Is Zbigniew Brzezinski MIHOP?

[HamdenRice]

There is a great post by autorank in GD about Zbig's written comments to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday.

In the comments, Zbig suggests that an Iran war might start with a terrorist event that would be "blamed on Iran," leading to a "defensive" war by the US. Shockingly, Zbig put the word "defensive" in quotation marks!

Also an interesting discussion in various posts follows.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x107654

[reprehensor]

1. I think he's scared.

That alone, is scary.

[JackRiddler]

2. How could he not be?

It's not like he could deny the history he's been so intimately involved in. Or forget that the US intervention in Afghanistan began before the Soviet invasion.

The interesting question is whether he'll be willing to go beyond this already shocking statement: He is clearly saying that the United States government (or covert state) is capable of committing false-flag terrorism within the US in order to start a catastrophic, genocidal war, in fact that there is an imminent danger of this from the same government that was in charge in 2001. And just a few sentences later mentions the exploitation of 9/11 to falsely justify an earlier war.

Wow.

[HamdenRice]

3. I've felt dizzy all day because of this

It's one thing for a civilian like me to walk around thinking 9/11 might have been an inside job at least in part, or a rogoue elements job.

But when Zbig gives a statement in open testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, it just feels like I've dropped through a rabbit hole into an entirely different world.

If he is saying this about what he thinks is going to happen viz Iran, what does this mean about the justification for Iraq?

Another thing: Zbig is hired as a strategic consultant for what he knows, what insiders tell him, not what he guesses.

This testimony is idle speculation; this is what his sources are telling him.

[JackRiddler]

4. I think you mean "this is not idle speculation"

If you'll allow the copy edit. (No worry, I do otherwise consider you articulate... and clean, very clean!) ;)

How does one publicize this more heavily?!

Hey OCTs, please attack Brzezinski!!!

[HamdenRice]

5. Oh gosh, I did mean "not idle" nt

[Big Pappa]

17. This

made you feel dizzy? In a previous post, you stated you were shaking all day after watching a film on the Russian sub the Kursk. Health wise do you think you can handle watching tv or reading up on CT's.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

7. I don't think those two events are comparable

The United States destabilised the Afghan Socialist state so that the USSR would be involved with a shitstorm on its border with Afghan nationalists and tribal warlords.

I read Brzezinski's piece and where does he "clearly say" that the United States is capable of committing a "false-flag terrorist" attack scenario?

[JackRiddler]

8. answers...

Afghanistan: I wasn't comparing the two events but pointing out Zbig was present at the creation of "the Islamist peril."

Zbig said, among other things if you follow the link...

"A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a "defensive" U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan."

"A terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran" - you can and probably will parse this to say he's not specifying a responsible party for said attack. But he is clearly saying Iran would be blamed although it wouldn't be responsible, and that the US gov is capable of this. However, in the context of testimony to the Congress by a member of the policy establishment this is as incendiary and daring as it gets. Remember, all these milquetoast shills are blabbing in the usual NatSec dialect about "American interests" on the other side of the planet and "us" and our noble intent always underlying any of our actions, even if they are "misguided." And then a figure who is nothing less than Zbig steps up to say that the US will blame an attack on Iran to launch a war of aggression (and probably kill millions).

In the next sentence, he brings 9/11 in and questions its presentation as a Pearl Harbor and the entire "war on terror" ideology:

A mythical historical narrative to justify the case for such a protracted and potentially expanding war is already being articulated. Initially justified by false claims about WMD's in Iraq, the war is now being redefined as the "decisive ideological struggle" of our time, reminiscent of the earlier collisions with Nazism and Stalinism. In that context, Islamist extremism and al Qaeda are presented as the equivalents of the threat posed by Nazi Germany and then Soviet Russia, and 9/11 as the equivalent of the Pearl Harbor attack which precipitated America's involvement in World War II.

Same thread, reprehensor found this Q & A with one reporter:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/brze-f02_prn....

Following the hearing, this reporter asked Brzezinski directly if he was suggesting that the source of a possible provocation might be the US government itself. The former national security adviser was evasive.

The following exchange took place:

Q: Dr. Brzezinski, who do you think would be carrying out this possible provocation?

A: I have no idea. As I said, these things can never be predicted. It can be spontaneous.

Q: Are you suggesting there is a possibility it could originate within the US government itself?

A: I’m saying the whole situation can get out of hand and all sorts of calculations can produce a circumstance that would be very difficult to trace.

A CIRCUMSTANCE THAT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO TRACE.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

11. Interesting stuff

Although I don't think he is suggesting that he's L/MIHOP from that. I think the closest he comes to suggesting anything is in the Q & A where he says he doesn't know (re: possibility of attack originating in the US government) and doesn't explicitly rule it out.

[HamdenRice]

13. Excellent analysis of the language! nt

[Big Pappa]

18. I

think he was trying to keep some type of intrigue, like watching a movie trailer. Your left wanting more.

[Tim Howells]

19. Plus he use the work "provocation" ...

... this is often used in association with staged, false-flag operations -
as in the phrase "agent provocateur". I'm sure Brzezinski was choosing
his words very carefully. But as you say, when he was asked directly
if he meant that the administration was going to stage a terrorist
attack, and he did not deny that - that alone spells it out for all
but the deaf dumb and blind.

Tim Howells

[Tim Howells]

22. Yeah - Zbig is talking about staged terrorism

The Q/A that you quote makes this clear:
> Q: Dr. Brzezinski, who do you think would be carrying out this possible provocation?
> A: I have no idea. As I said, these things can never be predicted. It can be spontaneous.
> Q: Are you suggesting there is a possibility it could originate within the US government itself?
> A: I’m saying the whole situation can get out of hand and all sorts of calculations can produce
> a circumstance that would be very difficult to trace.

This is a good description of exactly how these things are
intended to work, and how they do work. Add Zbig to the
list of insiders who dare to speak out, including those
who have spoken out about September 11 as an inside job.

I'll post a separate thread about this.

Tim Howells

[Amused Musings]

12. If I remember correctly,

while you depiction of events is pretty accurate, I would add that the US was also looking into putting mid-range nuclear missiles in the region before the Soviets invaded.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

6. No I don't think he is

9/11 was indirectly blamed on Iraq by the Bush administration through "ties with Al-Qaedia" which didn't exist and sold this to the American people and their Congress. I suspect that Brzezinski fears a terrorist attack performed by a militant group will be used as a Casus belli against Iran whether links exist between Iran and the group or not.

[Henny Penny]

23. You're right, at least in part...

"I suspect that Brzezinski fears a terrorist attack performed by a militant group will be used as a Casus belli against Iran whether links exist between Iran and the group or not."

Its just that the strings of that group will be pulled by the intelligence agencies of one, two or all three of the following countries:

The US, the UK and Israel.

Wars take a lot of planning and you can't let something as critical as the kick off be left to chance like that now can you?

[reprehensor]

9. A little Q & A

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/brze-f02_prn.shtml

Following the hearing, this reporter asked Brzezinski directly if he was suggesting that the source of a possible provocation might be the US government itself. The former national security adviser was evasive.

The following exchange took place:

Q: Dr. Brzezinski, who do you think would be carrying out this possible provocation?

A: I have no idea. As I said, these things can never be predicted. It can be spontaneous.

Q: Are you suggesting there is a possibility it could originate within the US government itself?

A: I’m saying the whole situation can get out of hand and all sorts of calculations can produce a circumstance that would be very difficult to trace.

Continued...
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/brze-f02_prn.shtml

-----------------------

What he has said in the past;

First, about the CIA intervention in Afghanistan;

Q: 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?

B: 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.

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

B: 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? - 1998 http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

Here, he drops hints about a catalyzing event to solidify American hegemony in the 21st century;

The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America’s engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. (Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, 1997, pp. 24–25)

America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America’s power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public’s sense of domestic well-being. (Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, 1997, pp. 35–36)

Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat. (Emphasis added) (Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, 1997, p. 211)

Brzezinski, in my opinion, is letting us know what the sickest minds in Washington think-tanks are cooking up. I get the feeling that Brzezinski himself is feeling a "sudden threat or challenge to sense of domestic well-being."

And that ain't good.

The Grand Chessboard quotes are from Diana Ralph's brilliant essay in "The Hidden History of 9-11-2001", ISLAMOPHOBIA AND THE ‘‘WAR ON TERROR’’: THE CONTINUING PRETEXT FOR U.S. IMPERIAL CONQUEST

--------------------------

Brzezinski is the insider's insider. He knows how deranged these prescriptions can be, hell he used to make the same prescriptions.

[moodforaday]

10. He was a neocon before the neocons

Brzezinski's motives may be very different, but the PNAC document is practically rehashing what Brzezinski had written in The Grand Chessboard, including the "new Pearl Harbor" concept. But it's hard to say what prompts him to talk so openly - apparently! - now. Is he calling Bush/Cheney's bluff? Is he trying to pre-empt a new MIHOP? Or is he just giving a final warning to those who'll get it?

Here's a thought from under a tinfoil hat. He may be talking to future historians. I've always thought someone in a position like his, even if unable or unwilling to stop what's coming - or especially a person in charge of what's coming - would make a statement, however veiled, for the record.

[bighughdiehl]

14. Exactly....

Zbig wrote that "Grand Chessboard" book...which laid out the case for a 'need" for some event to justify action in Central Asia...this was 1997-pre-PNAC. Birds of a feather...

[reprehensor]

15. The neocons were around, but their formula...

needed some tweaking.

What Brzezinski said previously;

First, about the CIA intervention in Afghanistan;

Q: 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?

B: 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.

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

B: 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? - 1998 http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

-------------------

Here, he drops hints about a catalyzing event to solidify American hegemony in the 21st century;

The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America’s engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. (Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, 1997, pp. 24–25)

America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America’s power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public’s sense of domestic well-being. (Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, 1997, pp. 35–36)

Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat. (Emphasis added) (Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, 1997, p. 211)

Brzezinski, in my opinion, is letting us know what the sickest minds in Washington think-tanks are cooking up. I get the feeling that Brzezinski himself is feeling a "sudden threat or challenge to sense of domestic well-being."

The Grand Chessboard is a dangerous book. Absolutely rife with the myth-making and cherry-picked history that he accuses the PNACers of now... strange all the way around.

This is a warning, for sure. But for who?

[Tim Howells]

21. I don't know, maybe, or ...

... or maybe as others have suggested on this thread there is
a real struggle at the highest levels going on here. Zbig
is a close associate of the neocons on some of their favorite
projects, e.g. see:

"American Committee for Peace in Chechnya"
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=american_committee_for_peace_in_chechnya_(acpc)
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1429

On the other hand the fact that Zbig's statements are getting
zero play in the media tells me that this is not any kind of
insider game - this is serious IMO.

Tim Howells

[Name removed]

16. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mr Rabble]

20. Pretty clear what he meant.

In 2005, an Executive Order was issued proclaiming that the United States reserved the right to attack Iran, possibly using nuclear weapons, if the US was attacked again.

Further, the order states that it wouldn't matter if Iran was involved in the attack or not.

Sorry I don't remember the XO #, but this should be fairly easy to find. Robert Parry and Sy Hersh did stories on this.

[MervinFerd]

24. I think he's BUNNYHOP.