Thoughts on Charlie Wilson's War and the Cold War in General

General Review

First, as a movie, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Hanks and Hoffman, in particular, gave outstanding performances. Their real life counterparts deserve credit for working hard and, on a required behind the scenes basis, to start a counteroffensive against the Communist thugs.

Some broad implications can and already have been drawn from the movie. To do these justice, some moral points and historical analysis are both necessary.

Primary Moral Point

The forthright, honorable US approach in Afghanistan would have been our open, direct military aid (no troops, except possibly some advisors) to the rebels. Of course, this would have "provoked" the Soviets. But, it would have been a welcome contrast to the convoluted, clandestine way in which arms were shipped to the Afghans. Apparently, there was some sucking up to the Saudis, to enlist their cooperation with the Israelis.

The Soviets were completely open about their overthrow of the existing government and invasion. They were equally open about using Castro's troops for Angola and other military operations. If our government was morally armed, there would have been no qualms about direct US military aid, which would have been in our self interest.

Other Moral Points

Once the Soviets pulled out of the country, it was also in our interest to push for formation of a pro US government. It may have been an autocratic one, since, before the Communist invasion, a monarchy was in place. This type of government could have been acceptable to us, as long as it did not seek overthrows of other governments.

Therefore, some limited aid to Afghanistan, to help it rebuild, would have been in our self interest. The political alternative was not the Soviets or the Taliban.

If the US turned its back on the country, as the movie claims, it was a mistake.

Historical Analysis

By any measure, the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan, while important and morally uplifting, could not possibly have caused the fall of the Berlin wall, the freeing of the satellite nations of Europe, or the apparent implosion of the Soviet government over to the Yeltsin regime. Other causes had to have played a role.

In many quarters today, Reagan is given credit for ending the Cold War. Supposedly, he forced the Soviets into a competitive military buildup with us for which they lacked the funds to sustain. By trying to keep up with the US, they supposedly bankrupted themselves and their government with all its totalitarian apparatus collapsed.

This arms race probably played a role here, more than Afghanistan. However, in an arms race, supposedly, the Soviets and their satellites would rely on their own factories (plus whatever technology they could steal from the West). If the goal was to produce more or to divert more workers from, say, agriculture, the government could have done so by force. Since workers in the Soviet Union were apparently paid some wages, the government could print more money, if gold funds were short. Even with the low Soviet standard of living, unless the population was starving, the KGB seemed able to enforce order for some years.

In short, I believe still other factors had to have played a role in the Soviet implosion. The country had a sizable nuclear arsenal, albeit probably not as much as reported (while the US media positively relished stories about the Soviet’s achieving nuclear superiority over us, I always had considerable skepticism about this). One possibility is that, somehow, their delivery system ie the apparatus for loading and firing all their ballistic nuclear-armed missiles could have been dismantled or thrown off kilter. Maybe, for once, the CIA pulled off an espionage coup. We’ll probably never know.

My point is Reagan may not deserve much credit here. Alternatively, he may deserve credit in a way not publicized that served to overthrow the Soviet regime.

When Reagan took office in 1980, he inherited the Carter mess. No doubt, he was concentrating on an overall US arms buildup. Even so, he had to have known about the military aid program, already underway, for the Afghan rebels. He could have killed it if he chose. Much more likely, he gave it his support.

It would be interesting to see what the mind of Congress was at this point. Since it was so committed to US preclusion from aiding anti-Ortega forces in Nicaragua, Congress probably would not have wanted to go “overboard” in allowing an anti-Communist pro US alternative in Afghanistan.

Liberals, of course, would like to reap the credit for winning the Cold War and for Reagan to receive absolutely no credit. As long as the limited scope of the Afghanistan victory is understood, this movie won’t do it for them.