Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Gopher]

[On the other hand]

According to a search I just did, David Ignatius argued in March 2007 that Obama should make ZB his foreign-policy adviser. And ZB endorsed Obama in August 2007.

[Gopher]

I found this. Dated by still a useful starting point. Brzezinski has backed Obama for a while. But has he truly become his chief foreign-affairs advisor...?

[On the other hand]

[Gopher]

At this point the consequences of such a relationship would say much about: Obama's platform; how the hypothetical W. Bush-Obama transition would go in places like Homeland Security, State, and CIA; how Obama's hypothetical cabinet and esp. his NSC and staff would look.

One possible answer: Realistic and somewhat hawkish, although still against the Iraqi War. Now his comments on possibly moving the war into Pakistan, under certain conditions, makes more sense to me.

[On the other hand]

[Gopher]

He is Polish, man.

In any case, full of Idealism, but backed by Realists and hawks on foreign policy. Perhaps the JFK comparisons are not so far off base after all...

[Czarjorge]

Pretty much the whole Brzezinski family backs, openly or otherwise, Obama. One of my guiltly pleasures is Morning Joe on MSNBC, and Mika Brzezinski, the daughter, regularly caveats her points on the Dem side by pointing out her brother and father's support and employment with Obama.

My only worry about pragmatic hawkishness is the trouble it caused JFK. Additionally, any direct conflict with Pakistan is worrisome not only because of their possession of nuclear weapons. Russia and China would both be very upset with us if we assaulted Pakistan, and a seemingly anti-Russian Brzezinski might not have a problem with that.

[bucheon bum]

[Gopher]

Working backwards: Brzezinski is well-disposed towards and has excellent relations with China; I do not understand Czarjorge's points about Russia, either; and JFK's backing the Bay of Pigs, his war-of-assassins re: Castro, among other hawkish and brinkmanship moves and games in Southeast Asia and elsewhere during his three years, caused credibility problems where his administration promised to behave differently in world affairs than its predecessors had (sound familiar?).

[igotthisguitar]

BRZEZINSKI BOASTS OF STARTING THE AFGHAN WAR

Brzezinski was also the great promoter of Islamic fundamentalism, which he celebrated as the greatest bulwark against Soviet Russian communism. Using the Islamic faundamentalists, Brzezinski hoped to make the entire region between the southern border of the USSR and the Indian Ocean into an "arc of crisis," from which fundamentalist subversion would radiate into Soviet territory, first and foremost into the five Soviet republics of central Asia, Azerbaijan, etc. It was in the service of this Islamic fundamentalist card that Brzezinski first helped overthrow the Shah of Iran, and then insisted that the replacement could be no one else than Ayatollah Khomeini.

To magnify the impact of Khomeini, Brzezinski sent subversion teams into Afghanistan during the summer of 1979 to undermine the pro-Soviet forces there and induce Moscow to intervene. When the USSR invaded Afghanistan at Christmas 1979, Moscow claimed that they were responding to earlier aggressive moves into that country by the US.

In an interview about ten years ago, Brzezinski conceded that this had been true: Zbig had indeed sent subversion and terror teams into Aghanistan at least six months before the Soviet invasion., as is clear from this excerpt from that interview:

Brzezinski: According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalists, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

B: Nonsense!

(Nouvel Obsservateur, January 15-21, 1998)

[Gopher]

IGTG: this may come as news to you; but most of us already knew this. The interview is dated 1998, after all.

[igotthisguitar]

[Gopher]

Laughing.

Another one who seizes on the arrogant statements of Wasington officials and takes them at face value. The story is that Brzezinski, who hated the Russians, bragged about bringing down Soviet Russia. All by himself.

And you buy it.

[igotthisguitar]