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]
Totally false. There were two communist dictators before the Soviets invaded, and a third leftist before him, dating back to 1973.
It was the Soviets who interfered in Afghan internal affairs by (1) Supporting the "Red Prince" Daoud who deposed the King Zahir Shah in 1973, (2) Installing communist Mohammed Tarkai, and (3)Unsuccessfully plotting against Hafizullah Amin.
This was in additon to day-to-day indoctrination of military officers and intellectals.
But you may see how messy interfering in this area will get when the US's winking at the minority Northern Alliance, and ignoring the Pushtun majority except for bombing and [soon] going into their mountain areas, will start to bear fruit.
What the hell are you talking about? I am talking of the US campaign against Yugoslavia in the 1990s. Tito was dead by then.
I noticed the problem. He seems to be a little confused. He does not answer questions; he sets off on a rant whenever he is approached. He seems to have a few rants available in his pile and he fires them off randomly. Quite amusing, really.
The Islamist threat is real. I believe it also provides us a unique opportunity to reinvigorate our foreign policy with a moral center we have lacked for some years. What do you think?
The Soviets had the right to interfere by the virture of Afghanistan's proximity. The same argument the US used when intefering in the internal affairs of Latin American countries. It was understood that interfering into what was perceived other superpower's sphere of influence could ignite a conflict. As Bzezinsky testifies, it was done on purpose to bait the Soviet Union.
Maybe it's what you mean, but said that way it can be easily misunderstood. Many of those in a position to make or influence decisions have only one reason (at least one so overwhelmingly important to them that secondaries and tertiaries are irrelevant) but alliances are formed among individuals who have different "one" reasons, and often without each knowing what the others' priorities are.
It's all so complicated; as I said, I haven't begun to figure it out. But I'm pretty sure these people weren't really in control of the West throughout the Cold War.
My first point relates to this also. No one was "in control of the West" during the Cold War years; it was a continuous struggle among competing interests to find a course which fit the priorities of each. Every corner of the Western political apparatus had input, including communists, neo-fascsts, One-Worlders of left and right, and virulent anti communists. That it played out the way it did was, IMO, more accident than design. Related to this, I think glasnost and Prerestroika were intended to deceive the West to help the Soviet's pull their chesnuts out of the economic fire, but it got out of hand. As it got out of hand the upper-tier nomenclatura saw some things they liked and have since been trying to weave limited democracy, capitalism, corruption and authoritarianism into a Red flying carpet.
BUT I'LL BET ZVIADIST AND ASKEL5 HAVE A BETTER-INFORMED VIEW
That's wrong again, because it's quoting out of context.
The Soviets interfered before 1979, without a peep from Washington. It was only after they actually invaded and posed a threat to the region, the West's oil supply [hint, hint], and to other countries like Pakistan that Brzezinski and others decided to take action.
Recognizing spheres of influence only goes so far. If the US had invaded Cuba the Soviets would have had something to say about it.
BTW, I see that you resent the term Russian Mafya(sp?). I can understand this because of the inherent dishonesty of the term but, because the censors will not allow a more definitive term, would you recommend something more appropriate? Is organizatsiya okay? Help me out here. We need a more honest discussion on FR.
1.Don't link Americans with American foreign polcy.
This is an absolutely KEY point. Criticizing American foreign policy is certainly not unpatriotic, and in fact is very patriotic if that criticism targets those times when America's foreign policy practitioners abandon American values when they do what they do. Excellent point.
Agreed. This was, in fact, the point of my post #58. We were all in it for different reasons and had different visions of what the peace might look like. The economic materialst, globalist crowd appears to have "won the peace" under Bush I and Clinton.
"...glasnost and Prerestroika were intended to deceive the West to help the Soviet's pull their chesnuts out of the economic fire, but it got out of hand..."
Again, I agree. Gorbachev and some of the upper echelon Communists thought they could "ride the tiger" of capitalist and limited democratic reform. If, like the Chinese, they had limited their reforms to the economic sphere while leaving Leninist social control apparatus in place, they might have succeeded. But they didn't do that. Instead, they introduced limited democratic reforms, which quickly spun out of their control. The rest, as they say, is history. Askel will no doubt disagree with all of this and call me naive again. :)
"But I'll bet Askel and Zviadist have a better informed view."
They usually do!
Has our post Cold War betrayal of the former subjects peoples of the Soviets so embittered you that you can no longer tolerate any activist US foreign policy?
I can see no reason for an "activist" foreign policy unless it is directly in our national security interests to do so. I support the seeking out and inflicting maximum pain on those who perpetrated violence on the US because it is clearly in our national interest to do so. If we take it too far, however, which is a serious threat, we will end up worse off. And with more dead. What is the point of an "activist" foreign policy when there is no direct threat to the US? I am seriously curious. Is it up to the taxpayer to clear the world for American business interests? That has been tried before and it is called facsism. Is that the road you think we should go down? I don't agree. The government has no business in business.
Again, I agree. Gorbachev and some of the upper echelon Communists thought they could "ride the tiger" of capitalist and limited democratic reform.
Gorby was a loser. Far more dangerous was the nomenklatura around him, who cashed in political contacts for unimaginable riches with no effort on their part at all. Some may criticize our own robber barons of the early twentieth century, but they did build railroads and such. The nomenklatura built NOTHING, but rather extracted the wealth in industry that had been built up by others for their own illegal and illicit gain -- with the blessing of the West.
Cheers. I appreciate your comments.
I don't dispute any of this. I wonder how my previous posts could give you the impression that I would want a foreign policy based in crude economic nationalism. I find the idea repugnant.
I do, however, believe that we should be activist in pursuing our national security interests. In this case, it means rooting out the entire Islamist terror organization (and it is deep, with branches in at least 15 countries). If necessary, I would also support a direct military engagement against Iraq to dismantle the terror network's principal supplier of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. To my mind, it would be pretty damned hard to go "too far" against an enemy like the Islamist network. The risk of not going far enough, however, can be measured in millions of American lives.
Prior to that there was the George Marshall who was involved in the treason at Pearl Harbor,after that assuring that Patton had no fuel in battles in WWll. Then there was the Bataan funny business, the Yalta treason and the manipulating of China into the hands those beloved commies.
After looking at his history, we may find out that there also was a dark side to this Marshall Plan.
Nothing surprises me anymore now that I have realized that the US media is the best in the world at screwing the American public.
That is not to say that bin Laden is not evil and dangerous and should definitely be done away with, but what makes him so dangerous is that what he had to say in his screed to the world last night was that it held a kernal of truth in it; just like Hitler's rants when he was running for office in Germany. He should definitely take the old "dirt nap," but after this is all over more Americans need to wake up to these powerful cabals on Wall Street and over at CFR, and throw their stalking horses in Washington out of office in one fell swoop. If this isn't done, really bad unrest is coming to America boys and girls.
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.