Posted on 10/08/2001 1:57:12 PM PDT by Zviadist
Ex-National Security Chief Brzezinski admits: Afghan Islamism Was Made in Washington
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser in 'Le Nouvel Observateur' (France), Jan 15-21, 1998, p. 76
Translated by Bill Blum
=======================================
***
Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
Q: 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?
B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.
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?
Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.
B: 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.
***
Note: There are at least two editions of 'Le Nouvel Observateur.' With apparently the sole exception of the Library of Congress, the version sent to the United States is shorter than the French version. The Brzezinski interview was not included in the shorter version. *
Translated from the French by Bill Blum, author of "Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II" and "Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower" Portions of the books can be read at: http://members.aol.com/superogue/homepage.htm
[Back to Top]
During the Cold War, we were up against a terrible enemy who wanted to conquer the world. If we hadn't stopped them, they may well have succeeded. We made numerous micalculations and errors in the effort to contain them, but we ultimately prevailed--and it wasn't because we were, to borrow your phrase, more beautiful.
but we ultimately prevailed--and it wasn't because we were, to borrow your phrase, more beautiful.
...and then promptly began behaving worse than the former Soviet overlords would have dreamed about. Won't let us run our pipeline through your country to the Adriatic? We'll bomb you. Vote for the wrong leaders (Serbia, Slovakia, Belarus, Albania, etc)? We'll overthrow them. Do what we say, or else. I wonder about the Cold War. Was it really fought for freedom? Or for certain Western business interests (most of which happened to coincide with Soviet interests as well).
You are trying to prove too much with this example. American "meddling" has often been a good thing. Every country in the Western Hemisphere is now a democracy, thanks to our meddling.
The fact that we can't control every outcome is not a particularly persuasive argument against making any attempt to influence events in foreign countries.
I was curious how long it would take before somebody put their finger on what was happening here. It's hard to believe it took 18 posts.
2) The rise of the lunatic fringe in Afghanistan happened after the CIA and the US left. Funded by the Saudis, and organized and trained by the Pakistanis who saw a vaccuum in Afghansitan leading to chaos and drug-running in their own country because of the Afghan refugees.
So, if we had stayed the course, and helped the people who had helped us bleed the Communists,these Taliban fruitcakes would not have taken over the country.
Of course, if we had an American in the WHite House in 1993, when the first attack on the WTC occurred...
I'm not a big Zib fan, but I'll think I'll wait on the authorized translation before jumping on this story.
Fine. But it was indeed published and it is of interest and relevant. That is why I posted it. Thought-provoking even if it raises other questions.
Stopped them? Huh?
They collapsed on themselves. Without a shot's being fired, the Big Bad Soviet Union collapsed like a cheap dimestore umbrella in the face of some dockworkers and fled like Dracula from the Christianity THAT SELFSAME collective of power now uses to great political effect.
I am going to disabuse you of this fantasy, I swear.
How in hell could they have launched the "greatest peace movement the world has ever seen" whilst still the "Evil Empire"?
How better to disarm the West than to coming limping their way crying "Mea Culpa, Kapitalism!" when (as militant atheists and supreme materialists with their own ideas of New World Economic Policy) they've no semblance, even, of the morality on which "good capitalism" is based and can therefore clean our clocks with precision (if not absolute abandon)?
What in God's name was Bush I thinking when -- before the dust of the Berlin wall had even settled -- he was hooking us up for joint operations with the selfsame KGB and Eastern Euro intel sharks who'd been running heroin our way? I'm sure Clinton appreciated the alleged help he got from the Rooskies with Waco but I can't help noticing our own unconstitutional Federal Police Force's profile has grown more menacing in an almost exponential way since this so-called perestroika partnership of "policemen".
I realize I sound like some kinda freak yelling "THE POD PEOPLE ARE HERE" ... but I just like things to make sense, that's all. The "fall of communism" (or the "abolition of the IMAGE of the enemy" as they put it well in advance of getting down with glasnost) is bs.
I suppose you probably think that just sitting at home and comtemplating the lint in our navels would be consequence-free? That a national foreign policy of "Ignore the bad mans and hope they go away!" is the best foreign policy?
You need to grow up.
This is just the "blame American first" crowd going into overdrive. It was not our "meddling" that got us into this, it was because we walked away
Just keep puffing on that crack pipe, buddy. Remember, ALWAYS believe what you are told. ALWAYS.
I am so glad to hear someone else say this. It bears repeating: WE ARE NOT OMNIPOTENT. We cannot control the course of history, and we are often outmaneuvered by our enemies (viz. Somalia, Vietnam, Yalta, etc.)
There is a tendency on the Left, and increasingly on the Right, to assume that we can simply enact our will uncontested. Thus the Left will blame the US for any larger conflagration that gets started following the attacks on the Pentagon and the WTC. Apparently, some on the Right will do so as well. Zviadist is right to say that "blowback" is merely another word for unintended consequences. But there are consequences to inaction as well.
Goodness gracious, I'm sounding like one of those dreaded "neo-cons." Best stop while I'm ahead.
One that that burns me is the way they cut the end off of "Brazil" when they show it in the U.S.
Not only do they want us clueless, they like us to be as arrogant as possible, convinced we're somehow specially blessed by God (even if we destroy 1.2 million of His own innocents each year, we've got the $70 sneakers to show it) and are entitled for some reason to the "Happily Ever After" version always.
You'll like this ... I used the word "King-cons" in a dream the other night to describe folks like Kissinger on whom our perma-leadership relies but whose Maotai ways and NSSM-200 pop-control policy reveal him to be every bit the evil elitist that Hillary, Soros or others are.
Malcolm Forbes had a funny comment at his desert birthday bash once when Elizabeth Taylor whined to Mr. Hanky "But Henry, you're not staying for the fireworks?"
"My dear," Malcolm laughed, "it's he who usually starts them."
I agree. Before 1991 the USSR was the imperialist power. Since 1991 I have seen my country become a grotesque empire.
"Won't let us run our pipeline through your country to the Adriatic? We'll bomb you. Vote for the wrong leaders (Serbia, Slovakia, Belarus, Albania, etc)? We'll overthrow them. Do what we say, or else. I wonder about the Cold War. Was it really fought for freedom? Or for certain Western business interests (most of which happened to coincide with Soviet interests as well)."
I don't think it's about pipelines. That doesn't seem important enough to me. It can only be an attempt to distract Muslim fanatics from Israel. I think it's an attempt to make Muslims think that Slavs, and not Israel, is the enemy. It's an attempt to make Muslims think the US is their friend. I think it's all an attempt to protect Israel by diverting the energies of the Muslims into fighting Christian Slavs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.