Watched the film War Machine with Brad Pitt the younger and it left me a bit confused (not least you are saying, as you aren't putting it in the appropriate "just watched" thread, but in your self-obsessed bollocks thread, well there is more to this than a film report, so hold on). The confusion arises mainly from Pitt's performance vis-à-vis everybody else in the film, he seems to have been given a completely different MO, something along the lines of "Gurn like Popeye and move around like you have only just taken possession of your body".
I don't know much about US Generals, but just from my memories of "Stormin Norman" of desert-storm fame, they do tend to walk like a parody of John Wayne, and this film is a satire, in parts.
Ben Kingsley plays the part of Hamid Karzai for laughs but almost sweetly and Tilda Swinton's German heckler is brilliant, so why didn't they tone down Brad? Maybe he was going through some personal grief and they didn't want to get in his face, but he was awful.
The combat mission is played orthodox and stands in stark contrast to BP's buffoonery and makes you wonder if they could have made a more worthwhile film if he had played it straighter or they had given the part to an actor. It's worth watching for the message, what are we doing invading countries when we have a wealth of history to prove it's a bad idea.
There is one scene when some guy is explaining to Brad/Popeye why the Afghans are growing Opium rather than cotton, and it's here I would like to take a bit of a detour.
The official/standard reasons for invasions of Afghanistan are political. Anglo-Russo expansion for the 1st British invasion in the 1840's (We lost 16,000 soldiers and camp followers in the "Great shame" and then left killing a lot of Afghan's on the way). The same for the 2nd invasion in the 1880's, but with an agreement not to return if they played ball.
Helping a fellow communist government against rebels, Soviet-Afghan war (1980's), and finally the pursuit of Bin-laden after 9/11 in 2001.
Perhaps, but all these invasions of a country steeped in war, impossible to hold and destined to be a disaster, why here?
What if it was all about the opium, I know you have a war on drugs but the moment the US declares a war on things they tend to increase (see war on terror), now when we went in, we were exporting opium to China in vast amounts which precipitated 2 opium wars that coincided with the dates we had invaded Afghanistan.
We know the CIA and by implication the US government were involved in the cocaine trade in central America, what better way to get money and keep your underprivileged compliant, and here's the kicker. In early 2001, the Taliban destroyed the opium crop (
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/apr/01/internationalcrime.drugstrade), then later that year they get invaded and boom, since then the opium harvest has not only been re-established but has grown (see graph), despite the war on drugs, and heroin use has increased 5 fold in the US, perhaps the whole thing is designed to get the right people in place to guarantee this lucrative trade as the Taliban had become undependable, just a thought.
Either way, Brad Pitt should be shot, but the film isn't all bad.
UNODC 2016