explains Europe and the people without history for the past 500 years as well. How they've managed to add the ancient and venerable cradle of civilizations of the Middle East to the list of heathens is still a mystery to me, but the Neoconservatives have done it now to an extreme I'm not sure the original colonialist empire builders could have matched. Of course, they had this incredible military industrial complex to work with. Certainly couldn't let that go to waste.

So, what's it all about do you figure?

Why would someone like Charlie Wilson be a hero?

Stating the obvious, I'm sure..
The mythology which sustains a world view of good versus evil can have no gray areas. It must be clear, solid and reassuring to the believers.
To use Hanks is a bit of Hollywood, for sure. All American , trustworthy, patriotic, whatever he may be associated with is probably the real deal, as he is an icon equal to the Lone Ranger and John Wayne.
That the facts might not be presented is no problem, as the truth becomes whatever the mythmakers say the truth may be.
This insulation from the world is probably the most noticable feature of the authoritarian control which now guides the citizenry, many are genuinely outraged when I suggest an event did not occur according to the official history's version of events.
There may be a growing unease about this sort of manipulation, as the polls suggest that more people simply are not buying the newspeak history of events.
Unfortunately, there is little that may be done about this, as most are either afraid, or indifferent to events which they see they have no possible way to influence.
A rubber stamp government, churning out laws which favor property over people, closing the ring on the evil "terrorists" threatening the republic, endless wars, which have no end to be seen, all these show us the failure of our present social organisation, and all of which is very frightening to any paying attention.