Brzezinski:"American Leadership-In All Of Its Dimensions-Has Been Damaged"

Brzezinski on Iraq: “American Leadership, In All Of Its Dimensions, Has Been Damaged”
Yesterday, former National Security Advisor Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski gave a speech on the Iraq war at the Center for American Progress. Some choice excerpts –

On the politics of fear:

But it is a part of this atmosphere of Manichean polarization which is being bred by a phony definition of reality. Neither President Truman nor Eisenhower – Democrat and Republican – ever spoke of America being a “nation at war” during the Korean War. Neither President Johnson nor Nixon ever spoke of America being a “nation at war” during the Vietnam War. Yes we have a serious challenge from the potential threat of terrorism and we have to wage an unrelenting struggle against it. But to describe America repeatedly as a nation at war – implicitly of course with a commander and chief in charge – is to contribute to a view of the world by America that stimulates fear and isolates us from others. Other nations have suffered more from terrorism than America. None of them has embraced that definition of reality.

On the Bush administration’s Iran policy:

We are not negotiating with the Iranians. … We will not touch the Iranians. Why not? Are we perhaps trying to prevent a compromise? Do we really want Iran to desist, or do we want to drive it into extremism? It surely cannot be our deliberate intention to fuse Iranian nationalism with Iranian fundamentalism. But that is precisely what we are doing.

On the costs of the Iraq war:

The war has proven to be prohibitively costly. American leadership, in all of its dimensions, has been damaged. American morality has been stained – in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. American legitimacy has been undermined – by unilateral decisions. American credibility – particularly the case for the war, has been shattered. Leadership depends on morality, legitimacy, credibility. The economic costs of the war are escalating into hundreds of billions of dollars. More importantly, American casualties are in the thousands, with more than tens of thousands maimed. We are not even counting Iraqi casualties; we prefer not to know what they are.

Read the whole thing.
http://thinkprogress.org/brzezinski-speech/
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/17/brzezinski-on-iraq/

Read his book about American hegemony. It basicly outlines the thoughts behind PNAC.

his education would not have taken so long. Admirable coming to those conclusions all on his own after the fact. I made a point also that the PNAC zealots themselves are dupes to the Bush agenda pushing the scheme far beyond the starry eyed limits of true believers- because Bush has something else in mind.

I still detect a bitter tone suggesting that this is mishandled policy rather a discredited policy, a matter of bad execution, abusive words, overreaching and disastrous failure rather than- as Bush has revealed- inherent evils and flaws in the high circle wisdom of hegemony, pragmatism and America's pre-supposed virtues. Sure, in comparison even Nixon- the actual forerunner of this collapse- look like noble exemplars of PNAC trajectories. In fact this test has revealed all the flaws and rendered this product proven unsuitable at any speed for any age.

If not for Bush the unsteady compromises always tempted to claim absolute value would have lurched on into the NWO until some other wall was hit. When the results, if imaginable, would have been much worse than anything Bush can do. Or maybe we could have equivocally squeaked through our troubles into that elusive future utopia. Too late now.

PNAC ain't good enough even as a false dream.

has been so badly mishandled. As I said below, Brzezinski feels American hegemony is a necessity in strategic global locations. He thinks we need to assert our hegemony before someone else such as the EU or China does.

See The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives

The book is here

then something has really gone awry.

he opposed the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

As to his foreign policy beliefs, its accurate to say he favors intervention to promote our interests in many cases.

and the need for America to assert it in strategic locations on the globe before someone else such as the EU or China does.

Charlie Rose. He really shot Rose down about this "negotiating with Iran." When Rose tried to counter him by saying, "...but, but we are 'negotiating'...," Brzezinski very plainly and articulately said, "No, Charlie, we are not..." And then he listed off the recent dealings with Iran, pointing out that while it might appear like negotiations, it is, in fact, not. A very important point, btw, in the build up to invade Iran that we are witnessing, IMHO.

He was also very critical of the notion of the US being "qualified" at nation building, pointing out our failures historically closer to home in the Pacific like Haiti, etc.

I know just a little about Brzezinski -- that he's considered a hawk, was/is a PNACer, etc. But, damn, he sure is smart and articulate. His goals may ultimately be similar to those in power now, but he seems at least more diplomatic and common sense. Although, that might make him even more dangerous, who knows. I still would like to read one of his books, "Grand Chess Game" or "The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership" to get a better grasp on what he's about. Here's an excerpt of a book review on the latter:


http://www.hersheyphilbin.com/news/hpa/031904.html


Seems he's not so far removed from the globalization philosophies of the current powers that be, but that his criticism is focused on the "how" -- the tactics that Bush & Co. are implementing -- implying that Bush & Co. are "misusing" America's power, and that "American Power and American social dynamics" are in "collision" thanks to the tactics of Bush & Co.

Politically, it appears that he is being very critical of Bush & Co. I wish I were more savvy with political history to understand what, exactly, his criticism of Bush & Co. means, given that his philosophies on globalization are similar. Is this just a "good cop" "bad cop" routine, for example, or is there more to this?

If there is anyone out there that can provide more insight, please, shed some light on this guy and what his recent statements really mean.

He is credited with engineering Russia's Afghanistan mess.

:kick:

whathis recent statements really mean.

He says we need to ask the Iraqi Leaders to ask us to leave. And we should draw down forces over the next year. That is really cutting to the chase though. You should forget the highlights and read the whole speech. He walks the listener through how to make the decision and interpret the possible outcomes.

I'm reading the entire speech now and it is reminiscent of his discussion with Rose that I caught last night.