I assume the movie is going to cast Wilson as a swashbuckling, larger-than-life, go-it-alone American misfit does good character. If so, and if that sort of story appeal to you, please keep the following in mind:
- Wilson was funding the Taliban when they were fighting the Soviets. Money that he secretly sent to them was used to purchase weapons that are likely killing American soldiers today.
- Since this was all done secretly, nobody within the policy arm of the government could comment on whether this was, or was not, a good idea.
- This was done at a time when there still was government oversight - imagine what similar black box ops are being funded right now. Look for some of these to blow up in the coming decades as well.
Thoughts?
2 comments:
I think that part of it comes from something like victor's justice. It's easy to justify his actions with regard to the Cold War based on the results that he obtained. He took tremendous risks that the rest of Congress and the CIA weren't willing to take. Does the result justify that risk? Did we know with 100% certainty that the Soviets were not going to invade Pakistan in response to our use of that country as a staging point? What if they had? What if Pakistan exploited its relationship with Wilson to get political cover for its atomic bomb project (oh, it did?).
But, in hindsight, he looks like a hero. If things had turned out differently, he would have looked reckless, ill-informed, and obstinate. Sound familiar?
But that just addresses the Cold War aspect and his subversion of democracy. It seems to me that you're going further and saying that arming the Muj was an objectively bad move and would have been a bad move regardless of how it was done. Is that right? If so, I'll need to think about that.
BTW, what do you mean by "policy arm of the government"? In the Executive Branch? If so, do you mean State, DOD, CIA? If not, do you mean oversight agencies? Part of the lesson of the book, I think, is that there really isn't one "policy making arm of the government," and the lack of a centralized power center can be exploited by motivated people like Wilson.
Sorry, when I said policy arm of the government I was, like Mitt Romney talking about seeing his father march with MLK, making shit up to move a point forward.
Well, not really, but what I meant was that yes, by being able to operate in secret nobody within parts of the government that craft foreign policy (e.g. State) were able to weigh in on what the implications of this funding were. I carelessly created an arm where one didn't explictly exist.
You make a good point though, that policy-making is not centralized and was undermined by an aggressive idealogue.
Post a Comment