MovieChat Forums > Charlie Wilson's War (2007) Discussion > Would American economic aid really preve...

Would American economic aid really prevented Taliban ascendance ?


At the end Charles Wilson states that we *beep* up by not rebuilding the country. But if affluence in a country liberalizes it, shouldn't we have liberal democracies in rich countries like Saudi Arabia, not a cradle of Islamic terrorism? You just can't transform a country into a liberal democracy by throwing money at it !

A rich, highly educated Islamic radical is still a radical. A poor, uneducated democrat is still a democrat. Cultural and religious milieu cannot be quickly changed through economic, or even educational, influxes.

The only way to quickly transform a culture is by force. That's what Mao did during Cultural Revolution. And that's what Soviets did in other Muslim countries, and tried doing it in Afghanistan.

The paradox is how do you instill liberalism by force ? If you let regressive people vote, they'll vote in another regressive (e.g. Egypt's Mohamed Morsi). So to prevent regressive people from voting in a regressive dictator, you need another regressive dictator.



All The Movies I've Watched & Rated: http://preview.tinyurl.com/JustMammal

reply

Very good points. I don't know if it would have made a difference. At the end Gus hands him the cable that says the crazies are rolling in Kandahar like a bathtub drain. So the Taliban had already been in existence as part of the Mujahideen. They were simply waiting for the retreat of the Soviets to make their move. It's not like they appeared years later because no one helped rebuild Afghanistan. We might have actually helped them even more by sending more money to Afghanistan that they would have stolen or used to make themselves even stronger.

reply

It's fair to argue that we would never have changed Afghanistan for the better even if we had stayed there and tried to help them build the structure of a modern state. It likely would have taken perhaps a century to even get something legitimate established in a country so backward and barren.

However, you cannot deny that over the next decade, something went horribly wrong with U.S.-Afghanistan relations. A country like Afghanistan does not go from being helped by the United States in such an all-important struggle and then turns on us in the form of mass terrorism in the span of roughly a decade for no reason.

When Wilson concedes that we *beep* up the end game" all he meant is that we failed to maintain our goodwill and solidarity with a country we took serious risks to help. We ultimately paid a huge price. How we could have gone about it differently is anybody's guess, even with the benefit of hindsight.

reply

Well we poured hundreds of billions into Iraq and now 30,000 of American trained "special forces" run away without a fight from 1,000 radicals.

As sad as I feel for the democrats in Egypt and Syria I would rather see them ruled by secular tyrants than religious-radicals tyrants.
Under the former there may be some civil liberties, under the later there are none.

reply

Mind you, the USA was criticized for this policy before: "Those Latin American dictators may be sons of bitches, but they are OUR sons of bitches...."

reply

[deleted]