No More Good Time Charlies
The myth of Charlie Wilson is recounted in George Crile's book Charlie Wilson's War and popularized in "a major motion picture" starring (improbably and unconvincingly) Tom Hanks. Crile's subtitle sums up the myth: "The Extraordinary Story of How the Wildest Man in Congress and a Rogue CIA Agent Changed the History of Our Times." In a language more sober than publishers permit, it is the morality play of how a corrupt playboy politician was so touched by the sufferings of the oppressed Afghan people that he used every device of a dirty political process to support the struggle of Afghan "freedom fighters" against the USSR. Ironically, the end result was an increasingly militant Islamic regime that gave shelter to Osama bin Laden.
So far as I know, Crile has it right. Charlie Wilson may well have tried to do one decent thing in his life. He should have stuck to booze and broads. There is nothing ironic in the outcome of US support for the Afghans. Our CIA not only paid, trained, and armed Islamic militants; we actually supplied them with radical imams who whipped them up into a frenzy and not just against the Russians but against all non-Muslims. Anyone whose mind had not been corrupted by the evil notion that all religions worship the same god, any intelligent person not in the CIA or the US State Department, anyone not Zbigniew Brzezinski or Charlie Wilson could have predicted the results.
The conventional view, of course, is that Afghanistan blew up because after the defeat of the Soviets, we did not rush in to win the hearts and minds by squandering tax dollars on hospitals and schools. In other words, Muslims only become terrorists because they are uneducated—like Osama, like the students who crashed the planes on September 11.
But, then, should we expect Charlie Wilson to know anything about Islam, Afghanistan, or, indeed, anything but crooked politics and warm-hearted women? Wilson was a small-town Texas boy, a student at Sam Houston State (Dan Rather's Alma Mater) before going on to the Naval Academy, where he finished eighth from the bottom. But even if he had finished first in his class, it is unlikely that he would be mentally equipped to understand what he was getting into. Our service academies, which have traditionally done a brilliant job of producing military officers, do little or nothing to give the students the humane education that is essential to understanding the world or the moral education that is necessary for them to understand their duty, when they are faced with tough decisions. This complaint has been made many times, most notably by a distinguished Annapolis graduate, Admiral James Stockdale.
So, a corrupt politician and a rogue CIA agent conspired to change not only US foreign policy but also the political shape of the world. And where, exactly, did they get the right to do this? A CIA agent who makes policy can only be regarded as a traitor, at least in a moral sense. But what about a politician who uses his contacts, who wheels and deals because he has a private cause? What can be said of him except that the blood of tens of thousands of human beings—Americans, Afghans, and Russians—is on his hands.
Of course, it is always said, he didn't know, could have no way of knowing what would happen. Did he try? Did he learn the languages, study the history, do anything, in other words, other than work himself into a sentimental fit over the sufferings of people who were of no concern either to him as a member of Congress or to the American people? The justification for this operation is that two administration, Carter's and Reagans, approved. But what has that to do with Charlie Wilson, who aggressively promoted Operation Cyclone, an operation whose consequences he did not and could not understand. Carter and Brzezinski, Reagan and Casey have a great deal to answer for in approving such a covert operation, but Charlie Wilson was not working for either administration: He was a free-lance sentimentalist, assuming a moral responsibility he had no business taking on.
In The Morality of Everyday Life, I put forward the analogy of the practical joke. The joker is someone who interferes in other people's lives without the necessary justification. He tells someone they have won the lottery, just as a jest. If his victim has a heart attack or goes out and spends money he does not have, the joker is responsible because he did not have to interfere in the other person's life. In fact, it is generally a good idea not to. When a sentimental do-gooder makes the decision to help others, he assumes responsibility for the consequences. When aid programs turn out to be harmful--as they usually do--the philanthropists, in or out of government, must bear the blame.
It is bad enough that the American people are stupid enough to send oversexed and undereducated crooks to Congress, but if the Charlie Wilsons and Ted Kennedys would only stick to stealing and whoring, we would be a whole lot better off. Lord save us from the ministry of the reformed rake or the policies of a cheap politician turned sentimental philanthropist.
Entries(RSS)
I have not read Crile's book, but I have seen the motion picture and tne love fest bio on the History Channel. Both works give Wilson almost all the credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union via his support for Afgan fighters. This is not true,but like many of our historical myths it will be accepted as fact by those to lazy to explore the catacombs of actual events and facts. The Soviet defeat in Afganistan hastened their inevitable downfall.
It is my understanding that Mr. Wilson's war had the support of the relevant political authorities of the time, so in that sense it was not a rogue operation but the official (although partially covert) policy of the US government.
Crile himself applies the term rogue to the CIA agent in question. If you mean by your justification that both the Carter and Reagan administrations share moral guilt for their reprehensible covert ops, I agree entirely. If you think that either sentimentalism or political ideology justify what we did, then you are living in a parallel universe I do not wish to visit. Before 911 I had the unpleasant occasion of speaking several times at length with reps from an agency not permitted to operate in the US. After they finished grilling me, I asked them if they thought our support for Bin Laden in Afghanistan had been a good idea. They insisted that it was because it was a good opportunity for weakening Russia. I politely told them they were entirely wrong.
To clarify the argument, I have added the following:
The justification for this operation is that two administration, Carter's and Reagans, approved. But what has that to do with Charlie Wilson, who aggressively promoted Operation Cyclone, an operation whose consequences he did not and could not understand. Carter and Brzezinski, Reagan and Casey have a great deal to answer for in approving such a covert operation, but Charlie Wilson was not working for either administration: He was a free-lance sentimentalist, assuming a moral responsibility he had no business taking on.
In The Morality of Everyday Life, I put forward the analogy of the practical joke. The joker is someone who interferes in other people's lives without the necessary justification. He tells someone they have won the lottery, just as a jest. If his victim has a heart attack or goes out and spends money he does not have, the joker is responsible because he did not have to interfere in the other person's life. In fact, it is generally a good idea not to. When a sentimental do-gooder makes the decision to help others, he assumes responsibility for the consequences. When aid programs turn out to be harmful--as they usually do--the philanthropists, in or out of government, must bear the blame.
The policy was not philanthropy but war. In war, one cannot be too finicky about allies but some discretion is advisable (the cure should not be worse than the disease!). My impression is that the US was duped and used by the Pakistani intelligence services into supporting the most extreme Islamist guerillas in Afghanistan (Bin Laden et al) instead of the other, non-Islamist guerilla forces.
One of the reasons I am usually on the point of giving up all internet writing is responses like this. Apparently Mr. Van Osbree does not actually read or understand anything I put up but without reflection rushes in to offer a completely predictable canned opinion that is entirely irrelevant to the subject. Please regard this as a final warning to stick to the topic.
I must admit I drank from the anti-communist well from 1970-1980 and believed the means justified the ends. Now, don't get me wrong I still despise communists, but the truth has set me free. The Soveits would have eventually left with their dead and wounded from Afganistan without our input, and we would be so much better for having left they and the Afgans to their own devices. What is truly troublesome and continues to this moment is any Congressman with a bottle of booze in one hand and piece of buttocks in the other can find the means to drag us into conflicts that serve no one, but the arms merchants, social elite, political elite,industrialists etc.
Dr. Fleming, please correct me if I am wrong, because I have not yet read your book (it is in queue), and I'm trying to generalize what you are saying through this example.
Our initial involvement with Afghanistan was doomed fundamentally because it was dishonest. The dishonesty was expressed in two ways, 1) If we had a legitimate beef with USSR, then confront them (if no right to war was seen with the Soviets directly, then no extra rights should be found sideways), 2) The indirect nature also led to a complexity of actions and intrusions that would make unintended consequences difficult for anyone (even Charlie Wilson) to know.
That this dishonesty is paraded as philanthropy further deepens the treachery.
I shared every sane person's opposition to the USSR and supported, generally, the Cold War measures necessary to prevent Soviet expansion. But even as an anti-Communist, I opposed covert operations and the use of surrogates and proxies as immoral and unmanly. The harm we did in Latin America is incalculable, as we first supported anti-communist parties and governments and then, if they were too right wing, we threw our support to democratic socialists. We played dirty games--as did the Russians and Chinese--though it was never clear to me what the goals were. In playing such games, our cold warriors demonized prudent and moral patriots like George Kennan. So, point one, covert wars played as moves in a chess match with absolute disregard for the people "in the way" are immoral. Point two is that we appear not to have known what we were getting into in Afghanistan and we created a nightmare not only there but also in the Balkans and here at home. As they used to say at NR, Bill Casey call your office. Point three, yes, we further confuse ourselves when we sugarcoat brutal Realpolitik with sentimental philanthropic rhetoric designed to placate the rubes back in Texas and Nebraska. It is the nature of a modern "democracy" that the leaders must constantly and consistently lie to the people, who might otherwise not write them a blank check for global conquest. And, finally, I am disgusted by all sentimentalism in politics. Want to "go toe to toe with the Russkis" or the Chinks or the Iranians? Fine, but tell the truth and fight like men without lying about saving the world for democracy or spreading freedom or liberating women from Islamic oppression.
The proof is in the pudding: The US lost the Cold War. Hindsight is 20/20, of course, but Cold Warriors should have spent less time worrying about domino effects overseas and spent more time worrying about their own children -- i.e., looking at the educational system ... lower and higher, public and private.
I know the US submarine force got involved in some craaazy stuff back in the day. Subs slipping into Soviet territorial waters to wiretap underwater comms cables, playing cat-and-mouse with Rooski coastal patrol units, I think American attack boats even got depth charged on a few occasions -- again, all this is in the Soviets' own waters ... a continual stream of ridiculously dangerous projects, dangerous not just to the people involved, of course, but to both countries. I have no idea who authorized all of it.
There was a lot of careerism pushing the whole program, though, or I don't know my flag officers.
"Our service academies, which have traditionally done a brilliant job of producing military officers, do little or nothing to give the students the humane education that is essential to understanding the world or the moral education that is necessary for them to understand their duty, when they are faced with tough decisions. This complaint has been made many times, most notably by a distinguished Annapolis graduate, Admiral James Stockdale."
Dr. Fleming, as a Naval Academy graduate, I am in total agreement with you and ADM Stockdale. I had the good fortune to speak with him after his Forrestal lecture series talk on "Heroes" in 1991.
The Forrestal speakers most often come from the category of "the usual suspects," ADM Stockdale being a rare exception. You can see what the Midshipmen are exposed to here:
http://www.usna.edu/Library/Lectures.html
I am convinced that our foreign policy problems are due in large part to a lack of understanding of the concept of "National Interest" in general and of what is in our national interests in particular. (To paraphrase Yogi Berra, if you don't know what is in your best interests, you're not likely to do what is necessary to serve or achieve them.) I have previously suggested an issue of Chronicles on the topic, but am still waiting. As I continue to wait, can you suggest some sources, both general and particular, that I can consult?
Much of the problem with the Afghan operation was with the CIA itself: an unconstitutional agency that from its inception stupidly mixed intelligence collection with covert operations. If we had followed the Constitution during the Cold War, there would have been no CIA stuffed with Ivy League ignoramuses: the State Department would have gathered the intelligence, and the Defense Department would have carried out whatever military actions were necessary, including aid to foreign forces, after getting proper approval from Congress.
In Afghanistan, it was the CIA that, ordered by Brzezinski and Carter, provoked the Soviet invasion in the first place. (See Zbig's 1998 interview in Nouvel Observateur.) The CIA then stupidly backed the most radical Islamists in Afghanistan, instead of more moderate parties. Had the CIA not existed, the State and Defense departments might have put up some resistance to Zbig's crackpot idea (or at least couldn't have done worse in executing it).
It's too bad more people in those days didn't read Kennan and John Lukacs (who's still around at 86; I'm reading his elegiac "Last Rites") on the Cold War instead of Bill Buckley and James Burnham. By 1979, it was obvious -- at least to Lukacs and Kennan -- that the Soviet regime was as sclerotic as Brezhnev, and soon would be as dead.
AP just ran a story about Staff Sgt. Aleksey Butkov, a U.S. Army soldier fighting in Afghanistan, whose father fought for the Red Army there almost 30 years ago. Best quote:
"Butkov said he has walked into areas in Afghanistan where isolated residents thought his American unit was Russian, as though the Soviet occupation had never ended. 'Are you still here?' the residents asked.
"Once, he told an Afghan soldier, an older man who surely remembered or even fought during the Soviet occupation, that his father was on the Russian side decades ago. The Afghan's reaction was hard to read, possibly hostile, Butkov said.
" ' He didn't say anything. Then he said: "I don't believe you." He had a cigarette and walked off' ."
Full story: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hRm0wR0lQZfpZjeWilrJh1BJ_8IwD9DQOH5G0
Second best quote from the AP article:
"'We're pretty much there to do someone else's work, and when you are on the ground, you only care about your buddies, left and right,' said Butkov, a squad leader with the 4th Battalion, 23rd Infantry Regiment from the 5th Stryker Brigade, which is supporting Marine operations against the Taliban stronghold of Marjah in southern Afghanistan."
Some things never (and never will) change.