RIP Charlie Wilson

[21]

Great movie, better book.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/021010dntexcharliewilson.21d2d77.html

 

[Steak Snabler]

Started my own thread, but 21 beat me, literally, by six seconds (and had a link). So Mods, please delete mine.

If he was anything like Hanks portrayed him, seemed like an interesting dude ...

 

[Football_Bat]

The war is over. RIP. :'(

 

[YankeeFan]

Definitely a guy who lived a full life.

 

[Starman]

"but then we ****ed up the end game." : :

 

[Boom_70]

Hmmm - first John Murtha and now Charlie. This could be foul play.

Charlie was on House Ethics committee that absolved Murtha from Abscam. Charlie was placed on committee by Tip O'Neal with sole purpose to protect Murtha.

 

[Pancamo]

Thought the Gap Band lost a lead singer.

 

[Steak Snabler]

Thought the Gap Band lost a lead singer.

No, this Charlie Wilson (helped) drop bombs on Russian helicopters.

 

[Blitz]

I'd never heard of the legislator Charlie Wilson before the movie came out.
RIP Mr. Wilson

 

[BTExpress]

A lot of people are saying rot in hell, Charlie Wilson.

I won't go that far. But as the poster child for the Law of Unintended Consequences, I don't see how he could ever find peace with his actions.

 

[The Big Ragu]

A lot of people are saying rot in hell, Charlie Wilson.

I won't go that far. But as the poster child for the Law of Unintended Consequences, I don't see how he could ever find peace with his actions.

I think you mean Al Qaeda, by unintended consequences. But according to the book, and Congressional testimony by Robert Gates, after the Soviets withdrew Wilson pleaded with his colleagues to do some relatively cheap things to make an effort to raise living standards in Afghanistan. He asked for what was chump change compared to what they gave the CIA, to build schools and infrastructure, and even though he was usually pretty successful at getting things funded, he couldn't get his appropriations colleagues to put up the money in that case, and was of so low priority to everyone that he couldn't trade favors to get it done.

He was a flawed guy, and by all accounts he was pretty corrupt and a horse trader and a power broker who stood for a lot of the bad things that make our government unaccountable and a source of misery for so many. But his crusade when it came to Afghanistan seemed to be genuinely motivated by an honest code, and unlike a lot of things he did with his power, I think he thought he was acting in a good a righteous way--whether he was or wasn't. It was one thing he did with his heart.

It's easy to play Monday Morning QB and blame the rise of Al Qaeda on him, but if anything, he sort of saw some of the dangers of walking away without providing aid, and was one of the few people who actually fought to fund civil projects after the war was done.

 

[BTExpress]

What is conveniently overlooked is that the Soviet-backed Afghan government was beginning a series of progressive reforms, including a radical modernization of the traditional islamic civil and especially marriage law.

In other words, those "atheist communists" were trying to do things like allow girls to go to school . . . but we had to back the rebels trying to stop this horrible idea because, well, "anybody who fights the Soviets must be on the side of good."

Idiocy and paranoia was rampant in Washington during the Cold War.

 

[The Big Ragu]

What is conveniently overlooked is that the Soviet-backed Afghan government was beginning a series of progressive reforms, including a radical modernization of the traditional islamic civil and especially marriage law.

In other words, those "atheist communists" were trying to do things like allow girls to go to school . . . but we had to back the rebels trying to stop this horrible idea because, well, "anybody who fights the Soviets must be on the side of good."

Idiocy and paranoia was rampant in Washington during the Cold War.

Conveniently overlooked? Prior to 1979, when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, the country wasn't run by Sharia law, even if the government itself was being threatened by mujahideen. It was a politically unstable place marked by rampant corruption, and it was not too far removed from the stone ages, but it was a downright enlightened place compared to what it became because the Soviets invaded. It had cultural attractions and attracted the ballet, for example.

You make it sound like the Soviets did Afghanistan a favor. That is pretty twisted retelling of history. They invaded the country, took it over against the will of the people, and used gun ship helicopters to mass slaughter peasants who tried to put up any resistance. Whether what the U.S did to help the rebels fight the Soviets was good policy or not is debatable, but the U.S. didn't start the mess or create the resistance. The Soviets did by invading and taking over the country. If you really want to trace Al Qaeda, anyone reasonable would give a healthy look to the Soviet invasion first, second, third and fourth. And to try to paint them as benevolent somehow denies the reality. The Soviet Union invaded the country, mass slaughtered the population and put it through a 9-year hell that bolstered the mujahideen that eventually became the Taliban. That's not a skewed version of the history.

 

[BTExpress]

Regardless of your feelings toward the Marxist-backed Afghan government in 1979, it DID REQUEST Soviet military intervention. It wasn't like the Soviets woke up one morning looking for a fight or for someone to invade.

The Afghan government, having secured a treaty in December 1978 that allowed them to call on Soviet forces, repeatedly requested the introduction of troops in Afghanistan in the spring and summer of 1979.

I'm not trying to paint the Soviets as good guys (shhhh, don't tell my wife). I just view their actions as "understandable" more than "evil." Seems pretty normal, actually. Weak government feels threatened. Calls on powerful ally for support. Rinse. Repeat.

Maybe there were no right answers for us at the time. Just many degrees of wrong ones.

 

[YankeeFan]

What is conveniently overlooked is that the Soviet-backed Afghan government was beginning a series of progressive reforms, including a radical modernization of the traditional islamic civil and especially marriage law.

In other words, those "atheist communists" were trying to do things like allow girls to go to school . . . but we had to back the rebels trying to stop this horrible idea because, well, "anybody who fights the Soviets must be on the side of good."

Idiocy and paranoia was rampant in Washington during the Cold War.

Wow that sounds great.

Now I'm just wishing we had invited the Soviets to rule us.

Well, now that they're gone, maybe we can get the ChiComs to rule us. Paul Krugman is pretty impressed with their efficiency.

 

[BTExpress]

Now I'm just wishing we had invited the Soviets to rule us.

"WOLVERINES!"

 

[The Big Ragu]

Regardless of your feelings toward the Marxist-backed Afghan government in 1979, it DID REQUEST Soviet military intervention. It wasn't like the Soviets woke up one morning looking for a fight or for someone to invade.

The Afghan government, having secured a treaty in December 1978 that allowed them to call on Soviet forces, repeatedly requested the introduction of troops in Afghanistan in the spring and summer of 1979.

I just don't see the same kind of evil in this action that others do. Seems pretty normal, actually. Weak government feels threatened. Calls on powerful ally for support. Rinse. Repeat.

Maybe there were no right answers for us at the time. Just many degrees of wrong ones.

You're not serious, are you? The puppet government of the Soviets was on board with the Soviets invading?????

I'm not Afghani and I was 11 years old in 1979. So I am not sure I really have feelings toward the Afghani politics at the time.

But that Marxist government had overthrown the Daoud regime through an assassination and a coup! Not that Daoud was a saint, or very popular, but the PDPA was NOT the choice of the Afghani people. It had seized power through an assassination and coup the year before and was highly unpopular. It was holding the country hostage and, was being severely threatened by the mujahideen and was operating as a puppet of the Soviets. The rebels moblized to FIGHT that government, and of course the Soviets were their allies, because they were put in power by the Soviets. They WERE the Soviets. The Soviets had funded their activities and the Saur Revolution and wanted them in power so they could then invade and take over the country.

The mujihadeen threatened the PDPA government, which was Marxist and was unpopular, which is why trying to hang on for dear life, an unpopular authoritarian government that had taken over by coup was on board with a Soviet invasion.

Your telling of the history is akin to saying the Vichy government in France was supportive of the Nazis.

 

[BTExpress]

You're not serious, are you? The puppet government of the Soviets was on board with the Soviets invading??

As I said . . . understandable.

But that Marxist government had overthrown the Daoud regime through an assassination and a coup!

And Daoud seized power in a military coup on July 17, 1973. Karma's a *****, eh? And his regime was widely unpopular, too.

I'm sorry, but on a scale of 1 (good) to 10 (evil), you're looking at the difference between 7.2 and 7.3 between who we were supporting and who we were opposing.

 

[The Big Ragu]

You're not serious, are you? The puppet government of the Soviets was on board with the Soviets invading??

As I said . . . understandable.

But that Marxist government had overthrown the Daoud regime through an assassination and a coup!

And Daoud seized power in a military coup on July 17, 1973. Karma's a *****, eh? And his regime was widely unpopular, too.

I wasn't tauting Dauod, who was ruthless--and I pointed out he was no saint. But he actually wasn't all that bad when it came to progressive values. You are incorrect. Dauod did not seize power through a military coup. His taking over was bloodless. Daoud was a prince, part of the royal family that ran the country through a monarchy, and he fought a power struggle against his cousin and disolved the monarchy. He was a dictator in that this wasn't a democracy, but if you want to talk about progressive reforms in Afghanistan--which was where you began the conversation--no one in their right mind would try to claim the Soviets were popular or tauting human rights. It was actually Dauod who did more to modernize Afghanistan than any leader had in a century with a series of progressive policies and modernization plans. Dauod did more for women's rights in Afghanistan than anyone has in the history of that country, for example, and had actually made small strides. It's why Afghanistan, a primitive country, was attracting the Joffrie Ballet, for example, while he was in power. His mistake was not allowing the Soviets to control him and in lessening Afghanistan's dependence on the Soviets, he instead turned to Iran and Egypt and Saudi Arabia for aid. He announced his government wouldn't be beholden to the Soviets anymore and would be closer to the West and the oil-producing Arab nations. The Soviets feared it would be a repeat of what happened when Egypt distanced itself from Soviet influence in the early 70s (in favor of a modernized, more secular and progressive government--within the narrow context of the middle east) and so they overthrew him and put in their puppet government and then invaded. No matter how you slice it, the Soviets were not good guys to the Afgahnis.

 

[Boom_70]

I'm starting to think that Putin might have put a contract out on Charlie Wilson and John Murtha.