Congressman Charlie Wilson’s war is finally over
|
Charlie Wilson, former US congressman, died overnight near his home in east Texas, at the age of 76. Wilson spent 24 years in the house of representatives, but even so his name would hardly ring a bell with many readers were it not for the 2007 film Charlie Wilson’s War, which dramatised his role in promoting US support for the anti-Soviet resistance in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Films always take liberties with the truth, and it probably suited Hollywood’s politics to focus on Wilson, a Democrat, rather than the Republican administration of the time. But it seems as if Wilson really was the larger-than-life figure that the film portrayed: notorious as a heavy drinker and womaniser, sometimes impetuous and wrong-headed, but passionate about the causes he supported and highly effective in building political support for them. In the short term, the war that Wilson supported was strikingly successful: armed with American money and weaponry, the Afghan resistance tied down a large Soviet occupying force, and eventually secured Soviet withdrawal in 1989. It was one of the defining moments of the end of the Cold War, just as the fall of Saigon 14 years earlier had marked the high point of Soviet power. But the backwash has been awful. The Soviet-backed government gave way not to a peaceful and democratic Afghanistan but to an endless civil war between shifting alliances of extremist factions. In 2001, the then Taliban government’s support for al-Qaeda drew the US back into the war, this time with troops on the ground against the fundamentalists (later joined by Australia among others), and in due course it got bogged down in much the same way that the Soviets had. The analogies with Vietnam don’t stop there. In neither case was the war really about the welfare of the country concerned: even in the 1980s it was reasonably clear that the Afghans were better off under Soviet rule than under any likely alternative, and the American-backed governments in South Vietnam, although corrupt and authoritarian, were vastly preferable to what succeeded them. But even strategically there wasn’t very much at stake. Although there was occasional talk about using it as a springboard to warm-water ports in Baluchistan, Afghanistan was never really any use to the Soviets, and America had plenty of other bases in south-east Asia. The Soviets ended up using Vietnam more as a counter to the Chinese than to the US. In each case, the war was really about prestige. America was deeply traumatised by defeat in Vietnam, and the drive to strike a similar blow at the Soviets fed its support for the Afghan fundamentalists. The result was blood and chaos in Afghanistan but also, indirectly, the fall of the Soviet empire and freedom for many millions in eastern Europe. Charlie Wilson could claim a share of the credit for both. |
|
|
|
12 Comments
Old Charlie Wilson hasn’t been laughing for a while now. And with a mild arrogance, Mr Richardson has left out the key thing that’s actually going on in Afghanistan now - a proxy war between India and China. Who both do have a strategic interest, big time, but couldn’t give a fig about the Afghanis.
Interesting, if brief, article. Another similarity is the bombing by pilotless drones in Pakistan, compared with the equally senseless and misdirected bombing of Cambodia. Not sure that I would say that the South Vietnamese government following the US invasion was better than its successor. Although the succeeding communist government doubtless had many of its immediate actions influenced by the very bloody and merciless US involvement in their country. Of course the US involvement in Afghanistan follows exactly the same model. Slow learners, the Yanks, aren’t they.
India certainly has a long-running interest in Afghanistan, basically backing the opposite side to whoever the Pakistani secret service is supporting at the time, but I haven’t seen much information on Chinese involvement - would you care to elaborate on that?
Hollywood is not the only one to rewrite history. Mr Richardson’s understanding of Afghan history also falls short. US President Jimmy Carter signed a presidential directive in the late 1970s after urging by his national security adviser Brzezinski who in turn was pursuing a policy created by Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Perle (who later turned up with the same policies for Iraq).
The aim was to undermine the Afghan government of the day who had the temerity to want universal literacy, equal rights for women, the right for trade unions to exist, and a minimum wage. They also started a poppy reduction program. The aim was to draw the Soviet Union in to give it, in Brzezinski’s words, “its own Vietnam”. That the country would be destroyed in the process, and that the Islamic fundamentalists would gain considerable power did not seem to bother the Americans.
When the Taliban government was finally established amid the wreckage of the post-Soviet withdrawal the americans were perfectly happy to tolerate them, even so far as paying the government’s wage bill. That cosy arrangement fell apart when the Taliban government refused to agree to Bush’s ultimatum regarding the routing of a gas pipeline from the Caspian Basin to the Indian Ocean.
That happened in June 2001 and Bush gave the approval to attack immediately after. There is no credible evidence that al Qaeda were behind the attacks on 11 September 2001. The Taliban offered to give up bin Laden to an independent international tribunal for trial if the Bsuh administration could provide proof of his involvment in 9/11. Colin Powell promised a White paper but was forced to withdraw that the following day.
The invasion, which incidentally has no basis in international law, was followed by the establishment of American bases along the proposed pipeline route, a massive increase in heroin production from which the Americans and their warlord allies are the chief beneficiaries, and the ongoing destruction of yet another country in America’s pursuit of full spectrum dominance.
There are many tragedies arising out of this war, not the least of which is Australia’s supine complicity with American imperialism and the almost total absence of rational and informed debate.
Pakistan is the Chinese proxy to contain India. Weapons, energy, aid, etc. India is supporting the Afghan government. China and India see each other as present and future rivals on a grand scale.
JO’Neill - spot on, esp the customarily, studiously ignored fact of amerikan meddling to draw the Soviets in during the Carter years.
Yes, it’s quite true that the US were trying to draw the Soviets in to over-extending themselves as early as the Carter years - I’m not sure what I’m supposed to have said that’s inconsistent with that. But incompetence and factional infighting among the Afghan communists also did a lot to provoke fundamentalist resistance and led the Soviets to send in their own troops.
Re China, yes, I can see why it would be in China’s strategic interest to support the Taliban, I’m just not aware of any evidence that they’re actually doing so.
I thought it was a good article; just watched CW’s War the other day too. Thought it a good film and was surprised to find that Tom Hanks can still act.
I think the somewhat sad thing about all this is the ‘best intentions’ side of the argument. It seemed (from the movie, everything I know I learnt from Hollywood) that CW had genuinely good intentions in Afghanistan. Problem is, some others in power recognised his good intentions and manipulated them to meet their own outcomes.
Everything fair in love and war? Probably more like caveat emptor.
Sorry, someone has to say it: “no credible evidence that al Qaeda were behind the attacks on 11 September 2001”? Pull the other one!
As for the original article, I think the USSR did have a strategic interest in shoring up its southern frontier. A Islamist state would have been likely to stir up militancy among Soviet Muslims, which is similar to what has happened. In addition, they seem to have been reluctant to go in, turning down an early request for aid.
Mr Clugston: If you have evidence as opposed to assertion that al qaeda was behind the 11 September attacks I and many others would be glad to receive it. The FBI doesn’t think so. The Bush administration never produced any evidence. The Blair government produced a document that they admitted would not stand up in a court of law. The Australian government doesn’t trouble itself with old fashioned notions like evidence before waging war. Howard addressed the Australian Defence Association and said ther was “no doubt” al qaeda were behind the 9/11 attacks. Just as he was equally untroubled by doubt when telling the Australian parliament that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
My great hope is that someday people like Bush, Blair and Howard will be held accountable for waging illegal wars causing untold misery to millions. But I suppose that is too much to hope for when they can rely on people who prefer to assert beliefs rather examine the evidence, or lack thereof as the case may be.
As for the omniprescent al qaeda, perhaps you can explain to us how they managed to plant large quantities of highly secret nano-thermite into the WTC 1, 2 and 7 buildings (see Open Journal of Chemistry and Physics April 2009), persuade the US Air Force to stand down from normal procedures, and get the 9/11 Commission (not to mention NIST) to publish reports that make even the Warren Commission look good by comparison.
Well, there was a video clip in which Osama bin Laden was seen discussing his role in the attacks.
If you’re alleging that the US Government committed mass murder on its own soil, my question is why. The complacent public and malleable media would have gone along with a war drive on a much flimsier pretext - as in Iraq.
I do agree, however, that the existence of a worldwide “al Qaeda” organisation is rather dubious.
Niall,
There are grave doubts over the authenticity of those late 2001 videos. See Griffin’s book: Osama bin laden: Dead or Alive (2009).
There are even more doubts about the post-2001 videos as the weight of evidence suggests that he died on or about 16 December 2001.
As to why the Americans staged their own spectacular on 9/11? It was above all a psy-op justifying not only another war but a huge range of repressive policies at home and abroad. But the central question is the destruction of the towers. Nano-thermite is a military grade substance developed in American labs. You cannot buy it on ebay. Nor can just anyone get access to the buildings which in the case of WTC7 was highly secure.
Even NIST admitted the WTC7 building fell in freefall for 2.5 of its 6.8 second collapse. Even a passing acquaintance with physics tells you that is literally impossible UNLESS something removed the floors below the levels of collapse. We know from the April 2009 paper I cited earlier that “something” was nano-thermite.
It is more than of passing significance that the mainstream media refuse to publish or discuss this aspect. Unless and until we base our discussion on the evidence we are doomed to be trapped in endless wars on behalf of American interests.