Ending the game
Why ‘we always leave’ foreign wars unfinished
Matt Abra, Volunteer Staff
It is impossible to watch the recent Tom Hanks movie Charlie Wilson’s War without spotting its obvious winks toward a certain other war currently taking place, even despite the film’s decision to abruptly end before giving any thorough insight into how the man himself, Charlie Wilson, may in fact have been a catalyst for today’s war-stricken headlines. The film may take place in the ’70s and ’80s at the height of the Cold War, but after connecting the dots the subtle commentary on the existing war in Iraq is made quite apparent, however scared the film appears to be about making it. I, on the other hand, will clarify it with less trepidation.
Between 1979 and 1988, Charlie Wilson, an American congressman from Texas, helped gather money for sufficiently arming thousands of Afghan “mujahideen” (freedom fighters) as they fought to defend Afghanistan from the superpower that was the Soviet Union. Many believe that Afghanistan’s success in this campaign was a key factor in the eventual downfall of the Soviet Union between 1989 and 1991. What people did not realize at the time is that the very hands in which these weapons were being placed would, in part, eventually evolve into the fanatical fundamentalists that are at the heart of the current “war on terror.” How did this happen? Well, in the film it seems to be summed up in three words uttered bitterly by Wilson late in the game: “We always leave.”
I heard that line and was immediately struck by the supreme irony that it expresses. The “leaving” is in reference to how the United States has made a pattern of walking into foreign conflict with enough righteousness to “fix” the problem but then never follows through in the aftermath. In this case, after the initial job had been done, the United States then proceeded to pull out of Afghanistan, thereby creating free reign for the mobilization of an Afghan force that would later go onto to wreak havoc on the world. Now, as a result, 20 years later, the United States and Canada find themselves well-immersed in two peacekeeping missions which have recently been immortalized by the motto “we need to leave.” First there was the occupation of Afghanistan itself following 9-11, and then ultimately, Iraq — America’s choice as ground zero in the war on terror.
To say outright that a continued U.S. presence in Afghanistan in the ’90s (or at least a more dominant one) would have prevented atrocities such as 9-11, the bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and even the current war in Iraq would be simple conjecture. It is something we will never know, thus laying blame is unfounded. Yet Charlie Wilson had dreams of helping the Afghans in not only their war efforts but also in a hefty reconstruction of their country. As good-intentioned and honourable as his convictions may have been, whether or not his “war” was a success is up for debate. The question of whether the United States’ intentions in the Iraq War are honourable is not the purpose of this article. What is relevant, however, is their supposed justification for continuing with it. It is a simple parallel to Wilson’s hopes for cleaning up after the initial mess. Let’s face it, the words are true — they always leave.
By it’s now almost uncontested that the war in Iraq was a mistake. Still, now that the United States military is there, the Bush administration and other supporters of the war effort claim that leaving would only exemplify that very type of abandonment the United States is known for.
One could say that this all showcases how the United States leapfrogs from one crusade to next, with each being a direct result of the last. Believe it or not, the ending of Charlie Wilson’s War actually had a unique impact on me in regards to this trend. As painful as it was to stomach, I finally had to ask the question: when are the Americans going to actually finish the job? The movie ends with a quote by Wilson, “These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world — and then we fucked up the end game.” I’m not saying that Iraq should be a second chance for that end game; I’m simply saying that within the bigger picture, the concept of constantly “cutting our losses” is one that may only lead to more losses down the road.
At the same time, it has now all gotten intertwined with the United States’ current political games. I am forced to wonder if anyone could even get elected to the White House right now without some sort of promise for a swift evacuation of Iraq. Sure, Iraq was a mistake, and maybe in this particular case they should come home and let us move on to helping the country under more bloodless conditions, but I find it frightening how much everyone’s straight-and-narrow insistence that they must “leave” is overshadowing the broader concept of peacekeeping. Choose whichever method you desire, but these jobs need to be seen through — and properly. Only then will it stop being a game and simply be the end.
