Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Charlie Wilson's Peace?




The man whose adopted mission to save Afghanistan from the Soviet incursion in the 1980s spawned the notion of "Afghan freedom fighters," a book and a Hollywood movie (Charlie Wilson's War) now says we need to get the heck out of Dodge.


In an interview with the Pennsylvania paper, Wilson said he advocates a "calculated withdrawal" of American troops from the country, "rather than lose a lot of soldiers and treasure."


On the eight-year anniversary of the beginning of the war in Afghanistan and during the heated debate in Washington over whether President Obama should commit more American troops to the region, Wilson's words are incredibly significant. While many have argued recently that the war is unwinnable because Afghanistan is one of the most indomitable countries on the planet, hearing a passionate defender of the Afghan peoples' right to self-govern say we should pull out is starkly different from typical anti-war sentiment.


Wilson's reasoning is that we cannot beat the people we are fighting in Afghanistan:

"I'd rather take on a chain saw," Mr. Wilson said. "They're the world's best foot soldiers, best warriors. And they're fearless.
"They're fearless, and they've got nothing to lose. And they have a pretty serious hatred for those who try to occupy their country."


The thing is, he should know. After using his seat on the House of Representatives Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense to funnel funding through the CIA to supply Soviet-made weaponry to the mujahideen, who fought alongside Osama bin Laden among others, both the lawmaker and the country rejoiced in withdrawal of Soviet troops from the country in 1989.


But Wilson doesn't let himself or his government off the hook for their collective lack of investment in nation-building at the time. According to the article, Wilson credits the failure to set up Afghanistan with an adequate governing body as the reason for the 9/11 attacks and the past eight years of brutal fighting coalition troops have seen there:

"We (screwed) up the end game," Mr. Wilson said. "It would have been very easy and done for a minuscule amount of money. We should have done the basic things for a backward country that's trying to come out of (a war) and have a reasonable hope of economic success."


The Times-Tribune interview comes ahead of a talk Wilson is scheduled to give Thursday at the Scranton Cultural Center, as part of the Lackawanna County Library System's ongoing lecture series. Wilson, at age 76, has cut back on public appearances in recent years after a heart transplant.

11 comments:

Andrew Jiang 8th said...

To be honest, I've never really cared much for the war in the Middle East, especially the one in Iraq. I thought that it was apparent that after almost a decade of fighting a war that is lasting longer than either World War, and having achieved far less than what was expected, that the war is something of a lost cause. Sure, we can pull it off if we work at it longer. We could probably be getting more done if we pumped in more troops. But it's clear that's not what America wants anymore. If people aren't past the point of tiredness now, they will be after another 5 years, when the War on Terror will have lasted longer than both World Wars combined.

Hearing Charlie Wilson, the man who orchestrated Afghan militancy against Russian forces, say we can't do it just adds more kindling to the fire. Of course, there's irony to be found in the fact that the Afghan military groups are probably still using the weapons the US helped supply them with against the US. I guess you could argue that Mr. Wilson is just one the big-wigs behind the scenes, and that nobody knows how capable these groups are at fighting better than our own soldiers. But I think our soldiers are getting tired of this too. An extended conflict like this only grows in violence and danger as time goes on, even with the government there slowly stabilizing. I just hope that President Obama is capable of handling this situation better than his predecessor.

benjaminrahman8 said...

I believe that Charlie Wilson did a good thing by leading the US to be a part of the war in Afghanistan. He kept the US's role as big brother alive by utilizing American help for the mujahideen against Soviet occupation. Many believe in a more laissez-faire role that the US should play. Although the problems of other countries don't directly affect us, the outcome of these problems can have an enormous impact on the world. Sitting and doing nothing can be just as bad as causing the problems. The US has helped numerous countries in times of need and has played an extremely important part in many of the wars. If the US had not intervened in Afghanistan, the mujahideen most likely would not have been able to defeat the Soviets and therefore would have allowed the Iron Curtain to spread even farther. Because the US did help the mujahideen, the Soviet's domination plans were thwarted. The US's actions may not have bettered our country, but they overall reaffirmed to the world that we are the most patriotic, bravest, and compassionate country in the world.

connor frankhouser 8 said...

After hearing Mr. Perry sing the praises of the film, Charlie Wilson's War, I must admit I went to Wal-Mart to purchase the movie. I then watched the movie,(in lieu of doing my economics homework)and found it to be a great film that was quite scintillating-ly historical, yet not boring. Without a doubt better than economics(sorry Mr. Perkins) Anyways the movie is worth a look if you like movies as I do....

Anyways I will now digress and say I must agree with Andrew, What has the fighting in the Middle East caused, besides needless bloodshed?
Exaxtly.
Hearing a knowledgeable source of Afghan affairs such as Mr. Wilson condemn the fighting over there should be a wake up call for change, but it seems most everyone is having an affair with the the snooze button and refuting reality.

user312 said...

The US has a tendency to drag wars out. We need to make some priorities in a set amount of time and accept defeat when need be.

I think it's kind of funny how Wilson describes Afghanistan's military as being, "the world's best foot soldiers, best warriors". It's like he's bragging about the men he armed.

David Huang 3 said...

As Mr. Wilson said the Afghanistan are the world's best foot soldiers, best warriors. And they're fearless.
They're fearless, and they've got nothing to lose. And they have a pretty serious hatred for those who try to occupy their country.
It is very clear that America is hard to win the controll of the country, therefore lose a alot of time and fundings.
Consider Mr.Wilson's words, maybe we shall withdraw more troops to, indeed, save more money and treasure.The fighting will last longer than we expected and lots of nation's money could be saved and put into more ecnomic usages to stablize the ecnomic crisis rather than meaningless fighting.

Benjamin Holmes 8 said...

I agree with Wilson. The situation in Afghanistan is simply too far gone. I don't think putting in more troops would be worth it. We just need to cut our loses, and get out before too many American troops die.

Amy said...

In my opinion the war in Iraq isn't really being fought for the rights of the Afghan people any more. I think the real purpose of the war is very clouded to the average American citizen, because the purpose changes so rapidly and often. As history has shown, if there is not a clear reason for fighting, then the war is not as likely to be successful. (Vietnam War)
I think that Charlie Wilson has really just lost interest in the war, because there have always been problems in the Middle East, and there always will be. It has been that way since Bible times.
The natives that we are fighting against also have the advantage of fighting on their own land. The principle in football applies to war, as well. They know the territory and have an advantage over the Americans, who aren't used to the terrain. I think Charlie Wilson has just become disappointed with the results of the war.
However I will continue to support American troops and our leader's decisions, even if I don't love every one. That's patriotism, plain and simple, in my opinion.

HafsaAhmad3rdPeriod said...

I think if we had listened to Charlie Wilson in the first place, then we would not be in the crisis that we are in now. After giving Afghanistan the supplies to defeat Russia, we should have helped Afghanistan reconstruct itself. The people that were left helpless are now vengeful towards America, and have organized themselves as terrorist groups, becoming one of the biggest threats to us today.

EricClark8th said...

I think what Mr. Wilson is saying is true. We do need to get out of Afghanistan, there is no way our forces can defend against the militia there. Our forces though very massive do not know the terrain like these stealthy soldiers, in which they could take out large quantities of our soldiers, when we could have stopped them from dying by stopping the war. This war will never end and the only thing we're getting done down there is killing more innocent soldiers who could be rejoicing with their families instead of mourning over there deaths.

Hollie Gurrola 8 said...

President Bush should have never sent troops to the middle east in the first place. The people of afghanistan and surrounding countries are never going to stop fighting amongst themselves and having our soldiers there just makes things worse. If they wanted a better democracy and economy they wouldnt be doing everything they can to destroy us. Now of course afgan people there that are killing are mostly part of their military and govt and the everyday citizens are innocent. But even still, there's nothing we could of done. This is why Obama has had such a hard time pulling troops out. He is now faced with the problem of either leaving our troops there to be killed or bringing our troops home and letting many middle easterns be wiped out. And the latter is what we went there for, to stop the war they were fighting amongst themselves. So i agree with Charlie Wilson; we should bring our soldiers home. Why have our troops be killed instead of theirs?

Sara H-Sabet 8th said...

The war in Afghanistan is becoming for Obama what Iraq was for bush... a political and military trap.Because even if support for the war is revived(which is not at all likely)it just means that the fighter in Afghanistan will double their efforts that much more. History has shown time and time again that incredibly difficult to conquer a force when their home is at stake and they have little to lose.
So Charlie Wilson is right it is going to be near impossible for the US to get everything it wants in this war.And he knows how well the fighters in Afghanistan can survive (after all many of them he helped finance when the soviets were in control of Afghanistan).