Interesting, don't you think, that Charlie Wilson's War doesn't ever once mention the word 'Taliban'

[dave123williams]

Though, through a weird co-incidence today, they make mention of Benazir Bhutto's father's trial:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zulfikar_Ali_Bhutto#Trial_and_execution

with the Julia Robert's bible-thumping Texas nutjob character defiantly proclaiming "Zia did not kill Bhutto". Wild shit.

Maybe the MSM will now finally notice that Pakistan exists? It's pathetic that all they're doing today is giving cursory coverage to the history of the situation there, and they're sure as shit not pointing out anything about US involvement with the Pakistani ISI (intelligence services) during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, how that led to the foundation of the Taliban, and how it's now all totally fucking backfiring.

Oh, sorry; I think the spooks call it 'blowback'. They're good at using polite understatement for truly ugly shit.

Rest assured, nothing you see on television today will come close to touching on the contextual history of our involvement in the region.

[rzemanfl]

1. Please rate the movie. I read the book and thought highly of it.

I assume you have seen the movie. As I recall, the line you quote was in the book verbatim.

[MadBadger]

3. It was good. Great acting, great writing (of course). However..

It was too short, and as a movie, there was no real character development. It was very interesting however.

[rzemanfl]

15. Thank you, I will have to go see this flick. n/t

[dave123williams]

7. Well shot, well acted, totally glosses over what we left in our wake.

I'd given it a strong 'B+', right up until the end of the movie, when I realized that they were going to force the audience to make the connection between our fickle interests in the area, and the results of our national-psyche's abysmally short attention span.

[rzemanfl]

14. Thank you, I will venture to the multi-plex this weekend (which I

VERY rarely do, the last time was for F 9/11) we went once after that but left when my wife and I couldn't get adjacent seats.

[dave123williams]

16. You should do what I do; go on a Tuesday afternoon...it's like having a private screening.

[rzemanfl]

18. Unfortunately I work. I am home recuperating from surgery right

now but that is coming to an end on Monday.

[laconicsax]

2. Why would they?

I seem to recall that the Taliban didn't come into existence until after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

[dave123williams]

5. Ok, here's how it went down.

We gave hundreds of millions of dollars to Pakistan under the rubric of fighting Communism in Afghanistan.

That money ultimately flowed in to the Pakistani ISI (their CIA). They are very conservative and very Islamist. After the withdraw of the Soviets, the ISI used the money to establish, and then arm the Taliban. That led to the violent overthrow of the Muhajadeen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Origin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan#Soviet_invasion_and_civil_war

Making the government in Khandahar a essentially bunch of extremist nutjobs that we helped come to power, mostly by throwing money at the Afghan problem and then pretending like it was solved once the Soviets left.

[laconicsax]

10. The question still remains

Why would the movie made of Charlie Wilson's War mention the Taliban if the organization didn't exist during the time period the movie portrays? The OP was very clear that the Taliban is not mentioned. No one would have mentioned the Taliban until after it was formed the same way no one would have mentioned the Nazis during World War 1.

[dave123williams]

11. Right, except the Taliban came to power within a couple of years of the Soviets leaving.

See; it's not like WWII at all. Because the same people we used to run the proxy war with the Mouhajadin actually founded the Taliban.

Get it?

Not sure if you've seen the movie, but it simply ends with some on screen text that says something to the effect of 'we won in Afghanistan, and then we fucked up the end-game.' No explanation, no context, nada.

Now, had they tacked five more minutes on to the movie, you would have learned that the afforementioned fuckup culminated with a us doing a little oil business with people who were actively shelling Bhuddist statues in the Bamyan valley, who harbored Bin Laden after the Sudan wouldn't have him any longer, and then, oh....let's see...a couple of planes flying in to the Trade Center towers and the Pentagon.

THAT's why you want to include it.

[laconicsax]

12. Reading your comments

I'd have to assume that I'm completely ignorant of the history of what happened in that region, but the problem is, that isn't the case. You can feel free to take your condescending attitude out of the discussion anytime.

I know about how we funded the Mujahideen through Pakistan, how their behavior led to the formation of the Taliban, and the dealings that we had with the Taliban up to September of a few years back, and how we've allowed them to start retaking control of Afghanistan.

You posted about how the movie didn't mention the Taliban. I asked why they would have mentioned a group that didn't exist until after the events of the movie take place. You felt it was necessary to ignore the basis of my question and 'educate' me (with wikipedia no less). I pointed out how you didn't answer my question. You then state that some screen text at the end of the movie (which I have not seen--I read the book, why should I pay to see a dramatization of it) was the extent of the films dealing with the aftermath. You could have been civil and cut to the chase earlier, but you decided to assume that only an idiot would ask why a film whose events predate the formation of the Taliban would have mentioned it as part of the film. You can consider my question dropped.

I'd also like to point out that my analogy to the rise of Nazism is rather sound. I'd like to assume that you know the basic history of Germany covering the years 1918-1939, but in case you don't, here goes. The Nazi party was formed under a different name in response to the general malaise of the German people immediately after they lost WWI. They changed their name a couple years later to what we know them as today and the Bush family did business with them once they took power in the early 30s, indirectly financing atrocities that would come later.

To me that sounds pretty analogous to what happened in Central Asia.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

13. The Wilson character also alluded to it when he talked about the median age (14) of the population

That was left. They wouldn't have any knowledge of America's true role in deposing the Soviets and they'd be ripe for manipulation by the nutjob tribal leaders. Of course, I may be just retroactively projecting current events onto that.

[lastliberalintexas]

6. Apparently many DUers are as uninformed as the other side

You are correct in that the Taliban really didn't form until the early 90s as an opposition to the Mujahadin. Some of the former Mujahadin fighters became Taliban members/supporters and the fight for control of Afghanistan began in earnest, but the entities are not one and the same.

The Mujahadin were not perfect by any means, but the Taliban made them look like Mary Poppins.

[dave123williams]

8. Yes. And the Pakistanis funded them. With OUR money.

[lastliberalintexas]

9. True. The Taliban were also more interested in capitalism

and exporting oil than the Mujahadin. Not that that had anything whatsoever to do with which group we ended up supporting.

[CJCRANE]

4. Blowback is good for Bushco business.

They seem to be good at triggering a self-perpetuating cycle of violence, as we see in Afghanistan/Pakistan and the sectarianism in Iraq.

[Orangepeel]

17. They may not have used the word (SPOILERS)

(although anyone clicking on the thread should know to expect spoilers)

The end of the movie acknowledged that "they fucked up the endgame" and the CIA agent warns Wilson about the consequences of getting what they wanted.