In a recently aired episode of the CBS television series Seal
Team, there was a quick phrase that probably went unnoticed by most of the
viewing audience. Even if they heard it, they probably are not aware of the
meaning.
In Season 3, Episode 19, Bravo Team is operating in a
village in Afghanistan.
Overwatch for the operation is being provided by a Predator drone. As shown in
this screen capture, a surface-to-air missile is launched at and hits the
drone.
The loss of the drone caused a loss of communications with
the operational headquarters, and a loss of situational awareness. As the team
realizes what has just happened, one of the SEALs remarks, “Thank you, Charlie
Wilson.”
For those viewers who were not aware of the level of U.S. involvement in opposing the Soviet invasion and
occupation of Afghanistan
in the 1980’s, the remark may not mean anything. To those of us who
were involved in the American effort to support the Afghan resistance fighters
– the self-proclaimed mujahidin (holy warriors) – it was a reminder of
the concept of unintended consequences.
From 1987 until Saddam Husayn invaded Kuwait in 1990 and I was deployed to Saudi Arabia, I was assigned to the Defense
Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon as the Assistant Defense Intelligence
Officer for the Middle East and South Asia.
When I was not in Baghdad
working the operation assisting Iraqi forces, my office was peripherally
involved in the Defense Department's slice of the CIA program supporting the
Afghan mujahidin - "holy warriors" opposing the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
That Defense Department support included the delivery of the FIM-92 Stinger
shoulder-fired air defense missile.
At some point in America's support - I think it was
1986 - Texas Congressman Charlie Wilson insisted that the "muj"
needed an air defense weapon to combat the heavily armed Soviet MI-24 assault
helicopter gunship, the Hind. He insisted that they be provided the U.S.-made
state-of-the-art Stinger.
 |
| Afghan mujahidin with Stinger missile |
Charlie Wilson was a charming Southern gentleman. When I
visited his office the first time, the launcher that fired the first Stinger in
Afghanistan
was hanging on the wall – he was extremely proud of that. He liked to talk
about the Confederacy, in fact, much of the art in his office portrays battles
of the Civil War. When my boss remarked about a depiction of Pickett's July 3,
1863 unsuccessful charge at Gettysburg, he
quietly nodded his head and remarked, "If Pickett had been successful,
we'd be having this conversation in Richmond...."
Back to the Stinger. There was absolutely no interest at the
Pentagon in supplying the world's most lethal shoulder-fired air defense system
to a bunch of tribesmen in Afghanistan
– for several reasons. First, we believed they could have achieved the same
effect with lesser-capability Soviet weapons, such as the readily-available
(and not traceable to the United
States) SA-7.
Second, and more importantly, no one wanted the Stinger in
the hands of potential bad guys. Since we had to provide all of the weapons and
equipment via the Pakistani intelligence service – the notoriously unreliable
ISID – we were concerned that money talks and the Stinger would find itself
where we did not want it to go.
We were proven right in October 1987 when the U.S. Navy
seized the Iran Ajr while it was laying mines in the Persian Gulf. Found on the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary
Guard Corps (IRGC) vessel was a battery of a Stinger launcher. The serial
number of the battery was traceable to the CIA Afghan Task Group – it had been
sent to Pakistan
destined for the muj.
I am not sure where it was diverted, but I am betting on the
ISID. We in the HUMINT (human intelligence) business used to joke that you had
to recruit an "x" (the nationality of your choice), but you could buy
a Pakistani – in south Asia, money talks. To
make matters worse, during the operation, another Iranian boat fired two
Stingers at a U.S. Navy A-6. We concluded that weapons we had sent to support
anti-Soviet fighters in Afghanistan
were being used against us in the Persian Gulf.
This is euphemistically called "unintended
consequences."
When Congressman Wilson was in Pakistan on an official visit in
1987, he wanted to use the U.S. Defense Attaché's C-12 aircraft to fly
somewhere. Fine, but Wilson
wanted to take his girlfriend along. The Defense Attaché, a USAF colonel, said,
"Sir, you mean your assistant." Wilson
– looking for a fight – insisted that the colonel was going to take his
girlfriend along. The colonel refused; it caused us (well, me) hours of grief
trying to save the airplane once Wilson got back
to Washington.
All in all, am I a fan of Charlie Wilson's? Let's see – a former
Navy intelligence officer, a drunken womanizer, but someone who got things
done. His heart was in the right place, but allowing the Stinger to end up in the
hands of the IRGC, the Taliban, and who knows who else, is the epitome of unintended
consequences.
