Sunday Culture: Charlie Wilson’s War?

Charlie Wilson’s War is worth seeing. But it doesn’t go nearly far enough in telling the story of the Cold War endgame. Without some reading on the side, you the viewer will leave with a shallow understanding of the American impact on Afghanistan in the 1980s. And without some more ambitious political filmmaking, the point the film tries to make will go unheard.

The frustrating thing about the movie is that it comes close to questioning some basic assumptions in post-Cold War America, but ultimately leaves them untouched.

These assumptions are:

1. Reagan was a great president.

2. The Soviet Union fell because of the size of Reagan’s balls.

3. Developments in Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal were unconnected with US foreign policy.

The war in Afghanistan is a perfect example of what happens when you view a situation from only one angle. From Langley or 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, it seemed that one thing led directly to another - we funded the mujahideen (okay, we funded the Pakistani ISI who funded the mujahideen, if you want to split hairs), the Soviets withdrew, the Soviet Union collapsed. Our policy worked, right? The whole ideology of American interventionism rests on premises such as these: boil complicated, interrelated events down to simple causation, claim success, and ignore the undesirable consequences. That’s what we’re doing in Iraq right now.

Many people would admit that George Bush’s foreign policy is disastrous. But fewer would admit that Reagan’s was too. But Bush’s presidency - yes, this Bush - couldn’t have existed without the groundwork laid by Reagan. Until we systemically destroy Reagan’s image as a friendly grandfather and bold Cold Warrior, foreign misadventures legitimated by talk of “freedom” will continue to sucker Americans. These ideas won’t die with Bush. They will return, and if our eyes aren’t open America will pursue these policies again.

Charlie Wilson’s War is an important movie. But the movie Reagan also needs to be made. In this movie, images of the friendly grandfather speaking about freedom would be juxtaposed against images of brutal right-wing movements inflicting torture on their people with American support in Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador. The film would delve into Reagan’s racism, and contrast the Gipper talking about “trickle-down economics” with scenes of mentally ill and homeless cast out in the streets as a result of Reaganomics.

By leaving out Reagan, Charlie Wilson’s War compartmentalizes the story of America and Afghanistan in the 1980s. At the end of the movie, we still feel safe in our assumptions. One crazy congressman, one crazy CIA agent, and some eccentric Houston socialites who masterminded a proxy war - and hey, a “successful” one at that - is a story we can easily dismiss. A harder truth to confront would be the fact that the disastrous and ineffective ideology of interventionism has permeated our government since the beginning of the Cold War at least, and erupted into its most destructive form in the last thirty years.

Viewing situations from vantage points other than America’s, we start to see more complex truths. The Soviet Union fell in part because the arms race with America bankrupted it - but also because of internal weaknesses that had nothing to do with American foreign policy. American interventionism in Afghanistan, as the film suggests at the end, did not liberate Afghanistan - rather, the chronic violence which resulted from superpower adventuring has continued to the present time, and fueled the growth of movements like the Taliban. Where are the neat lines of causality now?

Film provides an important political tool in contemporary America. But Charlie Wilson’s War raises more questions than it answers, at a time when we’re pretty hungry for answers. As Rolling Stone puts it,

This is certainly the most dynamic of the war films that have been choking and dying at the multiplex. But the satiric energy undercuts a deeper provocation, namely that Charlie’s efforts inadvertently helped to equip what would become Al Qaeda. “We fucked up the endgame” is the way Charlie put it. You might say the same for the movie.

***********************************

Film, as always, is no substitute for the written word. And when it comes to Afghanistan’s recent history, I’m afraid a blog post is no substitute for books. So for the curious, I’d suggest the following:

Good Muslim, Bad Muslim by Mahmoud Mamdani

The Search for Peace in Afghanistan by Barnett Rubin (he has other works on Afghanistan too)

Taliban by Rashid Ahmed

An abundance of information is also available online concerning Reagan’s foreign policy in Latin America, South Asia, and elsewhere, and how the effects of his policies continue to be felt. Do a Google search and be surprised - you won’t have to look far.

WHAT'S NEXT?

Subscribe via RSS or Email  ::     ::  Leave a comment

Bookmark to: