I'm tired of people 'blaming the dead' for decisions taken twenty years ago that had unforeseen consequences. That kind of smug hindsight is not only offensive, it serves no purpose. It's like watching evil laugh and dance. |
Posted on 10/08/2001 1:57:12 PM PDT by Zviadist
Ex-National Security Chief Brzezinski admits: Afghan Islamism Was Made in Washington
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser in 'Le Nouvel Observateur' (France), Jan 15-21, 1998, p. 76
Translated by Bill Blum
=======================================
***
Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?
Brzezinski: Yes. 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 fundamentalism, 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! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.
***
Note: There are at least two editions of 'Le Nouvel Observateur.' With apparently the sole exception of the Library of Congress, the version sent to the United States is shorter than the French version. The Brzezinski interview was not included in the shorter version. *
Translated from the French by Bill Blum, author of "Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II" and "Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower" Portions of the books can be read at: http://members.aol.com/superogue/homepage.htm
[Back to Top]
Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion.
Well, Brzezinski admits that Afghanistan I was a provokation to get the Sovs to play. Those little old Islamic extremists weren't going to hurt us... Can you say "BLOWBACK"?
Yet these scumbags never get called for the disater their policies produce. We keep going on blindly as if even recent history just didn't exist -- gone down the memory hole. And then we pat each other on the back and say how they bombed us because of how wonderful we are. People are STUPID!
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?
Blowback--the new bogeyman. My question is what will the blowback be on all of this willy-nilly speculation about blowback...
Brzezinski again.
Tsk tsk. And he seemed like such a nice fellow...
"Events in Kosovo" BRZEZINSKI SCOWCROFT LAVROV Interviews of 3/25/99
CHARLIE ROSE: We cannot, if I hear you correctly, fail here. Too much is at stake in terms of America's-- beyond the morality of the issue, but in terms of America's prestige and reputation and the credibility we have in the future. We cannot let this pass, and we cannot lose.ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: You're absolutely right.
I think this is the first really complex challenge to American global leadership. And, if we falter here, the consequences would be devastating -- in the first instance, for Europe; secondly, for the American-European relationship; thirdly, for our position in the world; and then, in a sense, more generally for the kind of world that we will be living in the next few years.
So, in a microcosm,
this is a real test case of what the world is about to be.CHARLIE ROSE: So, if someone says to the president, ``Make the case why Kosovo is important,'' you say, ``This is a microcosm of the way the world is gonna be in the near future''?
ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: That is right.
Blowback--the new bogeyman. My question is what will the blowback be on all of this willy-nilly speculation about blowback..
Fine. Call it what you will. Call it the negative consequences of excessive meddling, call it typical American foreign policy simplism and provincialism. Whatever you call it, we are seeing the fruits of our labors some back to strike us and no one wants to talk about it -- the root cause of the current crisis. Only feelgood things like "they hate us because we are beautiful."
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html
Ok guys, tin foil alert, since when the US has been a promoter of Islam, since when the US had a president praying the G_d Allah?
I guess those National Security Advisors should all carry a crystal ball and keep a hot line open to the Psychic Friends Network.
Instead, I always thought that it was the internal contradictions of Communism, the inefficiencies of the system, and the inability of their economic system to both deliver commercial goods and compete with the Regan buildup that finally caused Gorbachev to pursue glasnost and peristroika.
So the US CIA initiatives in Afghanistan did produce the mujahideen and the Taliban -- but not the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Note that peristroika (and to some extent glasnost) have been adopted by the Chinese. They took this initiative without any Afghanistan episode as a cause. They just see the practical advantages of a market economic system. However, they did not make the mistake of imploding their political processes, which are needed intact to guide the economic change and avoid the Russian chaos. (Plus they did not enlist the assistance of Harvard economists!)
I'm tired of people 'blaming the dead' for decisions taken twenty years ago that had unforeseen consequences. That kind of smug hindsight is not only offensive, it serves no purpose. It's like watching evil laugh and dance. |
Have you forgotten 1999? That is the year when the US bombed Belgrade in the name of Islam.
What a bunch of leftist psycho babble. Can't any country take responsibility for its own state of affairs? Is the US really that powerful? If so, how come we haven't got bin Laden yet?
Answer: Yes, we have influence, but it is not Omnipotent, and it certainly wasn't of the nature to create Afghan Islamism. Yes, we provided war materials, but if your looking for a "spiritual" source for the Talbans ideology (outside of Afghanistan (but the roots were all ready there be sure)) look to the form of radical Wahbism that was imported by Saudi mujtahids, like Osama bin Laden...
OH I get it...Jimmy Carter and Ziggy ended the cold war and defeated the Soviets. What a load of crap. Watch out Ziggy, you're going to break your arm patting your back like that.
So you think Brzezniski should have fully foreseen that 20 years later Afghanistan would be taken over by a group of low rent, semi-literate Pakistani religious nuts who were financed by a complete mad man from Saudi Arabia with $300 Million at his disposal who became totally obsessed when US troops stepped on Saudi soil?
No, but it does put to lie the idea that American muddling and empire-building does not have consequences. Even 20 years later. That perhaps there was motivation beyond "they hate us because we are so noble and good and have such good fast food restaurants" that most Americans seem to feel so smug and snug believing.
Instead, I always thought that it was the internal contradictions of Communism, the inefficiencies of the system, and the inability of their economic system to both deliver commercial goods and compete with the Regan buildup that finally caused Gorbachev to pursue glasnost and peristroika.
I always thought it did not end at all, but rather just re-tooled the hammers and sickles into "capitalist" symbols and the old nomenklatura remained in all the positions they occupied before the "fall of communism," but were much better paid. Did they not?
During the Cold War, we were up against a terrible enemy who wanted to conquer the world. If we hadn't stopped them, they may well have succeeded. We made numerous micalculations and errors in the effort to contain them, but we ultimately prevailed--and it wasn't because we were, to borrow your phrase, more beautiful.
but we ultimately prevailed--and it wasn't because we were, to borrow your phrase, more beautiful.
...and then promptly began behaving worse than the former Soviet overlords would have dreamed about. Won't let us run our pipeline through your country to the Adriatic? We'll bomb you. Vote for the wrong leaders (Serbia, Slovakia, Belarus, Albania, etc)? We'll overthrow them. Do what we say, or else. I wonder about the Cold War. Was it really fought for freedom? Or for certain Western business interests (most of which happened to coincide with Soviet interests as well).
You are trying to prove too much with this example. American "meddling" has often been a good thing. Every country in the Western Hemisphere is now a democracy, thanks to our meddling.
The fact that we can't control every outcome is not a particularly persuasive argument against making any attempt to influence events in foreign countries.
I was curious how long it would take before somebody put their finger on what was happening here. It's hard to believe it took 18 posts.
2) The rise of the lunatic fringe in Afghanistan happened after the CIA and the US left. Funded by the Saudis, and organized and trained by the Pakistanis who saw a vaccuum in Afghansitan leading to chaos and drug-running in their own country because of the Afghan refugees.
So, if we had stayed the course, and helped the people who had helped us bleed the Communists,these Taliban fruitcakes would not have taken over the country.
Of course, if we had an American in the WHite House in 1993, when the first attack on the WTC occurred...
I'm not a big Zib fan, but I'll think I'll wait on the authorized translation before jumping on this story.
Fine. But it was indeed published and it is of interest and relevant. That is why I posted it. Thought-provoking even if it raises other questions.
Stopped them? Huh?
They collapsed on themselves. Without a shot's being fired, the Big Bad Soviet Union collapsed like a cheap dimestore umbrella in the face of some dockworkers and fled like Dracula from the Christianity THAT SELFSAME collective of power now uses to great political effect.
I am going to disabuse you of this fantasy, I swear.
How in hell could they have launched the "greatest peace movement the world has ever seen" whilst still the "Evil Empire"?
How better to disarm the West than to coming limping their way crying "Mea Culpa, Kapitalism!" when (as militant atheists and supreme materialists with their own ideas of New World Economic Policy) they've no semblance, even, of the morality on which "good capitalism" is based and can therefore clean our clocks with precision (if not absolute abandon)?
What in God's name was Bush I thinking when -- before the dust of the Berlin wall had even settled -- he was hooking us up for joint operations with the selfsame KGB and Eastern Euro intel sharks who'd been running heroin our way? I'm sure Clinton appreciated the alleged help he got from the Rooskies with Waco but I can't help noticing our own unconstitutional Federal Police Force's profile has grown more menacing in an almost exponential way since this so-called perestroika partnership of "policemen".
I realize I sound like some kinda freak yelling "THE POD PEOPLE ARE HERE" ... but I just like things to make sense, that's all. The "fall of communism" (or the "abolition of the IMAGE of the enemy" as they put it well in advance of getting down with glasnost) is bs.
I suppose you probably think that just sitting at home and comtemplating the lint in our navels would be consequence-free? That a national foreign policy of "Ignore the bad mans and hope they go away!" is the best foreign policy?
You need to grow up.
This is just the "blame American first" crowd going into overdrive. It was not our "meddling" that got us into this, it was because we walked away
Just keep puffing on that crack pipe, buddy. Remember, ALWAYS believe what you are told. ALWAYS.
I am so glad to hear someone else say this. It bears repeating: WE ARE NOT OMNIPOTENT. We cannot control the course of history, and we are often outmaneuvered by our enemies (viz. Somalia, Vietnam, Yalta, etc.)
There is a tendency on the Left, and increasingly on the Right, to assume that we can simply enact our will uncontested. Thus the Left will blame the US for any larger conflagration that gets started following the attacks on the Pentagon and the WTC. Apparently, some on the Right will do so as well. Zviadist is right to say that "blowback" is merely another word for unintended consequences. But there are consequences to inaction as well.
Goodness gracious, I'm sounding like one of those dreaded "neo-cons." Best stop while I'm ahead.
One that that burns me is the way they cut the end off of "Brazil" when they show it in the U.S.
Not only do they want us clueless, they like us to be as arrogant as possible, convinced we're somehow specially blessed by God (even if we destroy 1.2 million of His own innocents each year, we've got the $70 sneakers to show it) and are entitled for some reason to the "Happily Ever After" version always.
You'll like this ... I used the word "King-cons" in a dream the other night to describe folks like Kissinger on whom our perma-leadership relies but whose Maotai ways and NSSM-200 pop-control policy reveal him to be every bit the evil elitist that Hillary, Soros or others are.
Malcolm Forbes had a funny comment at his desert birthday bash once when Elizabeth Taylor whined to Mr. Hanky "But Henry, you're not staying for the fireworks?"
"My dear," Malcolm laughed, "it's he who usually starts them."
I agree. Before 1991 the USSR was the imperialist power. Since 1991 I have seen my country become a grotesque empire.
"Won't let us run our pipeline through your country to the Adriatic? We'll bomb you. Vote for the wrong leaders (Serbia, Slovakia, Belarus, Albania, etc)? We'll overthrow them. Do what we say, or else. I wonder about the Cold War. Was it really fought for freedom? Or for certain Western business interests (most of which happened to coincide with Soviet interests as well)."
I don't think it's about pipelines. That doesn't seem important enough to me. It can only be an attempt to distract Muslim fanatics from Israel. I think it's an attempt to make Muslims think that Slavs, and not Israel, is the enemy. It's an attempt to make Muslims think the US is their friend. I think it's all an attempt to protect Israel by diverting the energies of the Muslims into fighting Christian Slavs.
I'll be happy to point out that indeed they can.
Communists of the early 20th century have turned out to be remarkably prescient, actually.
That the countries of Latin America are democracies has nothing to do with US meddling. The Latin American countries became democracies in imitation of the US. When they got their independence they created Republics with constitutions modelled on that of the US.
Anyway, I fail to see why spreadin "democracy" is considered a good thing. Why should I care if my neighbors live in a democracy or a monarchy?
HAHAHA the joke is on most of us.
Pure BS. We were checking another attempt by the Soviet Union to reach the Indian Ocean via expansion. They tried it through Iran in the 1950s, and we blocked that one too. The Soviet Union overthrew the previous Constitutional, pro-Western government in Afghanistan in 1976 and replaced it with a violent Marxist regime. We aided those who resisted that Marxist regime.
As to what kind of 'aid' the Carter administration gave to the rebels, it surely was not effective. By 1983, the rebels were all but beaten --- driven deep into the mountains with the Soviets holding every city in the country. That is when the Reagan administration stepped in and gave the Soviet Union the biggest pain in the ass that they ever had and one that contributed significantly to the downfall of the Evil Empire. It was a good thing. It may well have helped save the world from nuclear holocaust.
Is your view of Geo Politics that we should always mind our own business and let the chips fall where they may. If so, you are a fool. The rest of the world pays very much attention to what we do and who we support, and at least half the world hates us, our system, our way of life, our freedom and our very existence. They do not hate us because of what we do. They hate us for who we are --- free, prosperous, happy people. If we 'do nothing' we will be destroyed by those haters.
As to ‘muddling’, (meddling?) you're damn right we meddle. If we ever stop, we're dead. As to Empire --- exactly where in the hell is the American Empire? Who are our subjects? And if we have this huge Empire, why don’t we get them to pay some taxes instead of us paying them? Even the Romans figured that one out. It’s a no-brainer if we were an Empire.
I’m tired of this crap. Your insinuation that somehow every problem that befalls the world is the fault of America is another damn Marxist lie. It’s time we started calling it that every time one of the fellow travelers or a ‘useful idiot’ who has no conception of how the world works begins to spout it. .
The United States, and our foreign policy, have saved 100s of millions of people around the world from the misery and poverty of toleration despots. We ain’t perfect, but we’re the best there is or ever was.
Freedom ain’t Free.
I don't think it's about pipelines. That doesn't seem important enough to me. It can only be an attempt to distract Muslim fanatics from Israel. I think it's an attempt to make Muslims think that Slavs, and not Israel, is the enemy. It's an attempt to make Muslims think the US is their friend. I think it's all an attempt to protect Israel by diverting the energies of the Muslims into fighting Christian Slavs.
You might be right. But there seldom is ONE reason for anything. Don't discount pipelines, though. With them we are talking billions of dollars. That kind of money leads amoral people to do immoral things.
People in West are not aware of what really happened. Boris Yeltsin went to privatize the government industries. How did he do it? He gave them away to people who promised to scratch his back in return. The oligarchs that run Russia didn't earn their business empires. They got them by promising to scratch the government's back.
The United States, and our foreign policy, have saved 100s of millions of people around the world from the misery and poverty of toleration despots. We ain’t perfect, but we’re the best there is or ever was.
Alright, dude. Just keep believing that. Don't cancel your subscription to the Weekly Standard. You'd be lost without it.
Some of the old nomenklatura did continue on. But I think that there was a lot of social mobility, much of it of the "shit floats" variety.
Okay ... wars AND ego will go a long way to illuminating the prints and distinguishing the different sides.
(Thanks for the mail, sawdring. Bumming hard hard hard, I was.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
I fail to understand the utility in pointing out that human beings cannot see very far into the future. In 1979 Carter and Brzezinski viewed the Soviet Union as a greater threat to the U.S. than Afghan fundamentalism. I would have thought them insane had they not.