Iraq could cost US its leadership: Brzezinski

WASHINGTON: The United States should give UN inspectors more time, link Iraqi disarmament to the Israeli Palestinian conflict and avoid engaging its allies in tit-for-tat polemics, former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote yesterday in The Washington Post. To avoid risking its global leadership the United States should avoid “demeaning and destructive” polemics with its important allies,” wrote Brzezinski, who served in the Carter administration in the 1970’s. How and when to apply force to Iraq, he wrote, “should be part of a larger strategy, sensitive to the risk that the termination of Saddam Hussein’s regime may be purchased at too high a cost to America’s global leadership.” In his op-ed piece, Brzezinski blamed the behavior of US President George W. Bush’s administration for the widespread international opposition to its policy on Iraq. Washington’s initial eagerness to wage war on Iraq on its own, he said, generated suspicion that its subsequent decision to seek UN approval for the use of force “was essentially a charade.” Washington’s definition of its war on terrorism, he added, is seen by many abroad as “excessively theological (‘evildoers who hate freedom’) and unrelated to any political context.” Brzezinski cited the Bush administration’s “reluctance to see a connection between Middle Eastern terrorists and the political problems of the Middle East;” its “unsubstantiated efforts to connect Iraq with Al Qaeda;” and its “evident, if unstated, endorsement ... of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s notions of how to deal with both the Palestinians and the region as a whole.” He also said that the US “preoccupation with Iraq – which does not pose an imminent threat to global security – obscures the need to deal with the more serious and genuinely imminent threat posed by North Korea.” Washington should also “acknowledge that the quest for peace in the Middle East requires both the disarmament of Iraq and the active renewal of the peace process between the Israelis and the Palestinians.” The United States and its veto-wielding allies on the UN Security Council, Brzezinski said, should “impose on Iraq a bill of particulars, defined as specifically and realistically as possible, perhaps also with staged deadlines (i.e., ultimatums), so that at each major stage it would be easier to reach consensus regarding Security Council certification of Iraqi compliance or defiance.” – AFP

Why should we listen to this guy? There is a high probability that he is speaking for partisan political reasons, and there is a 100% probability that he is speaking as a total failure at foreign policy.

Carter and Brzezinski had an opportunity to nip Islamic fundamentsalism in the bud, when it first appeared in Iran. Their policy of hand-wringing and appeasement was the worst possible thing they could have done, and we are still yet to pay the full price for their malfeasance.

That Brzezinski should have to allude to solving the Israeli Palestinian conflict tells us all we need to know about the crown jewel of the Carter presidency's diplomatic efforts, the so-called Camp David Accords -- "The Framework for Peace in the Middle East." Yeah, right.

Brzezinski missed a good opportunity to shut up.

Q: 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?

Brzezinski: 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?

Brzezinski: 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 [integrisme], having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Brzezinski: 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.

Brzezinski: 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.

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.