Brzezinski: "The Commitment Of 21,500 More Troops Is A Political Gimmick" (WaPo Edit)

Five Flaws in the President's Plan

By Zbigniew Brzezinski
Friday, January 12, 2007; Page A19

The president's speech gives rise to five broad observations:

........................

· The commitment of 21,500 more troops is a political gimmick of limited tactical significance and of no strategic benefit. It is insufficient to win the war militarily. It will engage U.S. forces in bloody street fighting that will not resolve with finality the ongoing turmoil and the sectarian and ethnic strife, not to mention the anti-American insurgency.


· The decision to escalate the level of the U.S. military involvement while imposing "benchmarks" on the "sovereign" Iraqi regime, and to emphasize the external threat posed by Syria and Iran, leaves the administration with two options once it becomes clear -- as it almost certainly will -- that the benchmarks are not being met. One option is to adopt the policy of "blame and run": i.e., to withdraw because the Iraqi government failed to deliver. That would not provide a remedy for the dubious "falling dominoes" scenario, which the president so often has outlined as the inevitable, horrific consequence of U.S. withdrawal. The other alternative, perhaps already lurking in the back of Bush's mind, is to widen the conflict by taking military action against Syria or Iran. It is a safe bet that some of the neocons around the president and outside the White House will be pushing for that. Others, such as Sen. Joseph Lieberman, may also favor it.

.........................

· The speech reflects a profound misunderstanding of our era. America is acting like a colonial power in Iraq. But the age of colonialism is over. Waging a colonial war in the post-colonial age is self-defeating. That is the fatal flaw of Bush's policy.

more flaws at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/11/AR2007011101572.html

He knows what a quagmire this is. Isn't he the one that helped create al Queda to produce the Soviet quagmire in Afghanistan?

I had a good comeback on the Freeper excuse for not negotiating with Iran & Syria. Their excuse was, "Iran and Syria don't have our best interests at heart" (or something like that)

So, my response was, "Did the Soviets have our best interests at heart when Reagen negotitated with them? Or Nixon, Ford and Carter before him? Did JFK think the Soviets had our best interests at heart when he negotiated us out of nuclear war in the Cuban Missile Crisis?"

Made the case brilliantly and was undetered by some jerk who tried to paint lipstick on the pig.

Because the Council on Foreign Relations is a heavy hitter in the world of American foreign policy, and they have big bankrolls in the business world financing to back them up. A war with Iran is going to hit a lot of business interests hard. Nevermind the other business interests (like arms manufacturers and bomb makers) that will make lots of money off the war.