by Paul J. Gessing

I watched the movie Charlie Wilson’s War over the New Year’s Holiday. If you haven’t already seen it – and even if you are not a politics junkie – the movie is entertaining and well-worth watching. By all accounts, it is also a pretty accurate portrayal of the rather secretive process by which the United States funded the war in Afghanistan during the 1980s.

Wilson himself is an engaging and sympathetic character. More importantly, his identification with and funding of the rebels in Afghanistan is a classic study in special-interest politics and the influence such groups have on American foreign policy. While all of this may have seemed like a harmless romp had the movie been released in, say, 1999, the fact is that Wilson’s efforts in the 1980s continue to reverberate today.

Wilson, of course, believes that he did the right thing in helping the rebels and this certainly is the perspective shared by the movie. While it is hard not to sympathize with the native Afghanis fighting for their freedom against the invading Soviet forces, the particular US interests in the matter are never discussed.

Sure, it was the 1980s and nothing pleased the American establishment more than “killin’ commies” and there is an assumption that by stalling the Soviet army in Afghanistan, the US might put a stop to Soviet expansionism or even lead to its downfall. These are clearly possibilities, but it is hard say what impact, if any, our aid in Afghanistan actually had in the demise of the Soviet empire.

Analyzing the broader foreign policy implications of US aid for Afghanistan may be outside the scope of this movie, but a condemnation of our “abandonment” of the nation after the success in kicking the Soviets out is certainly part of the movie. But how politically realistic would it have been to continue massive foreign aid to the country after our military success?

After all, the Soviet Union disintegrated a few years later and was not seen as a threat. And, without such a threat, how realistic is it to expect American taxpayers to spend millions or even billions of dollars on school buildings and infrastructure in a nation perceived to be of little strategic importance?

Wilson and other Afghanistan boosters may have seen the necessity, but is it realistic to expect such long-term support for each country the US operates in or provides aid for? The effectiveness of foreign aid is certainly open to question and it is hard to say whether or not things would have turned out any differently even if Wilson had his way.

A better lesson might be that policymakers should ask themselves what their endgame is before such massive foreign interventions are undertaken. This certainly should have been done before we invaded Iraq and it is clear given what happened to Afghanistan after the Soviets left that such questions were not asked?

There may be areas of the globe that are too important for us not to intervene, but as the movie clearly shows, the incentives for intervention are frontloaded – those who ride in on their white horses are seen as heroes whereas those who have to clean up the messes left by others’ are often blamed for the failure.

Charlie Wilson’s War is a good, entertaining, and thought-provoking movie. Unfortunately, it is also bad foreign policy if taken at face value.

Paul Gessing is a senior editor for The Free Liberal.