When
we laugh at politicians it is because the consequences of their actions often
play out as farce. To us its humor, to them it’s the point of realization of
how out of touch they are with the world they make decision for, a state of
mind created by years of misplaced authority. All too often, though, their
blunders lead to tragedy and the comedy, though not necessarily absent, becomes
darker.
Mike Nichols captures the mood
whiplash that is geopolitics with expert precision in Charlie Wilson’s War (based on the book by George Crill III about
the Texas Congressman that supplied the mujahideen with arms during the Soviet
occupation of Afghanistan) one of his best films and an often amusing expose of
the hypocrisy, naivety, and lack of foresight involved in foreign policy
making.
Charlie Wilson was a singular case,
however. As grave as the unintended consequences of his aid to the Afghan
rebels proved to be, they were at least equally the fault of the US government
as a whole. Wilson himself, and this is a trait highlighted by the mere casting
of Tom Hanks, was the classic liberal idealist of the transitory years from
Carter to Reagan, holding the social victories of the past two decades under
his belt as personal triumphs.
But, like many revolutionaries of
the 60s, Wilson found new interest in the early 80s, namely women, booze, and
(a carry-over) drugs. Wilson helped open many doors for women in the professional
world…and then hired the curviest of them as his personal secretaries. Nichols,
obviously, has fun with this and loves exploring his office and the busy
bombshells within. Outside of his connection with Israel, the real Charlie
Wilson was relatively aloof about foreign affairs, more at home in a hot tub in
Vegas than the United Nations. He only paid attention to the Soviet-Afghan
conflict when a woman became involved.
Wilson stresses that Joanne Herring
(Julia Roberts) is only a “friend with money” but even a brief observation of
their interactions leaves little doubt that what the eccentric Texan socialite
meant to Good Time Charlie. Played by Julia Roberts as a socialite who, even as
she ages, never loses sexual prowess as a resource, Herring knows her way
around Charlie and can talk him into anything. After a meeting, she has him
meeting Pakistani President Zia-ul-Haq (Om Puri), who offers Wilson all the
evidence necessary for the need of US support in the war against the Soviets
when he takes him to a camp in a remote area of Pakistan in which maimed Afghan
refugees have fled.
The real Charlie Wilson was a
complex figure and remains so after his death, but the movie, rightfully,
remains ambiguous about his motivation in aiding Afghani freedom fighters. The
children with missing limbs, the starved crowds surrounding a food truck, and
the other shocking sights of the camp get to him and his sympathy is, as far as
Nichols is concerned at least, genuine. This is the pivotal scene to
understanding the movie, in fact. However disastrous the chain of events that
he set in motion his commitment to raising funds for the Afghani resistance was
based on noble intentions.
That is the fundamental uniqueness
of Charlie Wilson; there was no motivation beyond his sense of duty. In
Washington he garnered financial support for Operation Cyclone with relative
ease (his bragging point was how easily he helped grow the CIA’s anti-communist
budget from $5 million to $500 million) and temporarily united Israel, Pakistan,
and Egypt. His supportive players, however, were less than altruistic. The CIA
saw this as one of the ongoing battles of the Cold War and the other nations
with which we joined forces found it advantageous to put aside their
differences in battling a common enemy.
As historian Michael Johns, one of
the conservative pundits supportive of the film, points out in his blog, “As
the film correctly depicts, Wilson experienced surprising success in his
somewhat rogue effort to substantially increase covert CIA-channeled U.S. aid
to the mujahideen, and the results were ultimately nothing short of remarkable,
with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan turning into Moscow's Vietnam. The
mujahideen proved hugely heroic fighters. With the aid of U.S.-supplied Stinger
anti-aircraft missiles, Soviet MIG and other fighter jets were routinely shot
from the sky. Charlie Wilson's War
tells this story and, in so doing, provides a fairly new and important context
on what was undeniably one of the single greatest contributing factors to the
ultimate collapse of global communism. Afghanistan, quite simply, proved for
the first time that, with determination and support, the Soviet Union's
conquests were reversible. The global significance of this message surely ranks
among the most important of the 20th century.”
In a place like Washington where
decisions are all too often based on greed and gain, the lack of self-interest
(other than disdain for commies) and immediate accomplishments of Charlie
Wilson are admirable. And yet, as we know all too well, the long-term
consequences of his work were catastrophic. Wilson may have acted on principle
(according to the movie, seeing children with severed limbs was all the push he
needed), but the same could not be said of his government. With the Soviet
retreat and the threat of communism over, the United States had little interest
in rebuilding Afghanistan. With no infrastructure, the country fell into the
hands of insurgents and extremists who found a new use for the weapons the
United States had provided them.
In his often overstated attack on
the film (mostly because it slights Reagan and CIA director Bill Casey),
right-wing author Paul Kengor argues, “For the Reagan administration, the
Soviet defeat in Afghanistan was part of a multi-layered assault-involving
about a dozen different initiatives, from Poland to Nicaragua, from SDI to the
MX, from economic warfare to public diplomacy-to take down the Soviet empire
and win the Cold War.” With that mission accomplished, Afghanistan was easily
forgotten.
If Wilson was blind to the long-term
implications at first (and it was more understandable in 1989 than
today, when recent events have made us forget the extent of the brutality
suffered by the people of Afghanistan under the Soviet occupation, to celebrate
their claim as the first country to defeat the Soviet empire), he was at least
astute enough to take seriously the warning of CIA Officer Gust Avrakotos
(played by Philip Seymour Hoffman with awesome ferocity), who foresaw what
Afghanistan would become if left abandoned. But Wilson’s please for funding to
rebuild the country’s infrastructure fell on deaf ears. The government, as it
often is, was easily swayed the raise large sums for wars but not for
amendments. Of course, this was behavior was repeated by the other nations that
helped. With the communist threat vanquished, the United States, Israel, and
Egypt had little interest in Afghanistan. Their business there was done. Left
on their own devices, the people of Afghanistan inevitably turned to extremist
groups, with a sense of resentment for the nations that betrayed them. Through
no fault of his own, Charlie Wilson’s war set us on the road to 9/11. The
attacks of 2001 are never explicitly mentioned in the film, but Nichols gives
us an honest and clear view of how we got to where we stand today.
While begrudging the link associated
with Wilson’s (Reagan approved) empowerment of the mujahideen and the rise of
al-Qaeda, Johns does concede that, “The ultimate retreat of the Soviet army
from Afghanistan should have opened a promising future for the newly-freed
nation, but it was not exactly followed by the emergence of liberal democracy.
Unable to maintain a consensus for some continued nation-building following the
Soviets' nine-year occupation, as advocated by most of the Reagan army of
mujahideen supporters, the Taliban ultimately arose to fill the power vacuum
left by the Soviets, making Afghanistan the breeding ground for al-Qaeda
training and leading to what has become this nation's current conflict against
global terrorism.”
One of the most important things Charlie Wilson’s War does is expose to
Western eyes the extent of the brutality the Afghani people suffered under
Soviet rule. Women and children, today the shields of choice for insurgents,
were also frequent victims of enemy forces; the ultimate joke of the movie is
their liberation from one set of oppressors only to fall into the hands of
another.
Johns also brought this to
attention, “Soviet forces indiscriminately bombed civilians. They blew the
hands off children with explosives designed to look like toys. They torched
entire caves of scared civilians. What was the human cost of the Soviet
invasion and occupation of Afghanistan? Some two million civilians were killed,
and five million more fled the Soviet occupation. If there exists any modern
example of "scorched earth" military tactics and institutionalized
evil in practice, it can be found in what Soviet troops did in Afghanistan from
1979 until 1989.”
Paradoxically, the horrors shown in
the film are minimal; just enough to make a point, but the nuanced brutality
comes as a shock precisely because of the satirical material that surrounds it.
This is really a subtle comment on the media’s treatment of world affairs, and
its habit of packaging it around whimsy to lessen the blow. It becomes a
pointed criticism within the movie when Wilson’s aids use the inconsequential
story of his drug and prostitution scandal to bury his covert raising of funds
for the Afghan cause.
Johns writes, “In its effort to tell
a hugely serious story, it [the film] predictably includes enough comedic
relief for mass appeal. But it is the thesis of this film--that there exists an
undeniable correlation between the ultimate victory of the United
States-supported resistance in Afghanistan, known as the mujahideen, in their
war against the Soviet Union's invasion and occupation of Afghanistan--that
makes this film a hugely important leap in greater understanding of the truth
behind the late 20th century American-led effort, under Ronald Reagan's
Presidency, to win the Cold War, liberate millions, and usher in the great hope
of peace and freedom that exists in our current post-Cold War world.”
On its own, the humor in Charlie Wilson’s War is charming and at
times even poignant. As always, Mike Nichols proves adept at understanding
human quirks. The real Charlie Wilson was more of a bulldog, as one who enjoyed
such popularity in his native Texas would have to be, than anyone played by Tom
Hanks could ever be, but Hanks can bring out the sensitivity in even the most
hardened of warriors. He captures a vulnerability in the Charlie Wilson that
may never have been seen in public but had to have been in someone who trusted
his ethical convictions so firmly. His Wilson is, at least at heart, a hero and
Hanks emits this so clearly we forgive the congressman his vices, sexual games,
and political tricks. Because he is played by Hanks we don’t doubt he means
well and emerges as an improbable hero, seemingly too human (with all of our
defects) to have set such a historical catalyst in motion.
Even when Nichols is getting laughs,
however, the film inexplicably veers toward heart. He has a dream cast that
does wonders with the film’s many faces. Julia Roberts is cast interestingly
against type as Joanne Herring, the aging socialite with plenty of money to
spend on political interests, and brings the character close to parody.
Herring, as Roberts plays her, was a shrewd political motivator who could still
use sex as a tool to getting her way as she approached her fiftieth year.
Nichols, of course, uses the appeal of Roberts to advantage letting a shot of
her in a swimsuit playout for all its worth, but it never feels gratuitous.
Herring knows she has aged gracefully and has both money and sex to offer.
Wilson may have made his own mind about the war but would not have set foot in
Pakistan had she not had him wrapped around her finger like one of her sparking
diamonds.
What exactly is her interest in
Afghanistan? Wilson believes she is fighting for the oppressed women of
Afghanistan and public information about the real Herring suggests this is
largely true, however, we must not forget, if only for the purpose of this
movie, that these are the words of a smitten man, led to believe them by a
seductress. At least as important to Herring is maintaining a good relationship
with Zia-ul-Haq, for whom she had been a trusted advisor. Wilson knows she will
never be more to him than a “friend with money” and yet there is something
touching about how the two reflect on a partnership that created good things,
if only for a while. Especially emotive is her reaction to his tribute in the
frame story set a few years after the Soviet retreat. How exactly does she feel
about the man she used to make history? It is not impossible that love of a
certain sort exists there.
Charlie
Wilson’s War is a triumphant actor’s film. Philip Seymour Hoffman provides
both the spark and mind of the film. He rivets the movie each time he opens his
mouth especially because we have seen Avrakotos proven right. Bonnie Bach,
Wilson’s mousey secretary, proves to be the quintessential Amy Adams role;
seemingly timid but with a surprising amount of pep when needed.
The political landscape is often the
perfect stage for laughter while the world it affects can often bring tears and
shock, but even hear Nichols finds humor in the eccentricities of world leaders
and Wilson’s meetings with both Zia-ul-Haq and Israel’s Zvi Rafiah (Ken Stott)
are political lampooning at its finest. On their own, the two sequences are
comic marvels. Charlie Wilson’s War is
a film by a director who knows the ways of the crazy world we live in, where
the best way not to cry in it is to laugh with it.
