American debacle (By Zbigniew Brzezinski) -- (Barf Alert)

Los Angeles Times ^ | October 9, 2005 | By Zbigniew Brzezinski

[F14 Pilot]

Some 60 years ago Arnold Toynbee concluded, in his monumental "Study of History," that the ultimate cause of imperial collapse was "suicidal statecraft." Sadly for George W. Bush's place in history and — much more important — ominously for America's future, that adroit phrase increasingly seems applicable to the policies pursued by the United States since the cataclysm of 9/11.

Though there have been some hints that the Bush administration may be beginning to reassess the goals, so far defined largely by slogans, of its unsuccessful military intervention in Iraq, President Bush's speech Thursday was a throwback to the demagogic formulations he employed during the 2004 presidential campaign to justify a war that he himself started.

That war, advocated by a narrow circle of decision-makers for motives still not fully exposed, propagated publicly by rhetoric reliant on false assertions, has turned out to be much more costly in blood and money than anticipated. It has precipitated worldwide criticism. In the Middle East it has stamped the United States as the imperialistic successor to Britain and as a partner of Israel in the military repression of the Arabs. Fair or not, that perception has become widespread throughout the world of Islam.

Now, however, more than a reformulation of U.S. goals in Iraq is needed. The persistent reluctance of the administration to confront the political background of the terrorist menace has reinforced sympathy among Muslims for the terrorists. It is a self-delusion for Americans to be told that the terrorists are motivated mainly by an abstract "hatred of freedom" and that their acts are a reflection of a profound cultural hostility. If that were so, Stockholm or Rio de Janeiro would

[pcottraux]

Why would I listen to someone whose name I can't even pronounce?

[zarf]

Though there have been some hints that the Bush administration may be beginning to reassess the goals, so far defined largely by slogans, of its unsuccessful military intervention in Iraq,

Where the f*&k does Zbig get the idea that Iraq is a failure?

It remains to be seen what the result will be and failure is not an option.

Zbig is a hack who's time has past.

[eclectic]

Zbig is losing it.

[Just A Nobody]

"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran . . . should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth."
CAIR chairman, Omar M. Ahmad (as reported by the San Ramon Valley Herald in July 1998)

Now, having said that, what in the world is this moron talking about?

unsuccessful military intervention in Iraq

Quick, tell the Iraqis before they vote on their Constitution this week and in the elections in two months.

[T. Buzzard Trueblood]

Zbigniew Brzezinski's got a lot of nerve proclaiming Iraq an "American debacle" after the train wreck of an administration Jimmy Carter ran, in which Brzezinski served... Carter and his team gave Islamic fundamentalism its first victory when they handed Iran over to the Mullahs.

[river rat]

Roger that....

The brain farts from the Carter Administration, continue....


Semper Fi

[An.American.Expatriate]

Hmmmmmm, IIRC America became "the Great Satan" during the tenure of President Carter. Who was Carter's Sec of State and thus directly responsible for the American Debacle in Iran??

Hmmmmmm, can't seem to recall that name . . . it was a real hard one to pronounce . . .

Can someone PLEASE help??

*G*

[Windcatcher]

"Where the f*** does Zbig get the idea that Iraq is a failure?"

I've been thinking for a while that GWB needs to make the point (maybe in a speech, maybe in a town hall meeting, maybe some other way) that it simply takes time for an individual to learn the skills needed to defend his country. It's taking two years to train Iraqis to go after the terrorists because it takes two years to learn how to do it.

I'm dying for GWB to straight-out ask a reporter or ordinary person the following question:

"If we were to drop you into an Army base in, say, Fort Dix, train you for six months on marksmanship, combat tactics, and anything else you can absorb, how comfortable would you be if, once the six months was up, we drove you down to Dover, stuck you on a military airlift flight to Iraq, and left you there, completely on your own, with all of the other people in this room, who we also trained alongside you? Would you be comfortable with that?"

I'd bet that no one would answer "yes", and anyone who tried would hedge such that the lie would be obvious.

It's taking two years to get the Iraqis up to speed because, whether you're training Joe from Missouri, Nigel from Manchester, or Hakim from Basra, it simply takes a couple of years for an individual to learn the intuitive knowledge required to do his job and stay alive without any handholding. It's more than just marksmanship, how to approach a suspected hideout, or how to deploy a squad: they also require policing and patrolling skills, like gaining trust from the local populace and gathering information about any insurgents.

I'd like to see the President flat-out ask someone:

"How much training do you think you would need before you felt comfortable gathering information on your own from the local populace in an Iraqi town? If the terrorists were trying to gather information about you to set up an ambush twenty-four hours from now, how long do you think it would take for you to develop the skills to determine who was selling you out to them?"

As a follow-up he should ask:

"Do you think that training alone could give you those skills, or would you need to go on actual missions and raids? How long do you think that would take before you felt comfortable going out with your unit on your own without any U.S. assistance?"

At this point reporters should be stammering in a search for a way to make the 6-month argument seem remotely credible, assuming that they don't have that deer-caught-in-the-headlights stare. It would take them at a minimum two years, though we of course know that there is no way they'd even volunteer for the job, like so many Iraqis are doing. Of course, however, the point is that the point be made to ordinary citizens, not reporters. It's taking two years because that's how long it takes to learn, not to teach. We can add more resources to train more people simultaneously, but it simply means that we'll have more trained people once the two years are up. We won't get them any sooner.

Another example that could be of benefit to ordinary citizens would be to ask the simple question:

"If we double the number of teachers and school hours per day in every public high school, does it make sense that students should finish high school in two years instead of four?"

The question is so absurd as to be laughable. There is an inherent limit to how quickly we can learn, and that is what is making training in Iraq take so long. The Iraqis we are training aren't concerned with SAT scores -- the stakes are much higher: their lives. As such you don't skimp on or rush the training.

[Just A Nobody]

Excellent points.

Also, isn't the main focus now in raising up the leaders with in the military? Has it been 2 years? I thought it has only been a little of a year. Or maybe the training intensified a year ago.

[Carry_Okie]

Jimmy Carter, twice in one evening. Man, this sucks. What have I done?

Hey! ZBig!!! Remember Iran, Sadat, the Panama Canal, Nicarauga, El Salvador, the screwing of Rhodesia, the beginning of the end of South Africa, not to mention financing the Soviet build-up with expensive oil!

Some record, creep. Another term of you and that maudlin rabbit abuser and this country would have been contemplating surrender.

What a pain! I gotta go hurl, wash my hands, sterilize the keyboard...

[John Valentine]

This unfortuante "Dr. Strangelove" character has insufficient moral or intellectual stature to make any comment whatsoever on the present state of affairs in the Islamic world, or our reaction to it.

This, after all, is the man who sweet-talked the befuddled Jimmy Carter into playing the "Islamic Card" on the Soviet Union, thus setting in motion a series of events and developments that continue to bedevil us today. He is living proof of the adage that says that "Even if Dr. Frankenstein can make a monster, that doesn't mean he can control it."

Thank you, Dr. Bzrzenski, for your gift to our posterity.

[Recovering_Democrat]

The debacle occurred when Zbigniew and his "leader" were in the White House.

[ncountylee]

As significant as his former boss - Carter.

[OldFriend]

The left is clearly afraid this President might actually succeed in Iraq and the broader middle east.

[gridlock]

If Zbiggy's boss had won in 1980, our Tehran hostages would be facing their 9865th day of captivity. And he has the nerve to call any other administration's foreign policy a "debacle".

[F14 Pilot]

so true!

[backhoe]

Just one artifact from "The Golden Era of Wee Jimmy"--

Not to mention Cubans in Angola and Yemen and Central America, 21% interest rates, and wearing sweaters inside to house so we wouldn't freeze...

[RoadTest]

Umm, Zbiggie - it was Clinton the Sleazebag that got us into all this because, like the caatain of the Exxon Valdez, he was asleep at the switch on his watch.

[Road Warrior ‘04]

Oh yeah! Jimmuh's NSA preaching! He and his boss are losers!