http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show Start watching from 5:12 on. Zbigniew Brzezinski pretty much makes the argument that we, who were opposed to the war in Afghanistan in 2001 made then in regard to Al Qaeda in Afghanistan; that is, that Al Qaeda can move around and that you can't invade and occupy every country where there are terrorists. That you have to cooperate with the countries involved to get these terrorists, not attack the country.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Rachel: When the President defines what it is that we are doing in Afghanistan and what requires the number of troops that he thinks we need to have there,
he says it's for America's national security interest and Al Qaeda not having safe havens there from which they can project international force like they did against us on 9/11. Do you think that worthy goal is in any way meaningfully connected to having tens of thousands of US troops in that country? Is that the best way to achieve that goal?
Zbigniew Brzezinski: Well that is precisely the problem. You put your finger on it. The more American troops engage in the heavy lifting, the fighting, the more we are there, the more we are evidently the foreigners, the infidels with guns, the more the Afghans will gradually begin to resist us. Right now the Taliban is only supported by a minority and, incidentally, not all of the Taliban formations are hooked up with Al Qaeda. But the more our military effort escalates, the more the chances are the Afghans will be turning against us.
So my very simple proposition is let's clearly define the goals we have in mind, let's define the strategy, and then on that basis decide on how many more troops we need and should have there.
Insofar as Al Qaeda safe havens are concerned, you know they can relocate from Afghanistan to Pakistan, which they have already done partially. They can relocate to Somalia. They can perhaps relocate to some other countries. Are we going to be invading and trying to, in effect, occupy militarily every possible safe haven that Al Qaeda is going to seek? Or do we have to have a strategy in which we cooperate with the governments involved and also engage in effective strikes or punitive missions to take out Al Qaeda if we know where it is? But simply pouring troops into Afghanistan and potentially Pakistan, perhaps others, is hardly in my mind, a rational solution.________________________________
Zbigniew Brzezinski is being a little disingenuous here. It was he who promoted a war in this location in Central Asia in his book "The Grand Chessboard." There is also proof at
http://www.historycommons.org/ (formerly Cooperative Research) that the Taliban were willing to turn over Bin Ladin before the Afghanistan war AND that the war plans for Afghanistan had been made prior to 9/11 and were sitting on the shelf.
Interesting that Brzezinki now thinks it's time to leave. He fears that the US will get bogged down in Afghanistan as the Russians did (and this was something else that a lot of people were worried about before the Afghanistan war--Afghanistan is not a place where outside powers succeed.)
It took him 9 years, but Brzezinki is finally saying what a lot of people were saying all along.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
