|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 10:45 am Post subject: Zbigniew Brzezinski on self-fulfilling prophecy |
 |
|
| Quote: |
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.
|
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001916.php |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sincinnatislink
Joined: 30 Jan 2007
Location: Top secret.
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 10:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Are you presenting this for our pondering or taking a stance? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
More-or-less both. I'm in broad agreement with Brzezinski, but I'd also be interested in hearing what others have to say.
As for my stance, I agree with the stuff I quoted, though I find his proposed solutions to the current debacle to be a tad on the platitudinous side. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm not convinced it's a self-fulfilling prophecy so much as I'm convinced it's a deliberate effort to expand the war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 4:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It is an unsurprising opening statement, given how many distinguished Realist-minded personalities have already stated such views against the war and its consequences. What it does show is the list of those disagreeing with the Administration's executing its ill-conceived plans is growing.
Would love to know how W. Bush and his closest foreign policy advisors -- Cheney, Rice, and Gates -- take this.
By the way, I see direct language and not platitudes. Clash of perceptions again, I guess. Probably focusing on different parts of his statement...
| Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote: |
Mr. Chairman:
Your hearings come at a critical juncture in the U.S. war of choice in Iraq, and I commend you and Senator Lugar for scheduling them.
It is time for the White House to come to terms with two central realities:
1. The war in Iraq is a historic, strategic, and moral calamity. Undertaken under false assumptions, it is undermining America's global legitimacy. Its collateral civilian casualties as well as some abuses are tarnishing America's moral credentials. Driven by Manichean impulses and imperial hubris, it is intensifying regional instability.
2. Only a political strategy that is historically relevant rather than reminiscent of colonial tutelage can provide the needed framework for a tolerable resolution of both the war in Iraq and the intensifying regional tensions. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think his "scenario" is quite possible, if not probable.
The U.S. administration has shown that it only knows how to "rally the people" through fear and war and cries of patriotism. This is their political platform, the broad sky of the future as oppossed to the earth of the here and now.
I had the same suspicions (and still do) about this surge in troops and the continued focus (and media build up) on Iran as an "evil enemy". But they need a smoking gun and through the surge and other means, I believe they are searching for it.
Terrible in this day and age, to think that there is political rule through "the barbarians are at the gates". Shouldn't that be a cold war relic?
DD
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote: |
| 1. The war in Iraq is a historic, strategic, and moral calamity. Undertaken under false assumptions, it is undermining America's global legitimacy. Its collateral civilian casualties as well as some abuses are tarnishing America's moral credentials. |
Gopher - this is essentially what I meant when I said 'the US is being judged' a couple of weeks ago.
Damn my inarticulateness! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Woland
Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm in agreement with Brzezinski here. Thanks for posting this, OTOH.
Now with Mitt Romney criticizing Hillary Clinton for being soft on Iran:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070202/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_iran
we can begin to get an idea of what some people in this election cycle are going to think political viagra looks like. But its really one of those pills spammers are pushing that are supposed to extend your dick.
Worrisome times. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 5:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gang ah jee wrote: |
| ...this is essentially what I meant. |
Very well, Gang ah jee.
I do not doubt for a nanosecond that Brzezinski offers such criticism, painful as it may be for some of us to hear, constructively and in order to help set things right, and not merely as a convenience and forceful pretext to ridicule, denounce, and/or pounce on the Great Satan, or better yet: the Great Scapegoat (again).
You may see this as something that does not require clarification. On the other hand, from what I have seen and heard, I can not say that at all about everyone who says such things as Brzezinksi just did (the essence of which, by the way, I have never disagreed with).
So why not clarify, for the record: which it is for you, especially when you employ the verb "to judge...?"
Last edited by Gopher on Sun Feb 04, 2007 6:30 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 6:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| gang ah jee wrote: |
| ...this is essentially what I meant. |
Very well, Gang ah jee.
I do not doubt for a nanosecond that Brezinski offers such criticism, painful as it may be for some of us to hear, constructively and in order to help set things right, and not to merely as a convenience and forceful pretext to ridicule, denounce, and/or pounce on the Great Satan, or better yet: the Great Scapegoat (again).
You may see this as something that does not require clarification. On the other hand, from what I have seen and heard, I can not say that at all about everyone who says such things as Brezinksi just did (the essence of which, by the way, I have never disagreed with).
So why not clarify, for the record: which it is for you, especially when you employ the verb "to judge...?" |
Fine - to spell it out: I have deep respect for the principles under which your republic was founded, and I believe that on balance, the US has been a force for good in the world. As an English speaker and a westerner, I owe the US an immense cultural and political debt, and I understand that it is impossible to separate the fate of the West (and indeed of the world) from that of the US. I get no benefit from and take no joy in talking smack about the States just for the sake of it - I'm genuinely very alarmed by the current situation and by the direction things seem to be heading in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 6:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Very well.
For my part in the earlier discussion which got out of hand, I offer my most sincere apologies for misunderstanding your position. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| By the way, I see direct language and not platitudes. |
I was referring to his proposed solutions, offered at the end of the speech. And I guess maybe "platitudinous" was the wrong word. More like "well, easier said than done at this point, pal." Admittedly, the factors which would compliate implementation of his proposals are not the creation of Mr. Brzezinski. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| For my part in the earlier discussion which got out of hand, I offer my most sincere apologies for misunderstanding your position. |
My apologies for that also. However, despite the acrimony I did find it useful for critically examining my own position, as well as for better understanding yours. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 7:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gang ah jee wrote: |
Fine - to spell it out: I have deep respect for the principles under which your republic was founded, and I believe that on balance, the US has been a force for good in the world. As an English speaker and a westerner, I owe the US an immense cultural and political debt, and I understand that it is impossible to separate the fate of the West (and indeed of the world) from that of the US. I get no benefit from and take no joy in talking smack about the States just for the sake of it - I'm genuinely very alarmed by the current situation and by the direction things seem to be heading in. |
That's very well put gang ah jee, and that's essentially how I feel. I dislike much of what the US (and my country Britain) has done in the world - but I don't think either nation is essentially wicked. Just imperfect, and in need of a good spring clean. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
OK. Gang ah jee and Big_Bird, as you are in a mood to listen: there is a world of difference between (a) a friend who asks you to step aside to give you "a no-shitter" on how you are going in the wrong direction and ought to mend your ways, or whatever [that is Marine-speak, by the way  ]; and (b) a "friend" who resents you, who promotes the enemy's propaganda line in public, and who often and chronically angrily denounces you, etc.
I would suggest thinking long and hard about this. Probably the true source of our disagreements in this forum.
You may see yourself as (a). But are you sure your rhetoric is not much more (b) than (a)...? This is one of the reasons some of us dislike and mistrust Jane Fonda and Sean Penn's "antiwar" politics, for example.
And as with every other choice, this is merely a crude and simplistic dichotomy. But it serves its purpose. It illuminates my own and other's perspective on how some of this "criticism" is coming in... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
