Zbigniew Brzezinski delivers hard-hitting testimony before Senate Foreign Relations commitee.

SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITEE TESTIMONY -- ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI
February 1, 2007

<snip>

If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a "defensive" U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

A mythical historical narrative to justify the case for such a protracted and potentially expanding war is already being articulated. Initially justified by false claims about WMD's in Iraq, the war is now being redefined as the "decisive ideological struggle" of our time, reminiscent of the earlier collisions with Nazism and Stalinism. In that context, Islamist extremism and al Qaeda are presented as the equivalents of the threat posed by Nazi Germany and then Soviet Russia, and 9/11 as the equivalent of the Pearl Harbor attack which precipitated America's involvement in World War II.

This simplistic and demagogic narrative overlooks the fact that Nazism was based on the military power of the industrially most advanced European state; and that Stalinism was able to mobilize not only the resources of the victorious and militarily powerful Soviet Union but also had worldwide appeal through its Marxist doctrine. In contrast, most Muslims are not embracing Islamic fundamentalism; al Qaeda is an isolated fundamentalist Islamist aberration; most Iraqis are engaged in strife because the American occupation of Iraq destroyed the Iraqi state; while Iran -- though gaining in regional influence -- is itself politically divided, economically and militarily weak. To argue that America is already at war in the region with a wider Islamic threat, of which Iran is the epicenter, is to promote a self-fulfilling prophecy.

more...http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001916.php

I've been running around saying that for years (I'm sorry to say). It's a term we should try to poplarize. People should talk about this. It's exactly what is going on and many, many people don't even realize it is a FACT. They assume all you have to do is threaten and kill enough people and they will do whatever you want.

It isn't hard for people to realize that when you assume _________ about people, your behavior toward them is shaped by that assumption, i.e. you treat them like _________. They react to being treated like _____________ in a manner that is consistent with how they are being treated. Their reaction thus confirms your assumption and reinforces your ________ behavior toward them.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well in my experience, if you want a war, you can have one. Because people will fight you. And so if we…if we as America believe that conflict with Iran is inevitable, that there’s an attitude of sort of ‘bring it on, let’s get it over with,’ we’ll have that conflict. We won’t like that conflict because it won’t be easily resolved. It’s unlikely that the Iranian government will…would ever sign a formal surrender document to us. We don’t have enough troops to occupy Iran. If we did, we would find out that it’s a polyglot country just like many of the countries in the region with many minority groups and ethnic pulls and tugs and it would be a pain in the neck to try to occupy a nation of 75 million people who were browbeaten into submission. We don’t need that. And um…so

Stephanie Miller: Well General, what is your take on what Democrats can

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: We’ve got to back away from…we’ve got…we’ve got to take another look at the broad thrust of where we’re headed. Somehow we’ve got to go into the region and change people’s minds and say ‘look, we have choice…we have free will, we’re human beings. We don’t have to have war.’

Stephanie Miller: Right

http://securingamerica.com/node/2123

Makes me really believe in a culturally communicated Death Wish.

No wonder we have abortions and capital punishment; we are not a Pro-Life culture. Abortion and capital punishment and war are only symptoms of something else that is SERIOUSLY wrong with us.

www.ThirdWorldTraveler.com

"Conceit, arrogance and egotism are the essentials of patriotism.... Patriotism assumes that our globe is divided into little spots, each one surrounded by an iron gate. Those who had the fortune of being born on some particular spot, consider themselves better, nobler, grander, more intelligent than the living beings inhabiting any other spot. It is, therefore, the duty of everyone living on that chosen spot to fight, kill, and die in the attempt to impose his superiority upon all others."
Emma Goldman

though. www.ThirdWorldTraveler.com


"From 1945 to 2003, the United States attempted to overthrow more than 40 foreign governments, and to crush more than 30 populist-nationalist movements fighting against intolerable regimes. In the process, the US bombed some 25 countries, caused the end of life for several million people, and condemned many millions more to a life of agony and despair."
William Blum

Definitely worth reading the whole thing.

His first point sums it up nicely though: "The war in Iraq is a historic, strategic, and moral calamity."

It is to the detriment of the planet that the white house will completely ignore his testimony.

i wrote about this earlier today in this thread ...

it seems to me that his testimony was in direct disagreement with those who do not support the idea of either near-term withdrawals or with setting hard and fast deadlines. see the post I linked to that excerpted key parts of Brzezinski's testimony.

this is a fundamental difference with Wes Clark to be more specific. I've engaged in numerous discussions with Clark supporters on this topic. I am 100% supportive of looking for ways to assist with "bringing the parties to the table" if the US can reasonably play such a role. I'm also totally supportive of the need to see the Middle East in a broader context, i.e., beyond the borders of Iraq. If dialog might help tone down the tensions throughout the region, I'm all for it.

But I support these things independent of withdrawal. In fact, as Brzezinski argues, absent either leaving or making a clear plan to leave that has credibility with the Iraqi people, all "dialog-based strategies" will fail. We need to put an end to the US occupation of Iraq. Calling for negotiations and political settlements without calling for withdrawal makes no sense at all.

"The United States should announce that it is undertaking talks with the Iraqi leaders to jointly set with them a date by which U.S. military disengagement should be completed, and the resulting setting of such a date should be announced as a joint decision. In the meantime, the U.S. should avoid military escalation." - Z.B.

How is that fundamental different in intent than this?

"In terms of diplomacy, our team would engage each state and party, solicit its views and challenge it to participate in moving forward, just as U.S. diplomat Richard Holbrooke did in the Balkans a decade ago. Next steps might include confidence-building measures, hocsted discussions between factions, and perhaps one or more larger meetings to conclude firm commitments, timetables or sequence of events." - W.C.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2006/11/illustration_by_2.html

Absent such fundamental change in Washington's approach, there is little hope that a troop surge and accompanying rhetoric will be anything other than "staying the course" more. That wastes lives and time, bolsters the terrorists and avoids facing up to the interrelated challenges posed by a region in crisis.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/07/AR2007010700980.html

The fundamental point regarding a timetable is that is must be negotiated with the parties involved in order to be effective, and in that both Z.B. and W.C. are in agreement.

here is the critical point of Brzezinski's testimony (imo):



In addressing the internal politics in Iraq, Brzezinski made it painfully clear that "Iraqi leaders" does not mean the narrowly defined US controlled government inside the Green Zone. It needs to be inclusive of those whom the Iraqi people consider the real leaders.

And it's not clear that Brzezinski was calling for "any timetable to be negotiated with all the parties involved". My read is that he said that it should be announced as if all parties had arrived at the decision. That's not the same thing. I think he's putting significant emphasis on how any decision will be perceived by the Iraqi people and neighboring countries and perhaps less emphasis on who actually makes the decision.

Again, the excerpt above seems to be the place where, at least for me, Brzezinski and Clark disagree. I'll be very interested to see any quotes from Clark you're able to find. Truly, I hope I'm wrong about Clark's position. My position is that there can be no political solution and there can be no successful dialog with Iran while the US remains in occupation. It's hard to see how that comes anywhere close to what Clark has been saying. In fact, I am not aware of Clark favoring any kind of withdrawal date or with beginning some troop withdrawals right now. While Brzezinski didn't address any specific timeframe, he was very clear that as long as the US was perceived as an occupier, and hence not trusted, no internal progress in Iraq had much chance of success. Does Clark agree with that statement?

He meant a timetable for when U.S. troops "should" (signficant use of word should) be withdrawn should be negotiatied with the parties involved.

And your suggestion that by all parties involved Clark would not include parties "outside the green zone" is ludicrous.

Edit: Assuming for the sake of argument Z.B. meant, as you suggest, we should announce a unilateral decision as a joint decision, I must say that I would disagree with that approach. You just don't treat people or nations with that degree of disrespect, especially in the kind of situation we are in in Iraq.

Let's try to regain some of moral standing in the world, not squander it more, shall we?

Also, Z.B. never said (as you erroneously suggest) that the occupation must end before negotions with Iran can be successful. If you will read his words again you will not he was referring to perceptions of the length of the occupation. Clark has said the U.S. should pledge no permanent bases in Iraq, and has also commented how the administration's past suggestions that complete Iraq withdrawl be a decision for future Presidents to solve sends undesireable mixed messages about how long we intend to stay.

Your attempts at creating controversy where none seems to exist have fallen short, Welsh.

Goodnight.

and you've ascribed motives to me that i never intended.

your statement that "And your suggestion that by all parties involved Clark would not include parties "outside the green zone" is ludicrous." would indeed be ludicrous had i made such a statement. i didn't.

nor am i trying to "create controversy". what i am trying to do is look at what Brzezinski said and compare it to Clark's statements. I don't claim to be familiar with every statement Clark has made. In fact, I said I hoped my understanding of his position was inaccurate and I encouraged you to provide some clarity using quotes he made.

I do think you're wrong about your interpretation of what ZB said. Here's the quote again:



Look at the phrase he used: "such discussions cannot be undertaken while the US is perceived as an occupier for an indefinite duration". How can we possibly change the image of the US as an occupier if we don't start significant withdrawals. Clearly, Brzezinski was saying that the US has a major image problem in Iraq and that neither negotiations nor a political solution is possible while we remain in Iraq as occupiers. And Brzezinski went ever further when he unequivocably stated that, because Iran and Syria view the occupation as an effort at "permanent regional hegemony", neither country would have any incentive to negotiate.

I'm raising what appears to me to be a very real and important difference between ZB's statement and my understanding of Clark's position. Does Clark agree or disagree with the statement ZB that "The United States and the Iraqi leadership need to engage Iraq's neighbors in serious discussion regarding the region's security problems, but such discussions cannot be undertaken while the U.S. is perceived as an occupier for an indefinite duration."?

And if Clark agrees with the statement, how does he think we can change the perception that the US is an occupier if not by withdrawal, or at least the beginning of withdrawals?

ZB's whole point, it seems to me, was about the current perception of the US in the region. His testimony made it painfully clear that that perception has to be changed. I think all the assurances in the world, especially with bush in power, will be seen as lies by the Iraqis and by their neighbors. The only way to change the perception of the US as occupiers, in my opinion, is by some form of near-term withdrawal.

You see this as an "attack" on Clark? it isn't. I disagree with Clark based on my understanding of his position. If my understanding isn't right, feel free to correct it.

you said,

Look at the phrase he used: "such discussions cannot be undertaken while the US is perceived as an occupier for an indefinite duration".

O.K., I'm looking at it now. Done looking. Clark agrees we cannot be perceived as being occupiers for an indefinite duration.

Then you said,

Clearly, Brzezinski was saying that the US has a major image problem in Iraq and that neither negotiations nor a political solution is possible while we remain in Iraq as occupiers.

Uh, no....he said neither negotiations or a political solution is possible "while the U.S. is perceived as an occupier for an indefinite duration." It is only you...not Z.B., not Clark, and not myself, who is suggesting as you say "neither negotiations nor a political solution is possible while we remain in Iraq as occupiers."


You are quoting Z.B., then ascribing words and beliefs which contradict what you quoted.

"The United States needs to convince the region that the U.S. is committed both to Israel's enduring security and to fairness for the Palestinians who have waited for more than forty years now for their own separate state."

I'm going to ask my senators and representative to respond to his specific points.

....want an alternative plan?....here it is, Brzezinski has shown you the way....just do what he recommends, especially point number two and we'll be out of Iraq in no time, that's if you want us out of Iraq....

"2. The United States should announce that it is undertaking talks with the Iraqi leaders to jointly set with them a date by which U.S. military disengagement should be completed, and the resulting setting of such a date should be announced as a joint decision. In the meantime, the U.S. should avoid military escalation."

....we need to begin looking inward and define for ourselves the source of our problems and stop letting corporate, war-mongering America define our outward enemies through their lackies in media and government....they're destroying us....

....I was never a big fan of Brzezinski but I like his take on Iraq....

I haven't read this book of Brzezinski's yet, but apparently many note that it arguably is the basis for a lot of what the PNAC crowd have built their belief system on global domination power by the U.S. that they hold so dearly.

From:

http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/stop_ignoring_9_11___pnac.html



http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/0465027261.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0465027261?tag=tvnewslies-20&camp=14573&creative=327641&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=0465027261&adid=1NBNYRG8MGAHTBW193NW&

To hear him take the stand to speak out against the Bush crowd must have an added "bite" for them to swallow in that sense!