See other Editorial Articles
Title: Zbigniew Brzezinski: The Smart Way Out of a Foolish War
Source:
The Washington Post
URL Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy ... 008/03/27/AR2008032702405.html
Published: Mar 30, 2008
Author: Zbigniew Brzezinski
Post Date: 2008-04-04 22:20:13 by robin
Keywords: None
Views: 426
Comments: 31
The Smart Way Out of a Foolish War By Zbigniew Brzezinski Sunday, March 30, 2008; B03 Both Democratic presidential candidates agree that the United States should end its combat mission in Iraq within 12 to 16 months of their possible inauguration. The Republican candidate has spoken of continuing the war, even for a hundred years, until "victory." The core issue of this campaign is thus a basic disagreement over the merits of the war and the benefits and costs of continuing it. The case for U.S. disengagement from combat is compelling in its own right. But it must be matched by a comprehensive political and diplomatic effort to mitigate the destabilizing regional consequences of a war that the outgoing Bush administration started deliberately, justified demagogically and waged badly. (I write, of course, as a Democrat; while I prefer Sen. Barack Obama, I speak here for myself.) The contrast between the Democratic argument for ending the war and the Republican argument for continuing is sharp and dramatic. The case for terminating the war is based on its prohibitive and tangible costs, while the case for "staying the course" draws heavily on shadowy fears of the unknown and relies on worst-case scenarios. President Bush's and Sen. John McCain's forecasts of regional catastrophe are quite reminiscent of the predictions of "falling dominoes" that were used to justify continued U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Neither has provided any real evidence that ending the war would mean disaster, but their fear-mongering makes prolonging it easier. Nonetheless, if the American people had been asked more than five years ago whether Bush's obsession with the removal of Saddam Hussein was worth 4,000 American lives, almost 30,000 wounded Americans and several trillion dollars -- not to mention the less precisely measurable damage to the United States' world-wide credibility, legitimacy and moral standing -- the answer almost certainly would have been an unequivocal "no." Nor do the costs of this fiasco end there. The war has inflamed anti-American passions in the Middle East and South Asia while fragmenting Iraqi society and increasing the influence of Iran. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent visit to Baghdad offers ample testimony that even the U.S.-installed government in Iraq is becoming susceptible to Iranian blandishments. In brief, the war has become a national tragedy, an economic catastrophe, a regional disaster and a global boomerang for the United States. Ending it is thus in the highest national interest. Terminating U.S. combat operations will take more than a military decision. It will require arrangements with Iraqi leaders for a continued, residual U.S. capacity to provide emergency assistance in the event of an external threat (e.g., from Iran); it will also mean finding ways to provide continued U.S. support for the Iraqi armed forces as they cope with the remnants of al-Qaeda in Iraq. The decision to militarily disengage will also have to be accompanied by political and regional initiatives designed to guard against potential risks. We should fully discuss our decisions with Iraqi leaders, including those not residing in Baghdad's Green Zone, and we should hold talks on regional stability with all of Iraq's neighbors, including Iran. Contrary to Republican claims that our departure will mean calamity, a sensibly conducted disengagement will actually make Iraq more stable over the long term. The impasse in Shiite-Sunni relations is in large part the sour byproduct of the destructive U.S. occupation, which breeds Iraqi dependency even as it shatters Iraqi society. In this context, so highly reminiscent of the British colonial era, the longer we stay in Iraq, the less incentive various contending groups will have to compromise and the more reason simply to sit back. A serious dialogue with the Iraqi leaders about the forthcoming U.S. disengagement would shake them out of their stupor. Ending the U.S. war effort entails some risks, of course, but they are inescapable at this late date. Parts of Iraq are already self-governing, including Kurdistan, part of the Shiite south and some tribal areas in the Sunni center. U.S. military disengagement will accelerate Iraqi competition to more effectively control their territory, which may produce a phase of intensified inter-Iraqi conflicts. But that hazard is the unavoidable consequence of the prolonged U.S. occupation. The longer it lasts, the more difficult it will be for a viable Iraqi state ever to reemerge. It is also important to recognize that most of the anti-U.S. insurgency in Iraq has not been inspired by al-Qaeda. Locally based jihadist groups have gained strength only insofar as they have been able to identify themselves with the fight against a hated foreign occupier. As the occupation winds down and Iraqis take responsibility for internal security, al-Qaeda in Iraq will be left more isolated and less able to sustain itself. The end of the occupation will thus be a boon for the war on al-Qaeda, bringing to an end a misguided adventure that not only precipitated the appearance of al-Qaeda in Iraq but also diverted the United States from Afghanistan, where the original al-Qaeda threat grew and still persists. Bringing the U.S. military effort to a close would also smooth the way for a broad U.S. initiative addressed to all of Iraq's neighbors. Some will remain reluctant to engage in any discussion as long as Washington appears determined to maintain its occupation of Iraq indefinitely. Therefore, at some stage next year, after the decision to disengage has been announced, a regional conference should be convened to promote regional stability, border control and other security arrangements, as well as regional economic development -- all of which would help mitigate the unavoidable risks connected with U.S. disengagement. Since Iraq's neighbors are vulnerable to intensified ethnic and religious conflicts spilling over from Iraq, all of them -- albeit for different reasons -- are likely to be interested. More distant Arab states such as Egypt, Morocco or Algeria might also take part, and some of them might be willing to provide peacekeeping forces to Iraq once it is free of foreign occupation. In addition, we should consider a regional rehabilitation program designed to help Iraq recover and to relieve the burdens that Jordan and Syria, in particular, have shouldered by hosting more than 2 million Iraqi refugees. The overall goal of a comprehensive U.S. strategy to undo the errors of recent years should be cooling down the Middle East, instead of heating it up. The "unipolar moment" that the Bush administration's zealots touted after the collapse of the Soviet Union has been squandered to generate a policy based on the unilateral use of force, military threats and occupation masquerading as democratization -- all of which has pointlessly heated up tensions, fueled anti-colonial resentments and bred religious fanaticism. The long-range stability of the Middle East has been placed in increasing jeopardy. Terminating the war in Iraq is the necessary first step to calming the Middle East, but other measures will be needed. It is in the U.S. interest to engage Iran in serious negotiations -- on both regional security and the nuclear challenge it poses. But such negotiations are unlikely as long as Washington's price of participation is unreciprocated concessions from Tehran. Threats to use force on Iran are also counterproductive because they tend to fuse Iranian nationalism with religious fanaticism. Real progress in the badly stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace process would also help soothe the region's religious and nationalist passions. But for such progress to take place, the United States must vigorously help the two sides start making the mutual concessions without which a historic compromise cannot be achieved. Peace between Israel and Palestine would be a giant step toward greater regional stability, and it would finally let both Israelis and Palestinians benefit from the Middle East's growing wealth. We started this war rashly, but we must end our involvement responsibly. And end it we must. The alternative is a fear-driven policy paralysis that perpetuates the war -- to America's historic detriment. Zbigniew Brzezinski was national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter. His most recent book is "Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower." View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Poster Comment: Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower (Hardcover)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: robin (#0)
Why won't the neo-cons talk with Iran? It isn't like they are a threat to our national security or some such.
It's all about controlling and maximizing the uncertainty in the markets - making the almost-unimaginable repeatedly seem to be practically inevitable.
Feith: We invaded Iraq because we were afraid they'd attack us 'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
Do you think Feith's wearing a rug? That is one profoundly dense parting of hair in any case. I can't believe he's wearing a rug. Tell me it's not true.
Maybe we'll learn this truth and more if we watch 60 Minutes tomorrow. Or not.
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
ping
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
This from a piece that Brzezinski published just a couple of days ago. But I bet our resident Obamaphobes will go on quoting stuff Zbig wrote years ago to show (they think, or claim) that Obama is no more against war than Hillary and McBush.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Funny how the Obamaphobes are staying away from this thread. As a matter of fact, I don't think they're posting at all at the moment. Could it be because it's the weekend?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
The decision to militarily disengage will also have to be accompanied by political and regional initiatives designed to guard against potential risks. We should fully discuss our decisions with Iraqi leaders, including those not residing in Baghdad's Green Zone, and we should hold talks on regional stability with all of Iraq's neighbors, including Iran. Sound like more war to me. Isn't this Obama's advisor?
"Look well therefore to this Day!" ~ Kalidasa
The 1st sentence in that paragraph. Unlike General Odom here ZBig thinks we should withdraw carefully. Note, that Obama's campaign has General Odom's article on its website. Also note that Obama says he had lunch with ZBig once.
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
I'm just asking, not really being all that informed about the BO campaign.
"Look well therefore to this Day!" ~ Kalidasa
Hi Ari, If you get a minute, can you make a case FOR Obama? Keep pimping doll, it reveals your jonesing for bigger wars, pain and global poverty. Bring the gang. See if you can come up with 3 good reasons. There is so much out there on Zbig, and your refusal to acknowledge it, tells me a lot about you.
"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." -- Herbert Sebastien Agar (1897-1980) Source: The Time for Greatness, 1942
Larouche on Obama (he's being used by those running interference for Bloomberg).
Obama's speeches are all the same. We're leaving, but we're not leaving. We'll talk with Iran, but strangle their economy if they don't dance like a good puppet. In looking though all of his statement I have yet to find a single statement where he promises to bring the US instigators of the war (the ones who intentionaly lied) to justice. If anything he sounds like Bush in 2000. Blah blah bi-partisionship blah blah humble foreign policy blah blah help is on the way blah blah blah. But hey, he promises to expand the military for all those wars we won't be fighting.
"The more I see of life, the less I fear death." - Me. "If violence solved nothing, then weapons technology would have never advanced past crude clubs and rocks." - Me.
Thanks buckeye, I'll check it out..
"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." -- Herbert Sebastien Agar (1897-1980) Source: The Time for Greatness, 1942
Your right. He's been groomed to do exactly that.
"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." -- Herbert Sebastien Agar (1897-1980) Source: The Time for Greatness, 1942
From: The Washington Post Date: December 5, 2006 Author: Renae Merle - There are about 100,000 government contractors operating in Iraq, not counting subcontractors, a total that is approaching the size of the U.S. military force there, according to the military's first census of the growing population of civilians operating in the battlefield. -Snip Terminating U.S. combat operations will take more than a military decision. It will require arrangements with Iraqi leaders for a continued, residual U.S. capacity to provide emergency assistance in the event of an external threat (e.g., from Iran); it will also mean finding ways to provide continued U.S. support for the Iraqi armed forces as they cope with the remnants of al-Qaeda in Iraq. - Zig ****** ********** So, from previous discussion we know Obama is going to reposition the troops in Afghanistan and other nations in the Middle East because the safety of Israel is “sacrosanct” (his word). But what of the Backwater-type contractors ? Will they be staying, going, moving on to other nearby locations with the troops? These are questions people should be asking rather than spending time defending a policy that becomes more like the status quo every day.
Obama, albeit using slightly different terms, agrees: "To defeat al Qaeda, I will build a twenty-first-century military and twenty-first-century partnerships as strong as the anticommunist alliance that won the Cold War to stay on the offense everywhere from Djibouti to Kandahar." - Sen Obama, June 4, 2007
What you're saying is that there is no hope for serious reform in the top three selections. You would be correct, and you will be proven correct. When Bloomberg takes these three on, the Establishment will attempt to sway us his way. We are a kept populace.
The last attempt at reform was in 1860/65 and that attempt was crushed.
The British won that war.
Americans lost that war.
It was the end of the American revolution.
i agree with Zbig....giving credit where credit is due. he makes the statement that the contrast between the democrats argument for ending the war and the republicans for continuing it is sharp and dramatic. the democrats took the majority in congress with their talk of ending the war, yet, as we all know, they voted for the surge and for more funding. i guess my question is, what makes Zbig believe that if a democrat 'wins' the WH that he/she will terminate the Iraq war? i know he said that he prefers obama, but is he not including hillary here with this opinion?
Neither (Dims or Pubes) will end something they don't understand. Obama spokesmen now say Obama envisions a permanent 80,000 man force in Iraq, which is a continuation of the same posturing, UNLESS the goal is Brzezinsky's continued tri-partite strategy for US world projection, i.e.1) Europe consolidated (against Russia) 2) the Middle East neutralized and armed (against Russia [this tosses the Israelis as kingpins of world policy]) and 3) the firm Far East footing of a US-friendly China against Russia. This has been his general strategy for decades. This is his design. It is refreshing in at least one major part but debatable in results as the Israelis and Chinese have cozied up intimately and this changes the calculus dramatically (expectantly the Promised Land of Milk and Honey of the 50th New 'Diaspora'). To consider: www.pim-fortuyn.nl/pfforum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=56203 The Belgians (read Hague and NATO) are pounding Brzezinski and demonizing Zbigniew Brezezinsky as the monster behind Obama (not true on anything but foreign policy, for which Obama is a blank slate [as on most other issues]}. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbi...zinski#Arab-Israeli_peace Alfred Lilienthal says Brzezinski and Carter opposed the Zionist control of the US.while Vance was an advocate and congressional Zionist ally. Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security advisor to U.S. President Jimmy Carter, wrote: "Mearsheimer and Walt adduce a great deal of factual evidence that over the years Israel has been the beneficiary of privileged — indeed, highly preferential — financial assistance, out of all proportion to what the United States extends to any other country. The massive aid to Israel is in effect a huge entitlement that enriches the relatively prosperous Israelis at the cost of the American taxpayer. Money being fungible, that aid also pays for the very settlements that America opposes and that impede the peace process."[18] In his review in The Times, journalist Max Hastings wrote "otherwise intelligent Americans diminish themselves by hurling charges of antisemitism with such recklessness. There will be no peace in the Middle East until the United States faces its responsibilities there in a much more convincing fashion than it does today, partly for reasons given in this depressing book."[19] ...and they just finished forcing a senile old man (James earl Carter) to crawl and mewl in front of them on world television in the most humiliating ways !!! Not so sure I oppose Brzezinski more than McHillary's Masters... actually I oppose all the Eastern Europeans , especially Chertoff and Mukasey. I was surprised at the courage and level-thinking of both Zbig and Carter ( no fan of his) as opposed to the more powerful Vance and State and the Controllers all allied into the banking/industrial/Congressional/media/military complex. The Zbigniew Brzezinsky question is for me open and Lillienthal has the most detailed contemporary notes on him as well as Carter; well worth a slow and note-taking reading. http://books.google.com/books?id...2&cad=author-navigational http://www.alfredlilienthal.com/ http://www.amazon.com/Zionist-Co...Price-Peace/dp/0396075649
He says he endorses Obama. Kissinger has endorsed McCain. Maybe that's too simplistic, but that's all I need to know.
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
Note: Rice just went to Israel, demanded a stop to illegal settlements on Palestinian land...Israel made dinners and agreed.... and as soon as The Secretary of State of the United States of America, Dr. Condoleeza Rice was on the airplane... Israel announced 1400 fully paid additional new settlements on Palestinian land... this egregious INSULT and OPEN DECEPTION is IMNSHO due to the new "Special Relationship" between Israel and China...looters and thieves both.
bump
I cling to hope of a 50 state repudiation of the traitorous, neocon Plutocrat Party
but they'll be no followup or consequences to pay, will there?
Condie Rice outright lies when she says that she is willing to talk to the Iranians, trying to make it appear that they are the intrasigents. The US and British have abused Iran for one hundred years, British Petro is the old Iranian-Anglo Oil company whose enormous profits raised the standard of living in Britain out of the WW1 pit while leaving the Iranians in some of the worst poverty of the ME. Interestingly, when the revolution occured in Iran in 78(?) the US embassy's office was raided by Iranian students. A lot of documents were by then shredded, but for the next year or so they were put back together by the same people who spend ten years weaving a rug. A book was compiled of the documents, and shows clearly that the embassy was harboring CIA spies, as the Iranians always maintained. And details the methods the CIA used to buy off the local press and corrupt the political process. I understand this book is freely available in Iran, but to bring it into the US is a Federal crime. So one of the many questions concerning Iran is who is the US trying to keep its secrets from - the Iranians, or its citizens?
"Satan / Cheney in "08" Thanks for sharing that information as it is new news to me.
Fox News missed it, I guess.
"Satan / Cheney in "08" It is in the U.S. interest to engage Iran in serious negotiations -- on both regional security and the nuclear challenge it poses. But such negotiations are unlikely as long as Washington's price of participation is unreciprocated concessions from Tehran.
#2. To: Fred Mertz (#1)
#3. To: Fred Mertz, nobody (#1)
freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=77360
#4. To: robin (#3)
#5. To: nobody (#4)
#6. To: Brian S, aristeides, iconoclast, Elliott Jackalope, Arator, vast rightwing conspirator (#0)
#7. To: robin, Peppa (#0)
Terminating the war in Iraq is the necessary first step to calming the Middle East, but other measures will be needed. It is in the U.S. interest to engage Iran in serious negotiations -- on both regional security and the nuclear challenge it poses. But such negotiations are unlikely as long as Washington's price of participation is unreciprocated concessions from Tehran. Threats to use force on Iran are also counterproductive because they tend to fuse Iranian nationalism with religious fanaticism.
#8. To: robin (#6)
#9. To: robin (#0)
It will require arrangements with Iraqi leaders for a continued, residual U.S. capacity to provide emergency assistance in the event of an external threat (e.g., from Iran); it will also mean finding ways to provide continued U.S. support for the Iraqi armed forces as they cope with the remnants of al-Qaeda in Iraq.
#10. To: angle (#9)
Terminating U.S. combat operations will take more than a military decision.
#11. To: robin (#10)
#12. To: aristeides (#7)
This from a piece that Brzezinski published just a couple of days ago. But I bet our resident Obamaphobes will go on quoting stuff Zbig wrote years ago to show (they think, or claim) that Obama is no more against war than Hillary and McBush.
#13. To: Peppa (#12)
#14. To: Peppa (#12)
See if you can come up with 3 good reasons.
#15. To: buckeye (#13)
Larouche on Obama (he's being used by those running interference for Bloomberg).
#16. To: Pissed Off Janitor (#14)
#17. To: Peppa, Pissed Off Janitor, buckeye, all (#16)
Census Counts 100,000 Contractors in Iraq;
#18. To: Jethro Tull (#17)
#19. To: buckeye (#18)
What you're saying is that there is no hope for serious reform in the top three selections. What you're saying is that there is no hope for serious reform in the top three selections.
#20. To: Cynicom (#19)
#21. To: buckeye (#20)
#22. To: Cynicom (#21)
#23. To: robin (#0)
Terminating the war in Iraq is the necessary first step to calming the Middle East, but other measures will be needed. It is in the U.S. interest to engage Iran in serious negotiations -- on both regional security and the nuclear challenge it poses. But such negotiations are unlikely as long as Washington's price of participation is unreciprocated concessions from Tehran. Threats to use force on Iran are also counterproductive because they tend to fuse Iranian nationalism with religious fanaticism.
#24. To: christine (#23)
i agree with Zbig....giving credit where credit is due. he makes the statement that the contrast between the democrats argument for ending the war and the republicans for continuing it is sharp and dramatic.
#25. To: christine (#23)
i know he said that he prefers obama, but is he not including hillary here with this opinion?
#26. To: christine (#24)
Money being fungible, that aid also pays for the very settlements that America opposes and that impede the peace process."[18]
#27. To: robin (#0)
#28. To: JCHarris (#26)
#29. To: Fred Mertz (#1)
Why won't the neo-cons talk with Iran? It isn't like they are a threat to our national security or some such.
#30. To: tom007 (#29)
A book was compiled of the documents, and shows clearly that the embassy was harboring CIA spies, as the Iranians always maintained. And details the methods the CIA used to buy off the local press and corrupt the political process.
#31. To: Fred Mertz (#30)
Thanks for sharing that information as it is new news to me.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest