Richard K. Moore
In the article below, Brzezinski launches a full-scale attack on Bush and the
war in Iraq. He even calls for an early withdrawal, leaving the Iraqi's to sort
things out for themselves, one way or the other.
I find it challenging to fathom what Brzezinski is up to here, or where he's
coming from.
We might start by recalling two items from his past. The first regards the war
between the USSR and Afghanistan, of which Brzezinski was one of the architects,
and which he afterwards publicly bragged about as being a coup in the cold war.
In order to launch this war, various Islamic terrorist organizations were
created, armed, and funded by the CIA, recruiting from all over the Middle East.
They were unleashed in order to draw the Soviets into their own Vietnam
quagmire. The world "Taliban" means student; in particular a student of the CIA
terrorist schools. This was an act of state-sponsored terrorism on the part of
the U.S., leading predictably to a very dirty and bloody conflict. The war was
also accompanied by a Matrix campaign which portrayed the terrorists as
domestic, self-motivated freedom fighters.
The second item to recall is Brzezinski's recent book (1997), "The Grand
Chessboard". A primary thesis of the book is that the U.S. should not shrink
from empire: we are top dog now and should take whatever measures are necessary
to maintain that position, as the world's first truly global empire. In a very
real sense, the PNAC agenda can be seen as a specific battle-plan drawn up in
order to fulfill the strategic vision Brzezinski articulated. In addition, the
Patriot Act is in some sense a response to Brzezinski's warning that "Democracy
is inimical to imperial mobilization".
With these observations in mind, let's examine some of Brzezinski's statements...................
So far, it seems Brzezinski is simply doing a hatchet job on Bush, using his
prestige, saying whatever works as anti-Bush propaganda. This would indicate
that the CFR-level community is ready to dump Bush, as they dumped Nixon, hoping
that all the shit will stick to him as they flush him away, as it did with
Nixon: the scapegoat scenario. Compounding U.S. political dilemmas is the
degradation of America's moral standing in the world. The country that has for
decades stood tall in opposition to political repression, torture and other
violations of human rights has been exposed as sanctioning practices that hardly
qualify as respect for human dignity.................
Brzezinski knows full well that the U.S. will never vacate Iraq. We've built,
and are still building, very permanent military bases, establishing just the
kind of imperial infrastructure Brzezinski himself so eloquently promotes. He
never mentions in this article the elephant in the kitchen - oil - and he knows
full well that the U.S. will never relinquish control over those reserves now
that control has been achieved. The PNAC document says that the issue of Iraq
transcends the issue of Saddam's regime; similarly it transcends Bush's regime.
Brzezinski is simply taking a 'high moral ground' position with his withdrawal
ruse, donning the feathers of a dove, knowing that the stand has no practical
political relevance............................
This way the U.S. gets everything it ever wanted in Iraq - bases and oil - and
it can free its troops from an engagement that never did serve any useful
purpose for 'U.S. interests'. The world will be so relieved to see the end of
the unpopular war that they will not challenge our residual presence and role,
nor will they berate us for Bush's prior mistakes. Bush served a useful purpose
by getting us into Iraq and creating a situation so grotesque that anything less
will now be perceived as being acceptable. He took a mile and we can keep the
inch we really want..........
http://www.livejournal.com/users/mparen ... 09708.html
I hate when that happens
Damn It Go Read The Whole Thing,
TUT
