Zbigniew Brzezinski On U.S. Disengagement From Iraq
"Victory or defeat" is, in fact, a false strategic choice. In using this formulation, the president would have the American people believe that their only options are either "hang in and win" or "quit and lose." But the real, practical choice is this: "persist but not win" or "desist but not lose."
Victory, as defined by the administration and its supporters -- i.e., a stable and secular democracy in a unified Iraqi state, with the insurgency crushed by the American military assisted by a disciplined, U.S.-trained Iraqi national army -- is unlikely.
(...)
The real choice that needs to be faced is between:
An acceptance of the complex post-Hussein Iraqi realities through a relatively prompt military disengagement -- which would include a period of transitional and initially even intensified political strife as the dust settled and as authentic Iraqi majorities fashioned their own political arrangements.
An inconclusive but prolonged military occupation lasting for years while an elusive goal is pursued.
(...)
(T)he president (needs) to break out of his political cocoon. His policymaking and his speeches are the products of the true believers around him who are largely responsible for the mess in Iraq. They have a special stake in their definition of victory, and they reinforce his convictions instead of refining his judgments.
(...)
Finally, Democratic leaders should stop equivocating while carping. Those who want to lead in 2008 are particularly unwilling to state clearly that ending the war soon is both desirable and feasible. They fear being labeled as unpatriotic. Yet defining a practical alternative would provide a politically effective rebuttal to those who mindlessly seek an unattainable "victory." America needs a real choice regarding its tragic misadventure in Iraq.
I find it hard to believe that I am recommending anything written by Brzezinski.
Normally bellicose foreign policy types are beginning to inject some realism into the war debate.
Will wonders never cease?
posted by Effwit at 11:48 AM
10 Comments:
I love this 'exit strategy' talk.
I imagine a rapist smothering my daughter. He hears a sudden ratcheting and looks up startled only to come face to face with the 200 yard cold stare of my 12 gauge shotgun looking right through his soon to be dead cranium.
And then the rapist fool says, "But I can't just get off of her - I need an exit strategy for that. I owe her and you that".
(needless to say,kaboom.....kaboom)
Meatball One:
The analogy of the rapist is particularly appropriate vis-a-vis the U.S. involvement in Iraq.
I apologize for my metaphorical crudities.
I do however remain flabbergasted and endowed with less than zero patience for all the EazyBoy'd pundits who are self-considered geo-political wizkids - simply on the merit of swinging with Tom Clancy-ish terms like 'exit strategy' or 'cavitation'.
Since when did 'Democracy' and 'freedom of speech' start meaning that 1 + 1 can validly be claimed by losers of any creed to amount to 31.whatever?
Sending out 20 year old underprivileged boys on nightmarishly meaningless gauntlet runs in Iraq to be randomly picked off is not a staying strategy and it ain't an exit strategy. It's just an old man's strategy of trying to buy time and save face by killing poor and dumb kids that no talking head really gives a flying fuck about.
Nonetheless, I shall calm myself down a notch to a more reverent level - tis still the sabbath for another 4 hours on this side of the world.
Meatball One:
No apologies necessary.
Your point about all the political talk is well taken.
Some of the worst offenders seem to be the ones who say "I am against the war, but since we are in Iraq, we must see it to a successful conclusion."
These are the fools that Zbiggy was trying to reach with his op-ed. The true believers are beyond help.
The war is all about access to cheap oil, not democracy or any other such bullshit.
The warmongers are bullies, plain and simple.
Their guiding philosophy is kill, kill, kill.
Larry Johnson, ex-CIA, had an interesting blog posting recently about the military's plans for the next phase. He refers to it as the "Elusive Iraqi Tipping Point."
http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/
Clearly, it doesn't bode well for ending up with anything much better than what Iraq was under Saddam. Just a lot of wasted lives, wasted dollars, and wasted time.
ZB makes some good points in his op-ed. He may have his drawbacks, but at least he seems to have some common sense. Others in DC could use some of that.
What ticks Meatball One off about the Z-man and the Generals inside the Pentagon that leak their woes and worries to the likes of Seymour and Murtha is the following...these f*ckers have known their truisms from the getgo - yet they only voice them now...and often still from perches of anonymity.
We call Cheney and W chickenhawks but the biggest pussies in town are the majority of military top honchos who've opposed this war on solid ground from scratch yet dared not risk job, grade, or even benefits to stand for the truth and dutifully report up the chain and invoke the wrath of other swollen prostates in suits.
Meanwhile, underpriveleged kids put their lives on the line for peanuts and promises just begging to be broken as soon as they come home as tainted meat.
Z-man's op-ed is lucid as all heck - right on the moola...but that lucidity on the issue has resided with him and our tax-subsidized experts on this and similar scenarios from day numero uno - and long before that. Understanding Iraq was never rocket science for the professionals.
But the fcukers step forward first now when cretin opinion is blowing gently up their backsides (and to think these cowards say they support the troops.)
We could use a good long wall to line these traitors up against. The FOX News Goebbelites can buckle at the knee first.
Drew L:
Larry Johnson's piece was good.
The "tipping point" meme has been in use for at least a year now.
It is part of a stalling strategy quite like we saw in Vietnam, "the light at the end of the tunnel."
L. Johnson writes:
The alternative argument is that imprecision of the U.S. strikes is likely to generate more insurgents than are killed. Within the ethos of the tribal culture in Iraq, seeking revenge on those who have wronged you or your family is a mission that can span centuries. The folks we are fighting have a much longer attention span than we do.
This is the crux of the problem the U.S. now faces in Iraq. Creating even more enemies in a vital part of the world.
Meatball One:
I, too, see the arrogance of our political and military leaders, assuming that it is somehow okay to invade and kill people in a country that is posing no threat to the United States.
These shits were over-confident in the military superiority of the U.S., and actually thought that the war itself would be a cakewalk.
You are right that many people knew that the occupation phase would not be easy, but they (State Dept., etc.) were ignored from the getgo.
This is all about the interests of the national security state. There is a lot of profit to be made from the war. The lives that are being sacrificed (on both sides) do not really factor into the equation.
When I've had too much of a hosts Chateaux Lafitte I've been known to be a prick and start playing Mr. Iconoclast. I'll say shit like, "we won that there Viet Nam war...just like we are winning the war in Iraq."
One just has to learn the following: we are all Americans per citizenship but beyond that we sit in different boats. GDP, inflation, bla bla bla..how such indicators of national welfare hit home depend near exclusively on who you are and not on your nationality per se.
For a lot of soldiers, generals, and politicos - the Viet Nam war was a hands down loss. But for others, the U.S. won the war. (Viet Namese reconstruction is being financed with U.S.loans)
For most every American, the U.S. has lost the Iraq war. But for a few other Americans, famous profits have been made and gargantuan steady-state profits stand to be made down the road when capital is needed for the real reconstruction Iraqi.
That capital will overwhelmingly be furnished by western banks - as always. But for now we have to rip that place up. The bigger we lose, the bigger We win.
So just as you say, the lives being lost on both sides don't matter one iota to those Americans in the boat that are actually winning this war. Anyone can say, "Support the troops". Even husckster Dr. Phil and his evil wife.
Meatball One:
For most every American, the U.S. has lost the Iraq war. But for a few other Americans, famous profits have been made and gargantuan steady-state profits stand to be made down the road when capital is needed for the real reconstruction of Iraq
Exactly.
The damage to the reputation of the U.S. from engaging in the Iraq war makes all Americans poorer.
Of course, the kleptocracy that really owns the USA will have those losses more than made up by the billions of dollars that have gone to them in war related contracts.
And as you say, the best for them is yet to come.
Post a Comment
<< Home