Note: feel free to skip over the first scene, which is about character development--not plot or politics--and includes gratuitous depictions of the female form that some might find superfluous and/or objectionable. You're all adults, so I'll let you make the call.
Consider the following—and come to class ready to discuss—as you watch:
- What examples of the exercise of power do we witness in Charlie Wilson’s War?
- What types of war take place in the film?
- What types of security management do we see in the film?
- What biases might the story be subject to, or, what might this story be leaving out?
- What questions does the movie raise for you?
Also address these questions in your critical responses. Share your responses to (some of) these questions in the comments for additional participation credit.
I feel like the story of Charlie Wilson's War could be considered very biased. Think about it - the story of an American politician told by the American movie industry. That's a combination that is just screaming bias. While the movie creators embraced Wilson's party-boy nature, it is very possible that they romanticized his political actions in order to bolster the image of the United States government.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching the movie I found it stepping in line with the idea of winning the hearts and minds of the people. Which is what he attempts to do in the very end of the movie with securing funds for schools in Afghanistan. He recognized that since it was a "covert" war that the people of Afghanistan would not know the United States had played a large role in their success. By building the schools he would win the hearts of the people. Military success is only the first step in winning a war, to truly win you have to be willing to see further than military victory.
ReplyDeleteJordan Holt
In Charlie Wilson’s War, we see Charlie Wilson and company’s usage of track-two diplomacy, financial supremacy, and personal experiences as exercises of power to accomplish their goal of ending soviet control in Afghanistan. The mere fact that a group of relatively privatized individuals were able to connect all the necessary elements of the plot to covertly combat against soviet control established that a certain degree of track-two diplomacy. Granted Charlie Wilson and Gust Avrakotos both worked for the executive branch of the United States government as high ranking congressmen and CIA agent, respectively, they served as private individuals that used their abilities to connect the needed people together to allow the operation to happen. Having a patron of sorts, in Joanne Herring, allowed Charlie Wilson to financially allow for his action in the operation. She, by means of financial supremacy, was able to connect Charlie Wilson with the right people so that he could discuss the provisions of the operation. The funding also allowed Charlie Wilson to sway needed comrades, like representative Doc Long, and fly them over to see the refugee camps. My allowing certain individuals to get a personal experience and idea of the situation they were able to buy the needed support to get the initial funding.
ReplyDeleteSamuel Jones
Charlie Wilson’s War
ReplyDeleteWhat examples of the exercise of power do we witness in Charlie Wilson’s War?
First, Charlie’s ability to be able to go to Vegas and party with “drugies” without suffering in types of reprimand for his actions.
The ability for the United States to tap into a seemingly endless amount of wealth to help fund proxy wars, as well as our ability to be able to supply means in a way which is untraceable to us.
What types of war take place in the film?
The type of war fought was Proxy war on the behalf of the United States through the Mujahedeen of Afghanistan and Arab nationalities.
What types of security management do we see in the film?
Moving problems between departments.
Talking with other groups and entities to find a joint concern that they can then use to sway opinion to gain more wealth, or power to in turn react.
What biases might the story be subject to, or, what might this story be leaving out?
Hollywood abilty to take a true story and make it into a Hollywood production. Tom Hanks is also instrumental in this bias. As an actor, he can craft the roll into an objective viewpoint that can be influenced by what matters influence him. The writer is most likely from the same time period; therefore it isn’t hard to recreate what he/she would have been present for from the beginning. My bias, Phillip Seymour Hoffman probably one of my favorite actors of all time!
“You may be the sexiest woman ever. YOU are! Helen of Troy.” –Tom Hanks
This movie is why I want to run for office. ;)
What questions does the movie raise for you?
What was PSHoffman’s inspiration for the opening scene in the office with the problem of apologies being needed?
Did the Russian military really cover fields in “toy-mines” ? How was that not considered some type of violation of U.N. sanctions. This is why a global task force is useless- when they let things slip through the cracks. As American citizens, we are so naïve and childish. We are not exposed to the realities of how harsh the world is. Shame on us.
Why did the “slave-girl” for auction have to be a Tri-delt? Delta-delta-delta!
Although I enjoyed this movie, it raises an important question for me: why, after putting in so much effort to help the Afghans beat the Soviets, the US would not help rebuild basic infrastructure. This question is especially disconcerting when considering that the US knew very well the dire state Afghanistan was in. While it is true that the covert operation had lost most of its glamour by then and funding for the Afghans was no longer a priority, in the interest of national security, it would seem safer to help the Afghan people if just to be on better relations. Continual and barely opposed increases in the budget for the war make lack of funds seem like a very poor excuse.
ReplyDeleteThe movie sheds light on America and Pakistan’s exercise of power. The meeting between the Pakistani president and Congressman Wilson was a prime example of exercising power through diplomacy. The Pakistani President had one shot to sell Wilson on the need for American involvement, and he did it brilliantly. The Pakistani President understood words would be difficult to negotiate with and instead played on the emotions of Wilson by showing him the refugee camps and their tenants.
ReplyDeleteOn the other side, Wilson understood America would not come away from this conflict empty-handed. Helping Afghanistan defeat the Soviets would help end the growth of communism. The U.S. was able to exercise its power by exercising their economic power and provide Afghanistan with the necessary materials. Although the U.S. did not issue any additional sanctions against the U.S.S.R, the exercise of American power was obvious, as Pakistan knew it must turn to America in order to stop the Soviets.
This movie, "Charlie Wilson's War", gives information regarding the situation on funding the Afghani people with weapons in order to beat the Soviet Union and stop the growth of Communism. However, it also foreshadows what was to come in our age now. The story of the "Zinn Master" given in the movie is very telling because at the time, the raising for the funding of weapons seemed great because there was work at stopping Communism and Soviets,and it seemed we were helping a good cause in aiding the Afghani refugees who hads suffered at the hand of the Soviets. What the movie shows, I believe, when the actual "Zinn Master" story is told and a plane flies over, is the foreshadowing of terrorism that developed after there was no more funding and we did not finish the deal by rebuilding infrastructure with schools. As Bin Laden was a leader for the Mujahedeen, this proves true according to the movie.
ReplyDeleteDale Hutcherson
IS 100-01
With only the United States to blame for missing family members and increased violence in their home country, Afghanistan turned to the United States as an enemy. Instead of removing the weaponry from the Afghani Cold War when the United States was free of blame, they continued to fuel the Afghan Mujahideen instead of creating new education opportunities and institutions to benefit standards of living for citizens. Once again, the United States demonstrates their ability to involve themselves in an international debacle without cleaning up their mess
ReplyDeleteAt the end of Charlie Wilson's War, when it brought up Americas propensity to involve itself in activities, namely wars, fight and participate, and have the pattern of leaving without completing its assistance, that is where our nation fails. This aspect is where the movie fails to address the other international efforts post the Geneva Accords to assist Afghanistan thus directing blame automatically and theatrically to the United States for its future war efforts. Also the point of the Committee being overly ignorant manner as to not know the difference between Pakistan and Afghanistan in the briefing session was effectively offensive but considerably unnecessary. Also I question the true extent of an unlimited and secret fund that may go unmonitored and no representative would look to see its progression from 5 million up to 1 billion and not have had enough access to be able to ask questions.
ReplyDeleteAccording to how the war was portrayed in the movie, there are several types of war it can be identified as. First, it was an interstate war, because it was between the Soviet Union and Afghanistan, with occasional aid from other states. It was also a total war because the film contained scenes of Soviet helicopters shooting down civilians as they ran through the streets of their city. I am not positive if all weapons were used or all resources mobilized on the part of Afghanistan as it was unclear what resources were their own.
ReplyDeleteThe war was also asymmetrical, although this was truer at the beginning before the U.S. began lending serious support to the Afghanis. Prior to U.S. aid, there was a distinct disparity between the military capabilities of the Afghani and Soviet militias. Additionally, the war was conventional in the sense that the weapons used were predominantly guns and missiles. The only weapon I wasn’t sure could be classified as conventional were the land mines the Soviets used to target children, as that seemed to be more of a subversive tactic than flat out shooting someone.
Ella MacKinnon
After watching this movie it raised the question to me of what the purpose of intervention, military or peaceful, is if the country providing aid is only providing limited effort that is not enough to make direct and timely change. It also would have been a more interesting and leveled account if the soviet government had been portrayed as well.
ReplyDeleteShannon Todd
This attempt to contain the efforts of the Soviets could be seen as a proxy war from the point of view of the United States. The U.S. was able to attack the threats of communism through a third party, in this case, the Afghan military effort. Rather than fighting each other directly, the Americans and Soviets are involved in conflict with each other through Afghanistan.
ReplyDeleteRachael Ward
ReplyDeleteLimited vs. total war is an example of a type of war that took place in this film. The Soviet Army targeted civilians as well as members of the Afghan army (Mujahedeen) which is an example of total war. For me, this movie raised a question about authenticity versus Hollywood movie effects in reference to the story-line of the movie.