Zbig Idea!

[Daveparts]

On February 1, 2007 former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezhinski gave a speech to Senate Foreign Relations Committee where he reiterated his feelings about the situation in Iraq. Brzezhinski hit the nail on the head time after time with the skill of a journeyman carpenter. But major media ignored it like the plague or perhaps the death of Anna Nicole Smith was seen by the media moguls as a more important event to American national security interests.

Brezhinski made no friends on either side of the Congressional aisle calling out not only the administrations failings but Congresses failings as well with a clarion call of mutual responsibility. Brzezhinski served in both the Nixon and Carter administrations but sees himself as part of the intelligencia class not the political class and thus frees him from political partisanship. His message is clear that the United States through inexcusably poor intelligence and partisan directed intelligence has created a self-perpetuating cycle of self-delusion. The you’re either with us or against us mentality has put more against us and made it impossible to resolve differences with those caught in between. The constant fear mongering makes friends less likely to trust us and enemies less likely to negotiate with us.

Have you ever been told to keep something under your hat and let it slip? Not because of an error in judgment but you get in to a related discussion and it just slips out in the context of discussing something else. Brzezhinski in his speech was commenting on the problems in dealing with Iran and made a whoopsy of the first order and maybe this was more a reason for the media not to cover the speech than the death of druggy juggy gold digging blonde bimbo.

“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 ahead-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.”

Say What? “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.” We have heard the accusations already of Iranian responsibility for IED’s in Iraq but it’s the second part, “Then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran.” The key word here is blamed, blamed on Iran well then who is going to do it really? That it will then be blamed on Iran this is a major whoops. A national security advisor for two Presidents is acknowledging covert operations on the soil of the United States. Keep in mind these are serious people not prone to leaving details to chance or making off hand statements. They won’t sit around waiting and hoping something will happen so that they can attack Iran he is saying they will manufacture something to happen! Brzezhinski didn’t seemed at all shocked by his statement apparently this wasn’t a new concept to him in his thirty odd year career.

Zibigs idea that the US government would concoct a terrorist attack so of course the next logical question is, if they would do that now or in the future who’s to say they wouldn’t have done it in the past to achieve foreign policy goals? It’s obvious where I’m going here, so why did he say it? Was it just a slip? Or perhaps a Freudian slip perhaps he said it on purpose to destroy the element of surprise or to undercut any plan in the works. Brzezhinski is a patriot and he loves his adopted country and he fears for our future as to why he said it we will probably never know but it’s the fact that he’s said it.

Compare Brzezhinski’s cold stark frankness to Condeleesa Rice’s “Gee we didn’t know” or George Bushes “Who would a thunk it” We can all make jokes about Bushes intellectual shortcomings or Rice’s ineptitude but Breshinski’s statement is a window into how that world operates and if we don’t pay attention to it the stupid people aren’t Bush Rice or Brzezhinski.

When building a Roman arch until the keystone was in place there is no chance that the other blocks would stay in place by themselves. Much of the theories about possible government complicity about 9/11 like the blocks in the arch wouldn’t stay in place because you have to first prove that it was a credible possibility that the government would perpetrate such a crime. Brzezhinski’s statement and the matter of factness of it is the keystone of the arch. He’s not only saying they could do it but also that they would do it! A cabinet level official the sorcerer’s apprentice as it were says they would do if it would suit their purposes. But hey lets talk about that big tittied blonde huh?

Either by error in Judgment or Freudian slip or maybe Patriotism the cats out of the bag just like Anna Nicole is gone from this world. Brzezhinski’s speech is probably the most important statement since; “One small step for man” why do you suppose the media’s ignored it? But I wouldn’t expect Brzezhinski to say it again or Anna Nicole will have company it was a comment that was intended for those listening, are you listening?


SFRC Testimony -- Zbigniew Brzezinski

[MissWaverly]

1. yes, I heard this testimony

and was chilled by his comment on an attack (possibly) in the US blamed on Iran.

[PDJane]

2. I read it.

Then went back and read it again. Then posted it at two boards. Since the response was non-existent, I figured that no-one wanted to hear it.

It is chilling in implications.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

3. K & R. SO MUCH GOES DOWN THE MEMORY HOLE. Not this one, if I can help it.

:kick: MKJ

[Morgana LaFey]

4. Be a little careful about lionizing Brzezinski

And that IS the correct spelling of Brzezinski, btw. You've got a handful of different variations in your OP.

I've not fully figured him out yet, but Brzezinski wrote a report for the Counsil on Foreign Relations in 1997 (and available on AMazon, btw) called The Grand Chessboard: American Primay and its Geostrategic Inmperatives. The parts of it I've seen read like a PNAC document, or a precursor for same, or just a mirror of some of their findings. I don't know. I just know I'm not totally comfortable with him.

I'm going to quote from The War on Freedom: How and Why America was Attacked on September 11, 2001 by Nafeez Ahmed, c. 2002, also available on Amazon and one heckuva read, btw:


...the CFR study goes into great detail about U.S. interests in 'Eurasia' and the need for a "sustained and directed" U.S. involvement in the Central Asian region to secure these interests.

"Ever since the continun ts started interacting politically, some five hundred years ago, Eurasia has been the center of world power," he observes. Eurasia consists of all the territory each of Germany and Poland, all the way through Russia and China to the Pacific Ocean, including the Middle East and most of the Indian subcontinent. Brzezinski notes that the key to controlling Eurasia lies in establishing control over the republics of Central Asia.

snip

He also notes that any nation becoming predominent in Central Asia would thus pose a direct threat to U.S. control of oil resources both within the region and in the Persian Gulf. The Central Asian republics, he records, "are of important from the standpoing of security and historical ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and more powerful neighbors, namely Russia, Turkey, and Iran, with China also signaling an increasing political interset in the region...

snip

He then pointed out from the above that: "It follow that America's primary interest is to help ensure that no single power comes to control this geopolitical space and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic access to it.

snip

Brzezinski then comes to the crucial conclusion that: "Without sustained and directed American involvement, before long the forces fo global disorder could come to dominate the world scene. And the possiblility of such a fragmentation is inherent in the geopolitical tensions not only of today's Eurasia but of the world more generally." These observations are rooted indelibly in the Council on Foreign Relations' principal concern -- the maintenance of global U.S. dominance:

snip

"About 75 percent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts fo 60 percent of the world's GNP and about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources...

snip

"In the long run, global politics are bound to become increasingly uncongenial to the concentration of hegemonic power in the hands of a single state. Hence, America is not only the first, as well as the only, truly global superpower, but it is also likely to be the very last."

The next point made by Brzezinski is crucial:

"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural socity, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat."

Long-standing U.S. aims to establish hegemony -- the "decisive arbitration role" of "America's primacy" -- over "Eurasia" through control of CXentral Asia thus entailed the use of "sustained and directed American involvement," justified through the manufacture of "a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." This should also be understood in context with his earlier assertion that: "The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported American's engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanaese attqck on Pearl Harbor."

Brzezinski clearly envisaged that the establishment, consolidation and expansion of U.S. military hegemony over Eurasia through Central Asia would require the unprecedented, open-ended militarism of foreign policy, coupled with an unprecedented manufacture of domestic support and consensus on this militarisation campaign.

He also recognized that this would require the perception of an external threat of hitherto unprecedented proportions.

Given that Afghanistan constitutes the principal opening into Central Asia, it is clear that the CFS's strategic planning for the expansion and consolidation of U.S. global hegemony via control of Eurasia -- itself secured through control of Central Asia -- would of necessity be initaited through the establishment of U.S. hegemony in Afghanistan.

And, of course, that's where we started -- in Afghanistan, where we already had significant "geopolitical" and commercial interests. Ahmed goes into the "carpet of gold or carpet of bombs" threat made against the Taliban earlier in 2001, btw, and I think the $43 million given to the Taliban through Colin Powell. It's a very good book.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

5. No lionizing here. It was him saying that a domestic terrorist event would occur to allow blaming

Iran.

Said it matter-of-factly, as if it is common knowledge that dark elements in the government will cook up attacks on its citizenry to instill fear and hysteria.

He is as embedded in the darkness as they come. But, he did say what he said. MKJ

[Morgana LaFey]

6. You do realize I wsn't responding to your post

don't you?

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

7. LOL. I look at most posts as expressing sentiments to more than just the OP, unless they

specifically respond to a poster.

Just a POV, nothing more. MKJ

[Devon77]

8. Well he is certainly no angel

As a Bilderberg, Trilateral and CFR Member he certainly knows what the players are doing

Many accuse him of favoring a direct confrontation with Russia without loosing power and being bogged down in the Middle East. And that he sees the Neocons as fools.

In his book he writes that Turkey and Iran have a stabilizing affect and they act as a barrier for Russia.

Both Turkey and Iran, however, are primarily important geopolitical pivots. Turkey stabilizes the Black Sea
region, controls access from it to the Mediterranean Sea, balances Russia in the Caucasus, still offers an
antidote to Muslim fundamentalism, and serves as the southern anchor for NATO. A destabilized Turkey would
be likely to unleash more violence in the southern Balkans, while facilitating the reimposition of Russian
control over the newly independent states of the Caucasus. Iran, despite the ambiguity of its attitude toward
Azerbaijan, similarly provides stabilizing support for the new political diversity of Central Asia. It dominates
the eastern shoreline of the Persian Gulf, while its independence, irrespective of current Iranian hostility toward
the United States, acts as a barrier to any long-term Russian threat to American interests in the Persian Gulf
region.

Here he outlines the future of the US

In brief, for the United States, Eurasian geostrategy involves the purposeful management of geostrategically
dynamic states and the careful handling of geopolitically catalytic states, in keeping with the twin interests of
America in the short-term preservation of its unique global power and in the long-run transformation of it into
increasingly institutionalized global cooperation. To put it in a terminology that hearkens back to the more
brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and
maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the
barbarians from coming together.

http://www.treemedia.com/cfrlibrary/library/geopolitics/brzezinski.html

[Devon77]

9. And here I add his view on democracy

It is also a fact that America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of
America's power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy
attained international supremacy, but the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except
in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic selfdenial
(that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties even among professional soldiers)
required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization.

[Daveparts]

10. Is Paris Burning?

Is Paris Burning? is a 1966 Franco-American film dealing with the 1944 liberation of Paris by Allied forces. The title is Hitler's question to his chief of staff on the day of the liberation of Paris the military governor of Paris, General Dietrich von Choltitz, had been ordered to destroy Paris rather than let it fall undamaged into the hands of the Allies.

Von Choltitz was a loyal Nazi and loyal to Germany but he reached a point where he would not particapte in a war crime. And took his chances with an angry Hitler over destroying Paris. Perhaps Breshinski has reached the same point.

[Devon77]

11. Paris .. Stalingrad ... hard to say

Following the hearing, this reporter asked Brzezinski directly if he was suggesting that the source of a possible provocation might be the US government itself. The former national security adviser was evasive.

The following exchange took place:

Q: Dr. Brzezinski, who do you think would be carrying out this possible provocation?

A: I have no idea. As I said, these things can never be predicted. It can be spontaneous.

Q: Are you suggesting there is a possibility it could originate within the US government itself?

A: I’m saying the whole situation can get out of hand and all sorts of calculations can produce a circumstance that would be very difficult to trace.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/brze-f02.shtml



Many see him as an old-line, calculating or rational imperialst, while the Neocons are more a Strangelove crowd (unpredictable) and therefore dangerous.