| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Defendario" |
| Date: |
16 Sep 2006 10:19:04 AM |
| Object: |
Zbig -- "Victory Would Be A Fata Morgana" |
Spiegel Interview With Zbigniew Brzezinski
By Hans Hoyng and Georg Mascolo
09/12/06 "Spiegel" --- - - Former US National Security Advisor Zbigniew
Brzezinski discusses the errors committed by the Bush administration in
its war on terror, the disastrous campaign in Iraq, and the risks of a
global uprising against inequality.
SPIEGEL: Dr. Brzezinski, President Bush compares the dangers of
terrorism with the dangers of the Cold War. He has even spoken
repeatedly of a "nation at war" and will only accept "complete victory."
Is he right or is he using exaggerated rhetoric?
Brzezinski: He is fundamentally wrong. Whether that is deliberate
demagoguery or simply historical ignorance, I do not know. For four
years I was responsible for coordinating the U.S. response in the event
of a nuclear attack. And I can assure you that a nuclear war between the
United States and the Soviet Union on a comprehensive scale would have
killed 160 to 180 million people within 24 hours.
No terrorist threat is comparable to that in the foreseeable future.
Moreover, terrorism is essentially a technique of killing people and not
the enemy as such. If one wages war on an invisible, unidentifiable
phantom, one gets into a state of mind that virtually promotes dangerous
exaggerations and distortions of reality.
SPIEGEL: What are these distortions?
Brzezinski: After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, the
United States was energetic and determined, and during the 40 years of
the Cold War it was patient and deliberate. In neither case did any U.S.
president intentionally preach fear as the major message to the people -
on the contrary.
With his very loose formulations, the president is now creating a
climate of fear that is destructive for American morale and distorting
of American policy.
SPIEGEL: Is fear, as at the thought of a nuclear weapon in the hands of
terrorists, not something very natural?
Brzezinski: Certainly, such a notion is not entirely unrealistic, but on
the other hand we are not confronted with the Soviet nuclear weapons
arsenal. I do not wish to minimize the danger of a single or even
multiple terrorist acts, but their scale is simply not comparable.
SPIEGEL: Yet sometimes the discussions, in the United States but also in
Europe, create the impression that radical Islam has taken the place of
the former Soviet Union and that some form of Cold War is continuing.
Brzezinski: Radical Islam is such an anonymous phenomenon that has
arisen in some countries and not in others. It has to be taken
seriously, but it is still only a regional danger most prevalent in the
Middle East and somewhat east of the Middle East. And even in those
regions, Islamic fundamentalists are not in the majority.
SPIEGEL: Fear-mongering is therefore not a valid response?
Brzezinski: We have to formulate a policy for this region which helps us
to mobilize our potential friends. Only if we cooperate with them can we
contain and eventually eliminate this phenomenon. It is a paradox:
During the Cold War, our policy was directed at uniting our friends and
dividing our enemies. Unfortunately our tactics today, including
occasional Islamphobic language, have the tendency of unifying our
enemies and alienating our friends.
SPIEGEL: So it is exaggerated rhetoric which ensures that Osama bin
Laden is elevated to the level of a Mao or Stalin?
Brzezinski: Correct. And that is of course a distortion of reality -
notwithstanding the fact that bin Laden is a killer. He is a criminal
and should be presented as such, and not intentionally elevated into a
globally significant leader of a transnational, quasi-religious movement.
SPIEGEL: Has there been any progress at all in the fight against
terrorism for the past five years?
Brzezinski: Yes and no. Knock on wood. So far, there has been no
repetition of a terrorist attack in the United States, and that - as was
the case with the recent plot in London - is probably partly due to
preventive measures we have taken.
Also, there is a growing realization among the modern elites in the
Moslem world that Islamic terrorism is a threat to them as well - but it
is a slow process. Moreover, this process has been handicapped, as with
our invasion of Iraq, which has galvanized a lot of hostility in the
Islamic world towards the United States. Our insensitive and ambiguous
posture in the Israel-Palestinian conflict is also a very important
reason for the hostility towards us. All this helps terrorism.
SPIEGEL: Is complete victory, as demanded by the president, actually
possible?
Brzezinski: That depends on your definition of victory. If we act
intelligently and form the necessary coalitions, the appeal of terrorism
may diminish and limit its capacity to find sympathizers or even
would-be martyrs. Then it will probably gradually fade away. If,
however, we envision victory as the equivalent of a Hitler shooting
himself in the bunker, that will not happen. This is precisely why the
whole analogy with the war is so misleading. It is not helpful for
making the public understand that we are dealing with a long-term
problem in a very volatile region, the solution of which depends on
mobilizing moderate forces and isolating fanatics.
SPIEGEL: What advantages does President Bush see in his war rhetoric?
Brzezinski: First of all it helped him get reelected - a nation at war
does not dismiss its commander in chief. Secondly it enhances his
ability to exercise his executive powers on a scale no other president
before him has done. This of course brings risks with it, such as the
infringement of civil rights. And, it gives him the claim that he can
use the U.S. Armed Forces as he wishes, even without congressional
sanction involving a declaration of war.
SPIEGEL: Is there an inherent danger for democracy?
Brzezinski: In the long run, yes. However, democracy is ingrained so
deeply in the psyche and fabric of American society that such a threat
could only arise if such a president were able to implement such
policies over a prolonged period of time. But Bush cannot be reelected.
Therefore it will all be over in two and a half years.
SPIEGEL: European politicians have never accepted the concept of a war
on terror. Furthermore, there are fierce differences concerning
interrogation techniques or prison camps such as Guantanamo. Given such
diverse opinions, how can the United States and Europe cooperate at all?
Brzezinski: This is exactly what makes it so difficult to deal with the
problem collectively. However, realistically one also has to take into
consideration that there is, in a quiet way, extensive cooperation,
especially among our police forces. But precisely this cooperation
reflects the realization that fighting terrorism is ultimately an
operation against criminal behavior. Although I share Europe's criticism
about Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, the mistreatment and even torture of
prisoners, Europeans should in their indignation not lose sight of their
own past - not the Germans, but also not the French, who have had
extensive experience in the Algerian war.
SPIEGEL: The U.S. administration has declared Iraq the central front in
the war on terror, but instead of disseminating democracy, Iraq today
serves as a magnet for new terrorists. How can the United States
extricate itself from its own trap?
Brzezinski: We should neither run nor should we seek a victory, which
essentially would be a fata morgana. We have to talk seriously with the
Iraqis about a jointly set withdrawal date for the occupation forces and
then announce the date jointly. After all, the presence of these forces
fuels the insurgency. We will then find that those Iraqi leaders who
agree to a withdrawal within a year or so are the politicians who will
stay there. Those who will plead with us, please, don't go, are probably
the ones who will leave with us when we leave. That says everything we
need to know about the true support Iraqi politicians have.
SPIEGEL: Would such a rapid withdrawal not leave chaos behind?
Brzezinski: The Iraqi government would have to invite all Islamic
neighbors, as far as Pakistan and Morocco, for a stabilization
conference. Most are willing to help. And when the United States leaves,
it will have to convene a conference of those donor countries that have
a stake in the economic recovery of Iraq, in particular the oil
production. That is foremost a concern of Europe and the Far East.
SPIEGEL: The donor conference will take place in the fall anyway.
Brzezinski: Yes, but I doubt that it will create much enthusiasm as long
as U.S. soldiers are in the country indefinitely. Incidentally, this is
not just my argument. All this corresponds almost verbatim with the
proposals of the new Iraqi security advisor.
SPIEGEL: Opponents of a rapid withdrawal make the case that the
sectarian war between Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis would become even more
violent than it is already.
Brzezinski: Everyone who knows the history of occupying armies knows
that foreign armed forces are not very effective in repressing armed
resistance, insurgencies, national liberation movements, whatever one
wants to call it. They are after all foreigners, do not understand the
country and do not have access to the intelligence needed. That is the
situation we are in. Moreover, there is this vicious circle inasmuch as
even professional occupying armies become demoralized in time, which
leads to acts of violence against the civilian population and thus
strengthens resistance. Iraqis can deal with religiously motivated
violence in their country much better than Americans from several
thousand kilometers away.
SPIEGEL: So there is no alternative to troop withdrawal, even if there
is an initial escalation of violence?
Brzezinski: Iraqis are not primitive people who need American colonial
tutelage to resolve their problems.
SPIEGEL: In reality, isn't the president worried that Iraq will fail to
become the model democracy he envisages after the Americans have left?
Brzezinski: That's for sure, and therefore any attempt to seek his
definition of victory is pure fantasy. Still, there will be a government
dominated by Kurds and Shiites, and some Sunni elements. That in itself
is already an improvement compared to the regime of Saddam Hussein and
therefore at least a partial success.
SPIEGEL: Are you sure that a religious civil war can still be prevented?
Brzezinski: Of course I cannot be sure. But was de Gaulle sure when he
decided that it would be fine for France to end the Algerian war?
Everybody around him warned him of the terrible consequences of his
decision.
SPIEGEL: Are you not afraid that such a religious conflict could ignite
the whole region?
Brzezinski: Quite the contrary. The longer we stay the more likely it
will ignite. The fact is that we have been there for three years and the
situation today is a lot worse than it was then. At least logically,
there is some evidence to support my proposition.
SPIEGEL: Bush presented the "axis of evil" to the world. Did he not make
it all too easy for himself by simply attacking the least dangerous part
of this axis?
Brzezinski: Yes, Iraq was not dangerous. North Korea and Iran seem to
presently be very calculating. However, Iran is a genuinely historic
nation that has to play an important role in the region. My guess is
that Iran will find some form of accommodation with the rest of the
world, at least easier to achieve than for North Korea.
SPIEGEL: If negotiations with Iran fail, will America intervene militarily?
Brzezinski: There are some members of the administration who favor that.
However, in view of the experiences in Iraq I consider it more likely
that the government, together with its allies, will impose significant
sanctions, which then have to be given a few years to show effects,
which makes it highly unlikely that Bush will be the one to undertake
such a dangerous course of action.
SPIEGEL: What would be the consequences of such an attack?
Brzezinski: The Iranians have a number of options open to them. Among
them is the destabilization of Iraq and the western part of Afghanistan
as well as the everpresent option of activating Hezbollah in Lebanon.
They could cut down oil production, damage the Saudi oil production and
threaten the passage of tankers through the Strait of Hormuz - with all
the devastating consequences for the world economy. They could of course
also accelerate the production of weapons of mass destruction, which
then quite possibly would lead to renewed and more comprehensive
military attacks - a vicious circle.
SPIEGEL: You said that the United States needs solid European counsel to
avoid an unrealistic view of the world. Is Europe even in the position
to give such counsel?
Brzezinski: In the Middle East, the United States is unintentionally
slipping into the role of a colonial power, repetitive of extensive
European experiences. A combination of self-interest, a sense of mission
and an arrogant ignorance resulted in Americans doing what they do right
now. Because Britain and France have had the same experiences in the
past, they have a better sense for the fact that the American course in
the Middle East is a political mistake and, in the long run, also
dangerous for America. In the short run, it damages America's principles
and its international legitimacy.
SPIEGEL: Do you really believe that this is the kind of advice the
British Prime Minister Tony Blair delivers to Bush?
Brzezinski: It is what he should deliver. But I think the British made a
decision after the Suez crisis in 1956 to never again collide with the
United States and to achieve an alternative source of global influence
by becoming America's closest partner.
SPIEGEL: There is fear in Europe that Bush could return to unilateralism
should he regain his freedom of action in foreign policy.
Brzezinski: For that, he would miraculously have to achieve his
phantom-like victory. But that recedes ever farther. It is exactly like
it was with the Soviets, who used to insist that the victory of
socialism was just over the horizon, overlooking the fact that the
horizon is an imaginary line which recedes farther as you walk towards
it. Moreover, in two and a half years he will no longer be president,
and no successor will want to embrace the slogans and demagoguery of the
past three years.
SPIEGEL: Are there any conditions under which America could lose its
current political supremacy?
Brzezinski: One would only have to continue the current policies and,
also, in future not give a serious response to increasingly louder
complaints of global inequality. We are now dealing with a far more
politically active mankind that demands a collective response to their
grievances from the West.
SPIEGEL: Is your demand to eradicate global inequality not as
illusionary as Bush's demand that America free the world from evil?
Brzezinski: Achieving equality would indeed be an illusionary goal.
Reducing inequality in the age of television and Internet may well
become a political necessity. We are entering a historic stage in which
people in China and India, but also in Nepal, in Bolivia or Venezuela
will no longer tolerate the enormous disparities in the human condition.
That could well be the collective danger we will have to face in the
next decades.
SPIEGEL: You call it a "global political awakening."
Brzezinski: Yes, and it is essentially a repetition, but now on a global
scale, of the societal and political awakening that occurred in France
at the time of the revolution. During the 19th century it spread through
Europe and parts of the Western hemisphere, in the 20th century it
reached Japan and finally China. Now it is sweeping the rest of the world.
SPIEGEL: The Islamic countries as well?
Brzezinski: Not really in the same way. It is a turbulent,
multi-directional process which, however, is a challenge to global
stability. If the United States, Europe and Japan, but also China,
Russia and India cannot find a mechanism for effective global
collaboration, we will slide into a growing global chaos, which will be
fatal to American leadership. Therefore I consider the American
leadership role vulnerable, but irreplaceable in the foreseeable future.
SPIEGEL: Dr. Brzezinski, thank you for speaking with us.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14942.htm
.
|
|
| User: "miguel" |
|
| Title: Re: Zbig -- "Victory Would Be A Fata Morgana" |
16 Sep 2006 10:38:40 AM |
|
|
Defendario wrote:
Spiegel Interview With Zbigniew Brzezinski
By Hans Hoyng and Georg Mascolo
09/12/06 "Spiegel" --- - - Former US National Security Advisor Zbigniew
Brzezinski discusses the errors committed by the Bush administration in
its war on terror, the disastrous campaign in Iraq, and the risks of a
global uprising against inequality.
snip
It looks like Brzezinski is another one of those cut and run democrats.
</snark>
miguel
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Zbig -- "Victory Would Be A Fata Morgana" |
16 Sep 2006 11:42:41 AM |
|
|
miguel schreef:
Defendario wrote:
Spiegel Interview With Zbigniew Brzezinski
By Hans Hoyng and Georg Mascolo
09/12/06 "Spiegel" --- - - Former US National Security Advisor Zbigniew
Brzezinski discusses the errors committed by the Bush administration in
its war on terror, the disastrous campaign in Iraq, and the risks of a
global uprising against inequality.
snip
It looks like Brzezinski is another one of those cut and run democrats.
Looks to me he has a much better grasp of reality then you and your
Fuerer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "miguel" |
|
| Title: Re: Zbig -- "Victory Would Be A Fata Morgana" |
16 Sep 2006 01:21:24 PM |
|
|
wrote:
miguel schreef:
Defendario wrote:
Spiegel Interview With Zbigniew Brzezinski
By Hans Hoyng and Georg Mascolo
09/12/06 "Spiegel" --- - - Former US National Security Advisor Zbigniew
Brzezinski discusses the errors committed by the Bush administration in
its war on terror, the disastrous campaign in Iraq, and the risks of a
global uprising against inequality.
snip
It looks like Brzezinski is another one of those cut and run democrats.
Looks to me he has a much better grasp of reality then you and your
Fuerer.
Do you have any idea what </snark> means?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Defendario" |
|
| Title: Re: Zbig -- "Victory Would Be A Fata Morgana" |
16 Sep 2006 01:59:51 PM |
|
|
miguel wrote:
panteltje@yahoo.com wrote:
miguel schreef:
Defendario wrote:
Spiegel Interview With Zbigniew Brzezinski
By Hans Hoyng and Georg Mascolo
09/12/06 "Spiegel" --- - - Former US National Security Advisor Zbigniew
Brzezinski discusses the errors committed by the Bush administration in
its war on terror, the disastrous campaign in Iraq, and the risks of a
global uprising against inequality.
snip
It looks like Brzezinski is another one of those cut and run democrats.
Looks to me he has a much better grasp of reality then you and your
Fuerer.
Do you have any idea what </snark> means?
Reichtards have limited comprehension skills.
Reality based thinking is frowned upon in the BushKult.
;D
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PagCal" |
|
| Title: Re: Zbig -- "Victory Would Be A Fata Morgana" |
16 Sep 2006 01:08:23 PM |
|
|
miguel wrote:
Defendario wrote:
Spiegel Interview With Zbigniew Brzezinski
By Hans Hoyng and Georg Mascolo
09/12/06 "Spiegel" --- - - Former US National Security Advisor
Zbigniew Brzezinski discusses the errors committed by the Bush
administration in its war on terror, the disastrous campaign in Iraq,
and the risks of a global uprising against inequality.
snip
It looks like Brzezinski is another one of those cut and run democrats.
</snark>
Bush 'cut and ran' from Afganistan, and what happened? Why, the Teleban
is back.
Bush 'cut and ran' from Anbar province in Iraq, and what happened? Why,
he's lost the province. Too bad he did't listen to his generals in the
first place and went in with too few troops.
The Democrats, on the other hand, have called consistently for more
troops (along with a draft to support it). After all, if worldwide
democracy is at stake, why is Bush *****-footing around?
Look, face it, Bush is a screw-up. His military nick-name says it best,
'numb nuts'.
miguel
.
|
|
|
| User: "Defendario" |
|
| Title: Re: Zbig -- "Victory Would Be A Fata Morgana" |
16 Sep 2006 02:04:49 PM |
|
|
PagCal wrote:
miguel wrote:
Defendario wrote:
Spiegel Interview With Zbigniew Brzezinski
By Hans Hoyng and Georg Mascolo
09/12/06 "Spiegel" --- - - Former US National Security Advisor
Zbigniew Brzezinski discusses the errors committed by the Bush
administration in its war on terror, the disastrous campaign in Iraq,
and the risks of a global uprising against inequality.
snip
It looks like Brzezinski is another one of those cut and run democrats.
</snark>
Bush 'cut and ran' from Afganistan, and what happened? Why, the Teleban
is back.
We never had much commitment in Afghanistan in the first place.
All Uncle Sugar really did was enable the Comrades of the Northern
Alliance to settle some old scores, and become an accomplice to mass
murder, torture and other war crimes.
Bush 'cut and ran' from Anbar province in Iraq, and what happened? Why,
he's lost the province. Too bad he did't listen to his generals in the
first place and went in with too few troops.
Rummy was trying to prove a theory. Back to the drawingboard.
;-)
The Democrats, on the other hand, have called consistently for more
troops (along with a draft to support it). After all, if worldwide
democracy is at stake, why is Bush *****-footing around?
Better plan, cut the net and don't get dragged down by the catch. Just
like the jettisoning of the whale in Moby *****. If the fish will cost
you your ship and (likely) life, you gotta let go.
Look, face it, Bush is a screw-up. His military nick-name says it best,
'numb nuts'.
Is that so? Like *C* an't *P* rouduce *A* nything?
:-)
miguel
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Zbig -- "Victory Would Be A Fata Morgana" |
16 Sep 2006 11:15:01 AM |
|
|
miguel wrote:
Defendario wrote:
Spiegel Interview With Zbigniew Brzezinski
By Hans Hoyng and Georg Mascolo
09/12/06 "Spiegel" --- - - Former US National Security Advisor Zbigniew
Brzezinski discusses the errors committed by the Bush administration in
its war on terror, the disastrous campaign in Iraq, and the risks of a
global uprising against inequality.
It looks like Brzezinski is another one of those cut and run democrats.
| Not only that, he along with Carter is largely
| responsible for the mess in Iran, having scuttled
| the Shah thus clearing the way for France to set
| up Khomeini
.
|
|
|
| User: "Defendario" |
|
| Title: Re: Zbig -- "Victory Would Be A Fata Morgana" |
16 Sep 2006 01:58:39 PM |
|
|
wrote:
miguel wrote:
Defendario wrote:
Spiegel Interview With Zbigniew Brzezinski
By Hans Hoyng and Georg Mascolo
09/12/06 "Spiegel" --- - - Former US National Security Advisor Zbigniew
Brzezinski discusses the errors committed by the Bush administration in
its war on terror, the disastrous campaign in Iraq, and the risks of a
global uprising against inequality.
It looks like Brzezinski is another one of those cut and run democrats.
| Not only that, he along with Carter is largely
| responsible for the mess in Iran, having scuttled
| the Shah thus clearing the way for France to set
| up Khomeini
8-) Better that than the hated Shah, a tool of zioNist imperialism.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
