Talk:Charlie Wilson's War (film)

Historical accuracy?

Does the film depict the USSR as blood thirsty monster bent on destruction (thank you hollywood) or a reluctant country that was begged by two succeeding Afghan presidents for assistance against the religious zealots? Many experts believe that it was not a Soviet invasion since the Afghan government begged them to come in and supperess the religious fanatics. It is rather an incursion. (The US going into Iraq (both times) was an invasion.)

Furthermore some picture of puported Soviet Aircarft shooting features F16 and Huey helicopters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boulvard (talk • contribs) 18:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC) -G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.148.150 (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The former --Dmitry Dzhus (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC).

Context

Someone named "Carter" is referred to out of context. This should be fixed or the reference to "Carter" removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.31.218 (talk) 04:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

"Carter himself"

In the last section of this page a sentence reads "... Carter himself ..." Why is the "himself" there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.124.118 (talk) 08:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It is to emphasize the fact that "Carter himself" expressed his beliefs...not spoken via his administration or a third party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.69.60 (talk) 11:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Article for Book vs. Movie

Common form is to have a separate article for the film and the book. Perhaps we should split the articles now.

Unsourced quotes

There's no source provided for the Brzezinski quote other than the rather vague "1998 interview with Le Nouvel Observateur."

Not reading French, I can't look for this on the Le Nouvel Observateur site, but I found what claims to be an English translation of the interview, which it says is from Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998. There's also an interesting brief piece from The Nation (Nov 12, 2001) that seeks to provide context for the interview. Shandaken (talk) 04:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Citations for use

I haven't the time to flesh it out myself, but these may be of possible use in any production/development section:

• Sorkin goes from White House to front line (Sorkin writing)
• Playtone goes to 'War' with U (general info).
• Playtone marches into 'Sunlight' (mentions John Orloff as original screenwriter).
• Morrywood' lures more o'seas prod' (about filming in Morocco).
• U enlists top soldier (general production and casting info).
• Other useful links include the Google News search results for the film (covering everything from the past month), and the Google News Archive, covering dates older than a month.

Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 13:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Is Sally Field in this movie? If not then the trivia section seems irrelevant or at least misplaced. CoW mAnX (talk) 04:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Historical context

This movie may have some comedic and saterical components, but it is also a snap shot of a part of history and based on real events, so it's important that this history (some of which is in the movie, some of which is not) be included, especially because many people interested in the film are very possibly unaware of it and because the plot is placed within that historical context. If this section is larger than what I added, it could possibly justify a section at the bottom of the page. There was such a paragraph dealing with the fact that this policy of aiding guerrilla armies--whatever one thinks of it--was more a Republican creation than a Democrat one, and that Carter ultimately distanced himself from it. ObjectivityAlways (talk) 16:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• This should be completely reworded or at best reference other articles in that case. That has everything to do with political party history and nothing to do with the film. Plus, as it is obvious to anyone who has actually seen the film that the Republican support was essential for Wilson. This section should be redone as "Further Reading" with links to other different Wikipedia articles on the events.

"Republican support was essential for Wilson"? That may be, but that hardly makes the movie fair. If the Investor's Business Daily is to be believed, Wilson, to his credit, "did play a role in facilitating support to the Afghan mujahadeen. But it is he who should be the historical footnote." Indeed, "you have at least five players, including Reagan, involved — four of them Republican conservatives. … It was Ronald Reagan, not Charlie Wilson, who gave the order to provide the mujahadeen with the Stinger missiles that denied the Soviet air supremacy and turned the tide of battle after 1986. Yet in the movie, the likes of Dan Rather and Diane Sawyer (director Mike Nichols' wife) are more prominently mentioned." IBD's conclusion: "Hollywood would have us believe that Democrats defeated the evil empire in Afghanistan, and that President Reagan played only a minor role and even helped pave the way to 9/11." Kyle Smith has more head-shakin' from the conservative side. Asteriks (talk) 14:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

"Carter's National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski has stated that the U.S. effort to aid the mujahideen was preceded by an effort to draw the Soviets into a costly and presumably distractive Vietnam War-like conflict."

This is incorrect - the article states that US 'effort to draw the Soviets into a costly and presumably distractive Vietnam War-like conflict' preceded Soviet intervention rather than preceded aid to the mujahideen. This is an important distinction as according to Brzezinski 'Official CIA history' and the film both portray aid to mujahideen as a response to, rather than the cause of, Soviet intervention.

"In a 1998 interview with the French news magazine Le Nouvel Observateur, Brzezinski recalled: "We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would... That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Soviets into the Afghan trap... The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter, "We now have the opportunity of giving to the Soviet Union its Vietnam War." "

A better quote would be the preceding response to Nouvel Observateur's questions -

"According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. 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."

As for the references, I have already added the link to the original Nouvel Observateur article in French. Pacificbiblio (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, this whole "draw the USSR into a Vietnam-like quagmire" had been gnawing at American movers & shakers for years. Whereas the movie cites this idea as being the personal policy of Harold Holt, ambassador to Pakistan, Steven Coll in his Ghost Wars book credits CIA director Casey; writing that Casey, a devout Jesuit & anti-communist, viewed the mujaheddin war with the Red Army as a holy war of sorts & the mujaheddin as "crusaders."

So contrary to the movie, if Coll is believed, the Soviets' Vietnam was indeed (unofficial) CIA policy. 138.162.128.54 (talk) 12:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Rudy Giuliani

I agree with RenniePet, that including Giuliani in the See Also section will need some amplification. He isn't mentioned in this text. "Charlie Wilson" (and related) aren't mentioned in his text. Without some connecting context, the reference is gratuitous. In fact, of the five obvious articles I checked, none of them mention an investigation of Wilson (or Wilson's activities, or activities related to Wilson) by Guiliani. - Thaimoss (talk) 12:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

By chance, I found a reference to Rudy Giuliani in connection to Charlie Wilson. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/21/AR2007122102520_3.html

But I think that if it should be used it would make more sense to use it on the Charles Wilson (Texas politician) article.

Don't feel motivated to do anything with it myself. --RenniePet (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• It also would benefit the article, if there was clarification of the timeframe that Charlie Wilson is investigated by Rudy Giuliani. It seems unlikely that Giuliani in his capacity as US District Attorney for the Southern District of New York (which is New York City) would have any interest, reach, authority or ability to investigate a US Congressman located in Washington DC and Texas. However, he was a Justice Department official in DC and led a drug investigation prior to this so maybe that is where his focal point of interest may have occurred. But for accuracy's sake that may be available in the book this movie is based on and less clear in the film.Stevenmitchell (talk) 12:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The Hot tub scene and Dan Rather

I recently saw the movie and thought that opening bit with the hot tub, the girls and Wilson's reaction to seeing Dan Rather on TV reporting in full native dress from Afghanistan should certainly be added. I also did some editing clean up to fit things in better. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Historical footage accuracy

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this, but the montage of aircraft being shot down after the Afghans are given stingers shows quite a few historical videos. Aside from the CGI Hinds and one shot of a Soviet Mig taking off, I think every other piece of footage shows American aircraft being shot down. I counted: an A-6 Intruder, an F-4 Phantom, an F-16 Falcon, and a Huey Helicopter being shot down. None of these were used by the Soviets. I'll leave it to someone more talented than myself to incorporate this into the article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.4.31 (talk) 02:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Duration and Statistics

I think it would be appropriate for all movie entries to have as a minimum the duration, and where possible other statistics about the movie.--Gciriani (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Status in Egypt

citation needed there...

Title

The title ought to be "Charlie Wilson's War (the film)" and not merely "Charlie Wilson's War." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.150.48.222 (talk) 19:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Geoff B, You Need To Think Critically

Brzezinski has repeatedly claimed that the French interview was inaccurate and a fabrication. You're saying that that is IRRELEVANT? You're saying that that should not be mentioned, period, at all; and that to MENTION it would be to inject BIAS into an OBJECTIVE article? Come clean. You then say that the entire claim must be deleted because the source used was Brzezinski's interview with the Real News on YouTube? You say YouTube doesn't count, eh? But, but...there you can SEE and HEAR Brzezinski denying the truth of the alleged interview. The interview you believe in, by contrast, bizarrely does not have a recording to back up its (allegedly fabricated) transcript, but you say it must be referred to in such a manner as to insinuate that Brzezinski himself actually SUPPORTS the claims it ascribes to him. The reason you do this, obviously, is to say that GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS endorse your conspiracy theories proudly and publicly (they do not); so, therefore, they MUST be true--even if there is no evidence to support them (because the secret cabal hid the records, right?). Wikipedia is not the place for conspiracy theories, and certainly your efforts to politicize this movie article are in poor taste. But you are free to do so if you wish. No one has deleted your sourced arguments. But you feel the urge to delete any sourced arguments that contradict your beliefs. In any case; in addition to YouTube, I have linked to a transcript of the Brzezinski interview and restored what you deleted.

The notion that we armed the jihadists prior to the invasion is simply untrue. That's why even the French interview only implies but never dares to explicitly state that we did so. This is a factual matter of public record. It's indisputable. The documentary evidence, open to all, cannot be contested. What you MEAN to say is that for a few months prior to the invasion, in response to the Soviet deployment; we began covertly sending financial aid to the Afghan rebels (we had been spreading anti-Communist propaganda throughout Afghanistan and Pakistan since 1978). The official story, which Brzezinski, Vance, Gates and Carter all publicly support; is that we were hoping to deter a Soviet invasion by creating a situation in which we could credibly threaten to arm the Afghans if they moved in. I'm not saying that this aid COULD NOT POSSIBLY have done anything to increase the chances of a Soviet invasion--you're free to cite any sources that claim it did, and post them here--but it was not intended to do so, or, if it was; Brzezinski would disagree with you (as would Gates, Carter, and Vance). You might say: "Well, maybe they're lying when they deny such an intent!" MAYBE THEY ARE--but it would be wrong to try and mislead everyone into thinking that Brzezinski publicly endorses that position. He does not. You're free to disbelieve him; but not to distort his actual words.

One last matter: The Pakistanis had been asking us for arms for the rebels since the mid-seventies. They told us that they HOPED TO DETER A SOVIET INVASION with such arms, emphasizing that they might be next if the Russians took Kabul.

I have also added to the article quotes taken directly from the documents that authorized the covert funding program prior to the invasion, so that people can see for themselves what was approved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.63.52.12 (talk) 01:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You need to stop overusing capital letters. YouTube is not a reliable source. I don't know what the rest of your rant is on about, quite frankly. You appear to have some sort of political axe to grind. I'm here to edit an encyclopaedia.

A point by point rebuttal.

• Brzezinski has repeatedly claimed that the French interview was inaccurate and a fabrication. You're saying that that is IRRELEVANT? - No, I'm saying you have to source it. That's the rule, here on Wikpedia.
• You then say that the entire claim must be deleted because the source used was Brzezinski's interview with the Real News on YouTube? You say YouTube doesn't count, eh? - No, just that YouTube is not a reliable source on Wikipedia.
• The interview you believe in - I don't believe or disbelieve it. Never read it. AFAIK, it is a reliable source.
• The reason you do this, obviously, is to say that GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS endorse your conspiracy theories proudly and publicly (they do not); so, therefore, they MUST be true--even if there is no evidence to support them (because the secret cabal hid the records, right?) - This seems to be some sort of political POV or outright lunacy on your part.
• But you feel the urge to delete any sourced arguments that contradict your beliefs. - You appear to be tarring me with your POV brush. I deleted your additons because you didn't have any reliable sources.
• What you MEAN to say - I am not saying anything.

Try not putting words in other people's mouths next time. Geoff B (talk) 11:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

And your inability to spell the word "encyclopedia" is just yet another sign of your dedication to the cause. If I thought you actually believed what you just said; I'd feel sorry for you. But in this instance; you clearly are a liar who knows he's lying. Why else would you respond to my charge that you lack neutrality with such a phony expression of "why, gee whiz and golly!-- you're accusing ME of being biased? Well, uh...I know YOU are but what am I?!?" There's a reason Wikipedia is the only encyclopedia that covers this kind of territory. Anyone can edit it; even hippies like Geoff B. But I'm certainly fine with the neutral way this article is currently composed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.63.52.12 (talk) 12:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Taking issue with my spelling (which is correct for my variant of English), won't distract anyone from the fact that you've had to sink to POV and name-calling in a vain effort to make a point. In future, source your edits, or they'll be removed, just like last time. Geoff B (talk) 12:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

What names have I called you? What sourced arguments have I deleted due to my personal disagreement with them? "In [the] future, source your edits, or they'll be removed, just like [the] last time"--But they weren't removed. You've stopped trying to delete them now that I've posted a transcript of the interview that you've been unable to find any slight problem with so as to disqualify it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.63.52.12 (talk) 12:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Scratch that. I did call you a hippy.75.63.52.12 (talk) 12:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

POV problems, personal attacks, sourcing issues. You won't last long on here. Geoff B (talk) 13:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Composite Characters?

Why are Wilson and Avrakotos noted as being composite characters? They were real people. DFS (talk) 03:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

"Stu"

Who was "Stu" supposed to be? A senior advisor? The majority whip? The senior house member from the Texas Caucus? Someone on the DNCC? Does he represent an actual person, and if so, who? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.147.210 (talk) 02:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Stu is apparently lawyer Stuart F. Pierson, who claims to have represented Charlie Wilson in various federal investigations. http://morvillolaw.com/attorneys_SP.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.19.109.70 (talk) 01:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Historical context (again)

It seems to me that this section is entirely too long. This article is about a Hollywood film, which is a somewhat fictionalized account of historical events. As such, much of what occurs in the film is going to be inaccurate or dramatized. We do not need a long section relating the events of those years. A short, well-referenced, section about the differences between the film and the book it was based on, would be better than this section. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 16:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Afghan president killed

This section "Though some have argued that US financial assistance to Afghan dissidents, including Islamic and other militants, prior to the invasion; along with a Soviet desire to protect the leftist Afghan government, helped convince the Russians to intervene, the Russians brutally murdered the Afghan President and his son, replacing him with a puppet regime, immediately after the invasion for fear that the US had secretly been collaborating with him.[31]" is not borne out in the cited reference. No mention is made in it of the Afghan president or his murder. -- 86.85.78.174 (talk) 07:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Composite characters claim

I have removed all information from the cast section claiming that some of the characters are composites. There is no production section in this article, hence no section that discusses the writing of the script, and what changes were made from the book. As far as I can tell, there is no source quoted anywhere in the article that backs up the claim that these characters are composites. Such a claim should not be made without a source, and if it is made, it should be done in a proper production section with details. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 14:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

No book article?

Is there seriously no article on the book?! I can't find one (I did a google search, too). That would make me a sad panda. Byelf2007 (talk) 30 August 2012

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Charlie Wilson's War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050310111109/http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/24-318760.html to http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/24-318760.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080402231956/http://lesaucoin.squarespace.com:80/journal/2008/1/2/the-war-within-charlie-wilson.html to http://lesaucoin.squarespace.com/journal/2008/1/2/the-war-within-charlie-wilson.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)