The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
I don't even have a problem with assisting the Mujahedin resist the Soviet Invasion...
As nanne points out, the reality was different from what most Americans believe - that the Soviets invaded and the US then provided military aid to the noble rebels:
Brzezinski: ... But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention. Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it? B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would. Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. http://globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html
Brzezinski: ... But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?
B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.
Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth.
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html
Cf.Robert Scheer:
The movie does not mention that the mujahedeen went to war against the Soviet-backed government then in power in Kabul after the government committed the unpardonable crime of allowing female students to attend rural schools. The film casually notes that Gen. Zia, the U.S. ally in this effort to bring "freedom" to Afghanistan, was, like so many of the movie's heroes, a hard case full of contradictions, as exemplified by his having murdered Pakistan's previous ruler, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Bhutto was, of course, the father of Benazir Bhutto, killed last week in Pakistan. What is not noted is that not only Zia but every ruler of Pakistan since him, including Benazir Bhutto, supported increasingly virulent forms of Islamic fanaticism in Afghanistan, ending with the Taliban and the al-Qaida terrorists who attacked America on 9/11, and that all rulers of Pakistan enthusiastically amplified the successful effort initiated by Benazir's now mythically beloved father to build an Islamic nuclear bomb. ... his time, the subject of our nation-building fantasy does have weapons of mass destruction and, thanks to our previous military sales of advanced jets, the means to deliver them. This time the blowback price of our incessant meddling could prove quite high. Even Tom Hanks can't put a pretty face on that one. http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080101_what_good_time_charlie_brought/
The movie does not mention that the mujahedeen went to war against the Soviet-backed government then in power in Kabul after the government committed the unpardonable crime of allowing female students to attend rural schools. The film casually notes that Gen. Zia, the U.S. ally in this effort to bring "freedom" to Afghanistan, was, like so many of the movie's heroes, a hard case full of contradictions, as exemplified by his having murdered Pakistan's previous ruler, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.
Bhutto was, of course, the father of Benazir Bhutto, killed last week in Pakistan. What is not noted is that not only Zia but every ruler of Pakistan since him, including Benazir Bhutto, supported increasingly virulent forms of Islamic fanaticism in Afghanistan, ending with the Taliban and the al-Qaida terrorists who attacked America on 9/11, and that all rulers of Pakistan enthusiastically amplified the successful effort initiated by Benazir's now mythically beloved father to build an Islamic nuclear bomb.
... his time, the subject of our nation-building fantasy does have weapons of mass destruction and, thanks to our previous military sales of advanced jets, the means to deliver them. This time the blowback price of our incessant meddling could prove quite high. Even Tom Hanks can't put a pretty face on that one.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080101_what_good_time_charlie_brought/
As to reason for the film's evasion of the connection to "the 9/11 thing" - from the alternet link you included:
Melissa Roddy, a Los Angeles film-maker with inside information from the Charlie Wilson production team, notes that the film's happy ending came about because Tom Hanks, a co-producer as well as the leading actor, "just can't deal with this 9/11 thing." http://www.alternet.org/story/73010/?page=2
Melissa Roddy, a Los Angeles film-maker with inside information from the Charlie Wilson production team, notes that the film's happy ending came about because Tom Hanks, a co-producer as well as the leading actor, "just can't deal with this 9/11 thing."
http://www.alternet.org/story/73010/?page=2
One bit of accuracy in the film relates to your comment about Charlie's angels:
Crile recounts with relish Wilson's partying. There are many anecdotes of his overseas travels, first-class at taxpayers' expense, accompanied by former beauty queens who seem to pop up at events in conservative Islamic countries wearing skintight jumpsuits.
The movie does not mention that the mujahedeen went to war against the Soviet-backed government then in power in Kabul after the government committed the unpardonable crime of allowing female students to attend rural schools
But it also suggests that maybe it's not so evident that you are justified in feeling that: "I don't even have a problem with assisting the Mujahedin resist the Soviet Invasion ..." when the regime the Soviets were supporting was trying to implement much more enlightened policies than the "Mujahedin" would allow - and, as Brzezinski admits, the US goaded the Soviets into invading and didn't care that this would create even more chaos, suffering and death in Afghanistan and help to power those with less enlightened attitudes. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
the US goaded the Soviets into invading
The Soviets were big boys and can take responsibility for their own actions.
Yes, we know, the important point is that most Americans still aren't aware of what really happened and would not be happy about they way they were misled at the time and subsequently, except in a few non-mainstream places.
They hardly invaded/entered Afghanistan to assist the education of girls.
Yes, obviously; this doesn't alter the fact that whatever their reasons and their own interests, nevertheless they were supporting a regime which was trying to introduce more enlightened policies. As John Stockwell, an ex CIA guy said of his experience in Africa: "If you wanted to get rid of an oppressive dictator you couldn't come to us, you could go to the Soviets" - who did support various liberation movements (no, not just out of pure altruism) in various places, e.g. Vietnam, Cuba. The latter supported (pretty altruistically) the liberation movement in Angola - it was Stockwell's job to spread lies about it and the Cubans to the media - e.g. a Cubans rape nuns story which he invented.
But the idea of getting the Soviets out of Afghanistan is not, of itself, so outrageous given the brutality of their occupation.
Compared with what - the brutality of the US occupation of Vietnam ? Or the brutality of the regimes the US backed in Chile, El Salvador, Guatemala, etc., etc. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
Compared with what - the brutality of the US occupation of Vietnam ? Or the brutality of the regimes the US backed in Chile, El Salvador, Guatemala, etc., etc.
Compared with leaving the rival tribal factions to fight each other with ancient rifles, whether over education policies or just because they are rival tribes. The Soviet Union never provided effective aid to to Latin American liberation movements and progressive governments regarding Latin America to be within the American Sphere of influence. The US was suppose to recognise Afghanistan as being within he Soviet sphere of influence - according to the cold war rulebook. The US never attempted to invade Afghanistan directly in recognition of this principle. That is why their actions there had to be covert. Index of Frank's Diaries
Compared with leaving the rival tribal factions to fight each other with ancient rifles, whether over education policies or just because they are rival tribes.
Seems you just forgot that the US hadn't left the rival factions to fight it out. Had it done so, the SU might not have invaded and the regime might have survived and implemented the more enlightened policies. The people might have been spared the Taliban and the subsequent war - and the recent return of the Taliban to power in some areas - where they continue the oppression of women - amongst other things.
The Soviet Union never provided effective aid to to Latin American liberation movements and progressive governments regarding Latin America to be within the American Sphere of influence.
Of course they did help Cuba - a far better regime in general than the typical dictatorship the US had no problem supporting for all the rhetoric about freedom and democracy. That nearly precipitated WWIII, so it's not surprising the SU didn't help other liberation movements. Of course this didn't stop the US from lying about it - as in the supposed Soviet migs to Nicaragua, an invention which got on western media front pages. The later correction (if given) buried deep inside.
The US was suppose to recognise Afghanistan as being within he Soviet sphere of influence - according to the cold war rulebook. The US never attempted to invade Afghanistan directly in recognition of this principle. That is why their actions there had to be covert.
In other words they ignored the principle by what they actually did, and the means were chosen in order to hide what they were doing from their own citizens - how very principled. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
by Frank Schnittger - Dec 3 2 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Dec 2 2 comments
by gmoke - Nov 28
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 21 10 comments
by gmoke - Nov 12 6 comments
by Oui - Dec 716 comments
by Oui - Dec 5
by Frank Schnittger - Dec 32 comments
by Oui - Dec 214 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Dec 22 comments
by Oui - Dec 26 comments
by Oui - Dec 112 comments
by Oui - Dec 14 comments
by Oui - Nov 306 comments
by Oui - Nov 289 comments
by Oui - Nov 276 comments
by gmoke - Nov 26
by Oui - Nov 268 comments
by Oui - Nov 26
by Oui - Nov 2513 comments
by Oui - Nov 2318 comments
by Oui - Nov 22
by Oui - Nov 222 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 2110 comments