How Can Tom Hanks Believe in 'Charlie Wilson's War' But Endorse Obama?

 

NOW THAT 'CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR' has made it to RedBox, Crabby finally got to view the little movie this weekend. In case you've missed it, the film turns international hegemony into political cartoon while retelling how one Texas Congressman helped Afghanis turn the tide against their Soviet invaders. The flick stars Tom Hanks, one of La La Land's most likable leading men, as the Congressman, and Julia Roberts, looking every bit the scary "social x-ray" intent on fighting communism. Also appearing is Philip Seymour Hoffman, as usual handing in a pitch-perfect performance as a CIA operative.

Briefly, the movie recounts in broad strokes how Charlie Wilson raised Congressional support to covertly fund Afghanistan's battle against invading Soviet forces. Yet the film wryly suggests that the U.S. erred by failing to invest in the country's rehabilitation after succeeding in forcing out the Soviets.

One of the movie's last scenes shows Hoffman's character warning the Congressman that kooks were moving in to Afghanistan, and that investing in the country's schools and businesses was crucial to keeping peace. Hanks' Texan dutifully seeks $1 million for a new Afghani school but fails to win funding. Cut to black screen with a quote from Wilson: "These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world..., and then we fucked up the endgame."

All of which surprises me because it sounds as though the movie points the finger at the U.S. for not investing in a country whose infrastructure had been destroyed by invading forces. Which begs the question: If we are the invaders who have razed a country's infrastructure, a la Iraq, should we not commit to rebuilding it? If we are serious about wanting to bring peace to one of the most volatile region of the world, ought we not be prepared to spend billions creating schools and roads and government? Are we not, in fact, stuck there for a while, even if not the "100 years" that Senator John McCain envisioned possibly necessary during a town hall meeting in New Hampshire in January?

The media -- as well as Senator Barack Obama -- jumped all over McCain's remark, implying that the Vietnam war hero was all too glad to continue the bloodshed in Iraq. Obama has made his resistance to the Iraq War a centerpiece of his campaign, but as Joseph Wilson points out, his position was forged as a Congressional candidate representing Illinois' most liberal district. To Obama's credit, his recoil at the idea of war, whether innate or political, came at a time that mainstream media was spoonfeeding us the necessity of this war. Crabby, too, had bought into it after watching the parade of experts, including the New York Times' Thomas Friedman and Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria, explore the the potential upside of war night after night on Charlie Rose.

As typical for the media and political opponents, McCain's January remark was taken out of context. McCain followed his "100 years" comment with these words:"We’ve been in South Korea, we’ve been in Japan for sixty years. We’ve been in South Korea for fifty years or so. That’d be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it’s fine with me. I would hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day."

Yet while stumping, Obama claimed McCain wanted to keep the war going for another century. Even the Columbia Journalism Review, hardly an apologist for Right Wingers, scolded Obama for distorting McCain's words, writing that "he’s gone from lying about what McCain said to being deeply misleading about it."

On May 3rd, Tom Hanks endorsed Obama for president in a homemade video posted on his Myspace.com page that has gotten modest attention. I wonder: Does Hanks recognize that his endorsement contradicts the message of his latest movie?