A lot can be said about Charlie Wilson's War, at least, it can be discussed from various angles. An added tidbit arises from the assassination of Bhutto, since the execution of her father was referenced in the movie. Another more amusing reference was to investigations that involved Wilson from that enthusiastic prosecutor, Rudy Giuliani. Other tidbits ... unlike some, I think Julia Roberts does a good job as a rich conservative fundraiser, Tom Hanks really does look like the real deal, and West Wing fans might enjoy to know the guy behind that wrote the screenplay.
I have yet to read the actual book -- the film is no documentary, though the accounts so far suggest it is fairly accurate as such things go. The book is pretty long, as is the time period (the better part of a decade), so the movie can at best give you an overall feel of the situation. And, it does a good job -- given the limitations of a Hollywood motion picture -- in doing so from various angles. The human face, the dangers of mixing religion into the conflict and aid, the dangers of "winning" but not worrying about the aftermath, and so forth. It's a superior piece of work, though not quite definitely must see good.
The true nature of the conflict and "Charlie Wilson's War" was obviously greatly compressed, which should be kept in mind, but such is often the nature of the medium. Before watching the film, h/t BTC News, I read this piece. The article suggests two core problems, but it is unfair to suggest the film is a sham because of them ... in fact, I think the article exaggerates them. And, it bears repeating, any film is likely to have some comparable decision (or many) that is worthy of criticism without ruining the overall work.
And, the article -- cited by others as suggested by the h/t -- really is based on one quick scene involving the funding of the rebels. The scene suggests the funds (at least the funds and training involved at that time) would go to one particular group, who another group doesn't much like (a tribal issue expressed by an off-color joke). The article is upset at the implication of tribal divisions leading to an inability of the different groups to form a united government, but the movie simply did not do that with a brief reference. Furthermore, there are tribal splits ... heck, in a fashion, we have them as well. This is so even if the reference was put in to make some group that might want to send that message happy.
More troubling, the article suggests the scene papers over the fact that our funding of the rebels led to money and arms going to less than savvy sorts, leading to the Taliban and so forth. First off, the movie -- notable particularly for a somewhat light (e.g., Wilson's "jailbait" sexy staff members) movie that surely is meant to be feel good overall (Soviets lost etc.) -- ends on a dark note. The CIA agent tells CW a parable about how certain acts might or might not be a good thing, depending on what comes next. And, we know what came next, don't we?
In fact, a bit of thought will suggest where some of those Taliban arms came from. The movie also had a scene where Wilson and the CIA agent looks on uncomfortably while another member of Congress riles up the locals in part with religious imagery. So, Tom Hanks might have said something about not wanting to bring up 9/11, but the movie makes it somewhat hard to not think about the general events. And, the fact that at one time, funds would be focused on one group does not mean no funds or arms would go to others. In fact, that is a bit ridiculous, since that one group could not defeat the Soviets by themselves.
And, the scene was quick. The movie in fact did not go into the particulars -- aside from the fact that it would be channeled covertly (leading to the locals being less likely to associate it with the U.S.) through Pakistan -- on how the funds and arms would be delivered. The one scene might have pleased some group, as suggested by the piece, but it really does not stick in your mind to any degree. Much more was spent dealing with a Jewish arms dealer, including some discussions while a (Baptist) belly dancer kept an official busy. The particulars are important, but I disagree that the film should be deeply criticized for "tricking" us.
I'm sure the film could have shown some more depth in various ways, but that article was at least somewhat misleading in its criticism. In context, the film actually deserves some praise, though one-sided (something implied by the very title) major motion pictures should be taken with a grain of salt. As someone who watched me wanted to know, how much of this was true? Enough to make it worthwhile and thought provoking, was my response.
The issue of aftermath and consequences alone is worth the price of admission. But, we learn that daily anyway, I guess.