The Unitended Consequence of Charlie Wilson's War

The soon-to-be-released Hollywood movie "Charlie Wilson's War" tells the story of behind-the-scene activities that led to the massive CIA backing of the Afghan resistance against the Soviets in the 1980s. Based on a book of the same title by late George Crile, it focuses on the efforts of a "scandal-prone, womanizing" US Congressman Charlie Wilson and "out-of-favor, blue-collar" CIA operative Gust Avrokotos who both found a willing partner in Gen Zia-ul-Haq of Pakistan. Wilson, a congressman from East Texas with almost no Jewish constituents, was a strong supporter of Israel as he saw Israelis as the underdogs surrounded by Arab enemies armed by the Soviets. His support for the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan was motivated by his hatred of communism and the Soviet Union that he saw as the evil empire. That may also be why he ignored any concerns about the unintended consequences of his actions in supporting a strongly religious band of Islamic fighters who disliked western values and culture as much as they hated communism.
George Crile connects the dots from the CIA's supply of weapons and training to the Muslim fighters in Afghanistan to the the fall of the Soviet Union and then the terrorist attacks of Sept 11, 2001, concluding that the terrorism we face today is the unintended consequence of our actions in Afghanistan back in the 80s. Crile starts with this conclusion at the very outset and then spends the rest of the book backing his conclusion with facts and figures he gathered in his research. Having been a producer of CBS 60 Minutes, Crile was well equipped to write such a book. Let's wait and see if this movie does justice to a great story. With the star-studded cast including Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts and Philip Seymour Hoffman, it should be a big draw at the box office.



The big question that will continue to loom for Americans and the world is whether we have learned any lessons to avoid even greater and more disastrous but unintended consequences of our current actions in the ongoing "war on terror".

Here's a trailer of this movie:

Grandchildren of Z.A. Bhutto & Zia-ul-Haq Speak Out

Omar-ul-Haq, grandson of Zia-ul-Haq and Fatima Bhutto, granddaughter of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto have both written for the op-ed pages of The News, a widely read newspaper in Pakistan. Both of these young people appear to be quite interested, intelligent and articulate, and quite pessimistic about the future of democracy in Pakistan. I can understand their lack of idealism, given the fact that 50% of Pakistan's children are not in schools, but it is a sad state of affairs when the next generation seems ready to throw in the towel. Let's hope the two are not representative of the mainstream of our next generation. Following are the excerpts from their pieces:

Writing for Sunday, Dec 9 issue of the News in Pakistan, Gen Zia's grandson Omar-ul-Haq says:
"I confess that I am torn between the merits of military and democratic
regimes. While I've never been one to stand on the streets and protest
for leaders who are apparently going to save our country, I'm
definitely not in favour of seeing President Musharaff rule our nation
for much longer either. I have also given a lot of thought to
democracy in Pakistan and while it is the ideal solution, I'm still
not sure if I can see an effective democratic government in Pakistan;
a relatively new and developing nation. While I am not necessarily in
favour of a military regime, the question I pose is whether Pakistan
is ready for yet another democratic government or are we Pakistanis
just simply imagining and hoping for the next democratically elected
political figure to come and perform miracles for our nation? As
tragic as it is, most Pakistanis, including the educated elite, are
unaware of the definition of "democracy". Although we understand the
basics -- that officials must be elected by citizens and must gain the
support of the majority of the population -- do we exactly understand
how these officials get the majority of votes? Do the masses even
consider what the past leaders have given them (or should I say have
not given them) before running out on the streets and risking their
lives for them?"

Murtaza Bhutto's daughter Fatima Bhutto writes in the same issue for the News as follows:
"The Sharifs struck a separate deal with El Presidente, so there goes
the PML (the Daughter of the West might also want to explain to her
chums the Sharif brothers why their election papers were rejected on
the grounds that they had been convicted in courts of law, while hers
were accepted-- even though she was convicted by Swiss courts in the
Cotecna corruption case.) The MMA is pretty cosy with the government.
The JUI has survived this whole spell of 'emergency' rule quite well,
they may not have a working deal with the army, but they certainly
have an understanding. So who is opposition exactly? The MQM is allied
with El Presidente. Imran Khan was, and then he wasn't. Then he hated
Nawaz, now he doesn't. Then he called Benazir a crook, now he's told
the Lahore Bar Association that he's super willing to help her drop
her myriad corruption cases if only she'll be a sport and join his
boycott. So, yes, the opposition-- or rather those commonly accepted
as the opposition-- are a morally bankrupt lot of puppeticians. They
go which ever way leads them to power; they're not opposite to
anything-- except ethics and principles. They're not even anti El
Presidente. They're enablers, the lot of them."

Is 90% Good Enough?

In response my earlier post on the role of Justice Chaudry and Pakistani Judiciary, I got an interesting comment from Khalid A in London, UK. I'd like to share it with you as follows:

"I wrote the following, as early as March 2007
Knowing When to Stop ( Dawn 27.3.07 & Frontier Post 25.3.07)
I often wonder why our nation manages to extract defeat from the jaws
of victory. I am not talking of cricket.
I was able to identify at least 3 important historical moments when
history of Pakistan would have changed, had we known when to stop, and
bank our profits.

1. In 1969, an agitation for restoration of democracy was launched by
Air Marshal Asghar Khan and others against the Ayub regime. It was no
mean achievement that the all powerful military government was really
shaken. Ayub Khan offered to hold elections within 6 months and to
hand over power to the elected leaders. But Air Marshal Asghar Khan
was thumping the table and demanded immediate hand over of power.
There was no elected civilian leader who could have taken over
immediately. The only person who could take over was Gen Yahya Khan,
and he did. Air Marshal Asghar Khan and his colleagues did not know
when to stop. Having achieved 90 percent of their goals, they tried
for 100 percent and lost everything.
2. In 1977, the combined opposition launched a campaign against Mr
Bhutto. It was no mean achievement that the all powerful Bhutto was
ready to meet 90 percent of the demands of his opponents. But they
wanted 100 percent – Bhutto must go immediately! Bhutto did go, but it
was Zia who took over. Our politicians in the opposition did not know
when to stop!
3. In 1997, Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah had the Prime Minister Nawaz
Sharif in the dock. It was no mean achievement for a judge in a third
world country to be able to summon the Prime Minister. Even in the
West, such a situation would be quite remarkable. The Chief Justice
had achieved 90 percent of the goals and could have accepted an
apology. But he wanted a hundred percent victory. The rest is history.
Alas he did not know when to stop!

Today we have another watershed moment in our history. Will the
agitators know when to stop? Will they accept 90 percent victory or
must they lose everything to achieve 100 per cent? The smell of
victory is quite intoxicating and it blurs one's judgement. Will they
extract defeat from the jaws of victory? Will the nation face a coup
a-la-GHQ?"

I also wrote more recently:

What Supreme Court could have done. (Frontier Post 17 nov 2007)

I wrote on the subject in March 2007, under the title "Knowing When to
Stop" ( Frontier Post 27th March 2007). It is very tempting for me to
say " I told you!", but the events are too traumatic for me to do
that.

I said then that our nation always extracts defeat from the jaws of
victory, because we do not learn when to stop. This happened in 1969,
1977 and 1997. Having achieved 90 per cent of our goals, we do not
stop and consolidate our position. We go on fighting to achieve total
humiliation of the opponent. Instead of a 100 per cent victory, we end
up with total defeat.

This time, the Supreme Court had asserted itself and would have had a
major role to play in our national affairs, in future years, had the
Court avoided the path of confrontation. This should have been
done,not under any pressure, but in the supreme national interest. The
Court could have declared that the President's election would be
valid, but with the following conditions:
1. Gen Musharraf will give up the Army uniform BEFORE he takes the new
oath as President. In this way Gen Musharraf will be a civilian when
he takes the oath.
2. Gen Kiyani will be sworn in as Army Chief, in the same ceremony,
immediately after the Presidential oath.
3. Gen Musharraf must seek a new vote of confidence from the next
assemblies, within a specified time. If the vote of confidence is not
granted, the office of the President will become vacant.

Alas, it was not to be!

Khalid A
London UK



This comment reminded of the lyrics of a Kenny Rogers song:

"You've got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away
And know when to run
You never count your money
When you're sittin' at the table
There'll be time enough for countin'
When the dealin's done"