"Face Reality" by Zbigniew Brzezinski

[OneBlueSky]

Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor doesn't think much of BushCo's Iraq adventure . . . his last paragraph articulates very well why calls to "stay the course" are fundamentally flawed . . .

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/053104D.shtml

America's Iraq policy requires a fundamental strategic reappraisal. The present policy - justified by falsehoods, pursued with unilateral arrogance, blinded by self-delusion, and stained by sadistic excesses - cannot be corrected with a few hasty palliatives. The remedy must be international in character; political, rather than military, in substance; and regional, rather than simply Iraqi, in scope.

Rectifying the increasingly messy Iraqi adventure requires understanding its root: the extremist foreign policy pursued by this administration. Its rhetoric has been demagogic, especially at the very top. Its strategic content has been manipulated by officials preoccupied more with reshaping the security landscape of the Middle East than with maintaining America's ability to lead globally. Domestic support for its policies was mobilized by the deliberate exploitation, as well as stimulation, of fear among the electorate. The Iraq war is not only an outgrowth of this flawed approach to foreign policy, but also its symbol.

(snip)

The administration has yet to confront squarely the fact that the deteriorating situation both in Iraq and in the region will not improve without a politically comprehensive and coldly realistic revision of current policies that addresses four key points: (1) The transfer of "sovereignty" should increase, rather than discredit, the legitimacy of the emerging Iraqi government, and hence it should issue from the United Nations, not the United States; (2) Without a fixed and early date for U.S. troop withdrawal, the occupation will become an object of intensified Iraqi hostility; (3) The Iraqi government should reflect political reality, not doctrinaire American delusions; and (4) Without significant progress toward an Israeli-Palestinian peace, post-occupation Iraq will be both anti-American and anti-Israel.

(snip)

A fundamental course correction is urgently needed if the Middle East is to be transformed for the better. Slogans about "staying the course" are a prescription for inflaming the region while polarizing the United States and undermining U.S. global leadership. A bold change of course - given the gravity of the situation confronting the Iraqis, Israelis, and Arabs more generally, as well as concerned Europeans - could still snatch success from the tightening jaws of failure. But there is little time left.

- more . . .

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/053104D.shtml

[DEMVET-USMC]

1. My big problem with this guy is his support of Mujadeen vs USSR

Whenever I hear his name I recall him smiling as he says he gave the USSR their VIET NAM. This same Mujahdeen evolved into the Al Queda and Taliban. Their hatred of Infidels was a common theme amongst them event back then. I am not a Muslim so I took them at their word and that they would hate me as much as they did the Russians. It turns out I was correct. ...Oscar

[ColdWarZoomie]

6. Wasn't it the Followup?

I always thought that that the problem was not as much that we used Afghanistan as a proxy war against the USSR but moreso that we allowed it to disintegrate after the Soviets left.

Honestly, I know very little about it. Which is ridiculous considering I worked somewhere that actually monitored the Russians fighting in Afghanistan during my military service.

But I was young and more interested in beer and romance back then.

[salin]

8. The follow up was a problem.... but our policy

also involved recruiting fighters in the name of Islam (from places like.... Saudi Arabia, including people like... Osama bin Laden), using a fundamentalist version of Islam and wedding it to the cause of fighting the Soviets. Through this is the charge that "we" created al qeada and the Taliban.

I don't know under which president the policies shifted to using radical Islam theology as a recruitment (and training) tool for the rebels.

[DEMVET-USMC]

13. Me too as to Girls and beer

nice hearing from you. ...Oscar

[Nlighten1]

12. Did they evolve on their own though?

Or were they helped by forces inside America and Pakistan? After the fall of the Soviet Union there was a Russian General who said, (sic) We are going to do something terrible to the Republicans in America, we are going to stop being their enemy".

He was very astute in that observation because these war mongers NEED an enemy to sell their weapons, create weapons, and to manipulate the masses.

So up pops the Taliban and Al Qaeda after a few years of help from our "ally" Pakistan.

Suddenly America has a new enemy and a new "war". More death, more destruction, and same old same old.

The Republicans will always need an enemy. Even if they have to create one to hate.

[reprehensor]

2. Good article.

But yes, Zbig was wrong about the 'stirred up Moslems' right up until 1998.

Interviewer: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

Brzezinski: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Interviewer: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Interviewer: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Interviewer: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/wot/foreignpolicy/geopoliticalobjectives.html

[DoYouEverWonder]

4. I hate to tell Brzezinski:

but it may turn out we were better off with the Soviet Empire. Especially after Gorbachev took over and the USSR started to undergo some major reforms. By that time the Cold War was already on deep thaw.

Instead, old cold warriors like Brzezinski, couldn't adjust for a new reality and so they did everything they could to bring an end to the USSR instead of find ways to cooperate and form alliances with the USSR who was starting to move toward capitalism and democracy.

Now in it's place, we have a region that's divided into smaller bits, with people making power plays all over the place, which have resulted in numerous regional conflicts and from this mess rises radical Islam.

Brzezinski claims there isn't a global Islam. I disagree. As a result of Afghanistan and the birth of the al Qaeda, that he is directly responsible for creating, there is a global Islam that are becoming even more united because of US aggression.

However, just like in Afghanistan where Brzezinki found the way to give the Russians their Vietnam War, at the same time the seeds were planted for giving the USA their next Vietnam War, Iraq. Yet Mr. Brzezinksi still believes he did the right thing. Makes you wonder whose side he's really on?

[BeFree]

5. The break-up of the USSR was a good thing

Who was it that said "We shall crush you"?
Ask the people in Eastern Europe if they wished they still lived under the USSR's heavy hand.

What has happened since the USSR went down is the sad fact of Raygun and Bush being allowed to control foreign policy. For twelve years their policies not only created Al Queda, but brought Pakistan the Bomb, kept democracy from Saudi Arabia, inflamed Israeli-Palestinian fighting, gave weapons to and supported Saddam Hussien, etc, etc.

In his eight years Clinton was able to reverse some of the damage done by the Repulicans, but now we've got the Raygun people back in charge.

As to the claim that there is a global Islam, I say BS. It is as diverse as Christianity.

Ask yourself this: Was it Christians or Islamics who created the nuclear bomb? That answer gives one an idea of just who is the most dangerous, eh?

[DoYouEverWonder]

7. Some people are better off

and many others are actually worse off. Some Eastern Europeans are probably better off, at least the ones who survived the genocide in Kosovo. But look at Central Asia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan or any of the other Stans and for a lot of these folks, they are much worse off.

Yes, maybe at one time the hardline Russians in power wanted to crush the USA? Seems it was a two way street and there were just as many hardline cold warriors in the US who wanted to crush Russia. As I mentioned before, under Gorbachev, Russia was finally starting to move in the right direction and everyone would have been better off if the US had helped moderates like Gorby rather than continuing to try to crush them.

In regards to global Islam, yes it is as diverse as christianity, and no I do not think they are as dangerous as us, but that doesn't mean that 1/3 of the world isn't Muslim and that they don't have anything in common, especially a reasonable fear and growing hatred of the US.

And if you don't think there isn't an anti US global movement happening among the Muslim people of the world, then who are all these people who were out demonstrating all over the world just in the last week?




Thousands of Pakistani Shiite Muslims hold placards and party flags during an anti US protest rally in Lahore, Pakistan on Sunday, May 30.



Indian Muslim demonstrators carry banners and placards during a protest rally against the U.S. in the northern Indian city of Lucknow May 30, 2004.



Supporters of Islamic alliance MMA protest in Lahore against the U.S. led occupation of Iraq after Friday prayers May 28.

[BeFree]

9. Muslim Demonstrations against US

Sure they are demonstrating against the US, who in their left mind wouldn't? But lumping them all together and claiming they want to destroy us is quite another thing. Methinks they just want to be left alone.

Back to Russia... I'm sure if the people in the former Soviet Union really wanted to get back together we would be hearing so. Yeah, times are hard for some, but I'd bet if you asked, they'd say No Way!

Please, don't fall into the fear trap being set up against Muslims. True, a minority of Muslims clamor for our downfall, but evidence of a majority working to destroy western civilization is not evident. However, should we 'Stay the course' that could change.

[DoYouEverWonder]

10. I think you misread my statements?

I have no fear of Muslims nor do I think they want to destroy the US.

[DEMVET-USMC]

15. Thank you reprehensor , This is what I was getting at. Yours much better

and vastly more thorough. His own statements are pretty amazing when read now with all that is going on as to radical muslims. Boy did he get it wrong. I wish a few of these guys would appologize for these costly errors in judgement.They never seem to. I guess a few now and then such as Macnamara in THE FOG OF WAR. ...Oscar

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

3. Brzezinksi was an old hardliner and cold warrior..brought in by Carter

...If I recall right Carter was thought to be too "soft", and when detente faded, Brzezinksi was brought in to toughen-up US foreign policy. I dont think he was Carters orginal foreign policy advisor, but I'm not sure about that.

If anything, I think he takes a pragmatic view of things....realpolitik the Germans call it. He is also taking a political position as he is affiliated with the Democrats.

[fujiyama]

14. Realpolitik

More like Kissengerian bullshit.

There really is little difference between the likes of this guy and Kissinger. It's the same short sighted US foreign policy.

Brzinski(I can't spell his name right and won't bother), believes that what's going on is "because of a few stirred up Muslims". I'd like him to tell that to the families of the 3,000 people that died in the WTC attacks. Let's see what they think of his "realpolitik".

The US knew that these were religious fanatics which were recruited to fight the Soviets. The US poured billions into the region and then really never looked that way again.

[many a good man]

11. "...a fixed and early date for U.S. troop withdrawal."

He proposes the two year anniversary date, April '05. He also said all US non-defensive military actions must be cleared by the future UN High Commissioner.

A grant of "sovereignty" by the United States to the Iraqis - while an American proconsul backed by an occupation army remains ensconced in a fortress in the very heart of the Iraqi capital - will have no political legitimacy.

He gets it...

[Capt_Nemo]

16. Brzezinski is just pissed off because the neo-cons

obsession in supporting the Likud agenda has diverted most DoD, DoS
and intelligence out from where he wanted them: in the Caucasus and
Central Asia, for continuing the 90's game containment/downsizing of
Russia.

Don't be deluded: that is the "kinder, gentler" PNAC that you'll get
with John Kerry and, if not done carefuly, could become even more dangerous than the original.

That is also why I'm almost sure that Putin is rooting for a Bush
win: not only a neo-con WH boosts Russia's "soft power" in Western
Europe and China, but also eases the US pressure near Russia's
borders. Europe and China would obviously like to get things back
to how they were in the 90's...