Though it may not be much of a cinematic accomplishment (considering it was directed by Mike Nichols and features Philip Seymour Hoffman in a prominent role) Charlie Wilson's War makes a much needed statement about American foreign policy.

Throughout the film, the United States' involvement in Afghanistan is referred to simply in terms of vanquishing the Communist threat and its effects on American national security (much as it is today).

Though this may make sense in the way that every nation looks out for itself and protects its own interests, this notion of simply obliterating the Soviet threat at all costs with little thought to the fate of a country that is referred to as "a pile of rocks" and "barely a country" falters in two ways:

 

1. Referring to the battle as one of good vs. evil, God's will vs. malevolent brutality, and justice vs. totalitarianism 
2. That by giving little forethought into the impact of a sudden influx of arms and military training may have on the future of a nation where internal ethnic power  struggles and massive discrepancies between rich and poor already existed Americans were setting themselves up for greater national security threats in the future

This idea of looking out for one's own best interests does make sense but  it ultimately does not work when a nation pits itself as a moral compass and the direct contrast of a brutal, totalitarian, "evil" superpower. If a nation truly wants to set itself up as the superpower that serves as a moral standard for democracy, freedom, and the right to live one's life as one sees fit then the nation cannot afford to look at a hostile takeover of a sovereign nation merely as strategy and convenience.

The totality of the situation and the lives of the people of both nations must be taken into account. As the CIA members point out, the initial US plan for Afghanistan was to simply have Russia bleed it out both through fiscal resources and the lives of Russians, much like America did in Vietnam.

As the film progresses, the constant referral to the Soviets as "motherfuckers," and "bastards" needing to be "blasted out of the sky" puts words to a problem stated throughout the film - handling global events and issues with a singleminded lens can only lead to a path of further disaster.

In a recent Time Magazine article, WILLIAM DALRYMPLE states that had the late Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto been more conscious in regards to her dealings with militants and "fundamentalists" she may have evaded not only her own death but also 9/11. 

Using the criticisms of U.S. Foreign Policy in Charlie Wilson's War it becomes clear that had the CIA and the various government committees not made statements like "No one gives a shit about schools in Pakistan" it can be said that the same events could have possibly been evaded had the United States made a concerted effort to help rebuild what they aided in destroying in Afghanistan. 

Though the film doesn't do quite enough to show audiences what life really was like for the Afghans after the Soviet ouster and what Wilson's demands for more money and infrastructure help would have done to help Afghanistan after a brutal war, the events depicted in Charlie Wilson's War can serve as an example of how to undo the mistakes the United States is making in Iraq and once again in Afghanistan.