1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

[Zbigniew Brzezinski] George W. Bush's suicidal statecraft

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by wnes, Oct 14, 2005.

  1. wnes

    wnes Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    8,196
    Likes Received:
    19
    George W. Bush's suicidal statecraft

    http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/10/13/opinion/edzbig.php

    By Zbigniew Brzezinski Tribune Media Services International
    THURSDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2005

    WASHINGTON Demagoguery

    Sixty years ago, Arnold Toynbee concluded, in his monumental "A Study of History," that the ultimate cause of imperial collapse was "suicidal statecraft." Sadly for President George W. Bush's place in history but - much more important - ominously for America's future, it has lately seemed as if that adroit phrase might be applicable to the policies pursued by the United States since the cataclysm of 9/11.

    Though there have been some hints lately that the administration may be beginning to reassess the goals, so far defined largely by slogans, of its unsuccessful military intervention in Iraq, Bush's speech of Oct. 6 was a throwback to the more demagogic formulations that he employed during the presidential campaign of 2004 to justify the war that he himself started.

    That war, advocated by a narrow circle of decision makers for motives still not fully exposed, propagated publicly by demagogic rhetoric reliant on false assertions, has turned out to be much more costly in blood and money than anticipated.

    It has precipitated worldwide criticism, while in the Middle East it has stamped the United States as the successor to British imperialism and as a partner of Israel in the military repression of the Arabs. Fair or not, that perception has become widespread in the world of Islam as a whole.

    More than a reformulation of U.S. goals in Iraq is now needed, however. The persistent reluctance of the administration to confront the political background of the terrorist menace has reinforced public sympathy among Muslims for the terrorists.

    It is a self-delusion for Americans to be told that the terrorists are motivated mainly by an abstract "hatred of freedom" and that their acts are a reflection of a profound cultural hostility. If that were so, Stockholm or Rio de Janeiro would be as much at risk as New York.

    Yet in addition to New Yorkers, the principal victims of serious terrorist attacks have been Australians in Bali, Spaniards in Madrid, Israelis in Tel Aviv, Egyptians in the Sinai and Britons in London. There is an obvious political thread connecting these events: The targets are America's allies and client states in the deepening U.S. military intervention in the Middle East.

    Terrorists are not born but shaped by events, experiences, impressions, hatreds, ethnic myths, historical memories, religious fanaticism and deliberate brainwashing. They are also shaped by images of what they see on television, and especially by their feelings of outrage at what they perceive to be a brutalizing denigration of their religious kin's dignity by heavily armed foreigners. An intense political hatred for America, Britain and Israel is drawing recruits for terrorism not only from the Middle East but from as far away as Ethiopia, Morocco, Pakistan, Indonesia and even the Caribbean.

    America's ability to cope with nuclear nonproliferation has also suffered. The contrast between the attack on the militarily weak Iraq and America's forbearance of the nuclear-armed North Korea has strengthened the conviction of the Iranians that their security can only be enhanced by nuclear weapons.

    Moreover, the recent U.S. decision to assist India's nuclear program, driven largely by the desire for India's support for the war in Iraq and as a hedge against China, has made the United States look like a selective promoter of nuclear weapons proliferation. This double standard will complicate the quest for a constructive resolution of the Iranian nuclear problem.

    Compounding U.S. political dilemmas is the degradation of America's moral standing in the world. The country that has for decades stood tall in opposition to political repression, torture and other violations of human rights has been exposed as sanctioning practices that hardly qualify as respect for human dignity.


    Even more reprehensible is the fact that the shameful abuse and/or torture in Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib was exposed not by an outraged administration but by the U.S. news media. In response, the administration confined itself to punishing a few low-level perpetrators; none of the top civilian and military decision-makers in the Department of Defense and the National Security Council who sanctioned "stress interrogations" (torture, in other words) was forced to resign, nor to face public disgrace and prosecution. The administration's opposition to the International Criminal Court retroactively now seems quite self-serving.

    Finally, complicating the sorry foreign policy record are war-related economic trends, with spending on defense and security escalating dramatically. The budgets for the Department of Defense and for the Department of Homeland Security are now larger than the total budgets of most nations, and they are likely to continue escalating even as the growing budget and trade deficits are transforming America into the world's no. 1 debtor nation.

    At the same time, the direct and indirect costs of the war in Iraq are mounting, even beyond the pessimistic prognoses of the war's early opponents, making a mockery of the administration's initial predictions. Every dollar so committed is a dollar not spent on investment, on scientific innovation or on education, all fundamentally relevant to America's long-term economic primacy in a highly competitive world.

    It should be a source of special concern for thoughtful Americans that even nations known for their traditional affection for America have become openly critical of American policy. As a result, large swathes of the world - be it East Asia, or Europe, or Latin America - have been quietly exploring ways of shaping closer regional associations tied less to the notions of trans-Pacific, or trans-Atlantic, or hemispheric cooperation with the United States. Geopolitical alienation from America could become a lasting and menacing reality.

    That trend would especially benefit America's historic ill-wishers or future rivals. Sitting on the sidelines and sneering at America's ineptitude are Russia and China: Russia, because it is delighted to see Muslim hostility diverted from itself toward America, despite its own crimes in Afghanistan and Chechnya, and is eager to entice America into an anti-Islamic alliance; China, because it patiently follows the advice of its ancient strategic guru, Sun Tzu, who taught that the best way to win is to let your rival defeat himself.

    In a very real sense, during the last four years, the Bush team has thus been dangerously undercutting America's seemingly secure perch on top of the global totem pole by transforming a manageable, though serious, challenge largely of regional origin into an international debacle.

    To be sure, since America is extraordinarily powerful and rich, it can afford, yet for a while, even a policy articulated with rhetorical excess and pursued with historical blindness. But in the process America is likely to become isolated in a hostile world, increasingly vulnerable to terrorist acts and less and less able to exercise a constructive global influence.

    Flaying away with a stick at a hornets' nest while loudly proclaiming "I will stay the course" is an exercise in catastrophic leadership.

    But it need not be so. A real course correction is still possible, and it could start soon with a modest and common-sense initiative by the president to engage the Democratic congressional leadership in a serious effort to shape a bipartisan foreign policy for an increasingly divided and troubled nation.

    In a bipartisan setting, it would be easier not only to scale down the definition of success in Iraq but actually to get out - perhaps even as early as next year. And the sooner the United States leaves, the sooner the Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis will either reach a political arrangement on their own or some combination of them will forcibly prevail.

    With a foreign policy based on bipartisanship and with Iraq behind us, it would also be easier to shape a wider regional policy that constructively focuses on Iran and on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process while restoring the legitimacy of America's global role.

    (Zbigniew Brzezinski was national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter. This Global Viewpoint article was distributed by Tribune Media Services International.)
     
  2. tigermission1

    tigermission1 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2002
    Messages:
    15,557
    Likes Received:
    17
    Good read, agree for the most part.
     
  3. Deckard

    Deckard Blade Runner
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    56,812
    Likes Received:
    39,119
    This is something that's bothered me for a long time. The fall of the Soviet Union left us ascendant in the world, with a network of alliances and partnerships, spys and military assets, that were of immense value. I have seen more damage done to that legacy during this Administartion than I would ever have thought possible at the beginning of the Bush Presidency. It's truly astonishing. That someone like Brzezinski is appalled at what he sees shouldn't be a surprise. A good read. Thanks.



    Keep D&D Civil.
     
  4. tigermission1

    tigermission1 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2002
    Messages:
    15,557
    Likes Received:
    17
    Why would they stop the U.S. from 'digging its own grave'? I am reminded of one of my favorite quotes for Napoleon:

    "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."

    And he had this to say about China: "When China awakes, the world will tremble."
     
    #4 tigermission1, Oct 15, 2005
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2005
  5. Deckard

    Deckard Blade Runner
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    56,812
    Likes Received:
    39,119
    China is rubbing her eyes, and lifting her head from the pillow, while the voters of America have been asleep at the ballot box as we slide further into the nightmare that is the Bush foreign and domestic policies.



    keep D&D Civil.
     
  6. Zboy

    Zboy Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    27,234
    Likes Received:
    21,956
    Has the US picked the wrong target? Instead of targeting the Mideast nations (Iraq, Iran, Syria and such) should it have kept a closer eye on China? I dont mean attack China, but rather design foreign policies to keep and extend the upper hand on it. Is the Bush administration overlooking China or is it indifferent to it?
     
  7. 111chase111

    111chase111 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2000
    Messages:
    1,660
    Likes Received:
    21
    All administrations since Nixon have been keeping a very close watch on China. Everyone is worried about China; not only militarily but economically as well. However, there is not much you can do about China as it's really big and has nuclear weapons. That's why it's so important to be a strong country: no one can push you around nor alter whatever agenda you may have.

    How would you keep an upper hand on China if China doesn't want you to? Especially if China has nuclear weapons and a billion potential soldiers?
     
  8. wnes

    wnes Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    8,196
    Likes Received:
    19
    yeah right

    Since when does population equate potential soldiers?

    Are you suggesting U.S. potentially has a quarter of billion soldiers?
     
    #8 wnes, Oct 15, 2005
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2005
  9. tigermission1

    tigermission1 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2002
    Messages:
    15,557
    Likes Received:
    17
    Well the US is doing everything it can to 'reign in' China. Seems like they have decided to go with the "regional balance of power" approach by building up India's capabilities (at least that's what it looks like)
     
  10. Zboy

    Zboy Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    27,234
    Likes Received:
    21,956
    Does that not create a regional instability with India vs. Paskistan situation though?
     
  11. Saint Louis

    Saint Louis Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 1999
    Messages:
    4,260
    Likes Received:
    0
    [​IMG]

    India attack China with 20 armies.
     
  12. tigermission1

    tigermission1 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2002
    Messages:
    15,557
    Likes Received:
    17
    You always risk that, but the US is working hard on getting both countries into its camp. However, Pakistan is more of a short-term ally for the 'war on terror', while India is more of a long-term partner that the US wants to prop up as a counterweight to China in East/SE Asia. I am not so sure though that India has any interest in playing that role, but we are trying to provide them with incentives for doing so (namely military cooperation, especially on nuclear technology).

    The next few decades will see Russian-Chinese relations strengthen even more, while Pakistan is the wildcard IMO (will either belong to the Western camp or the SCO's camp) and Iran will probably continue to 'drift east' unless there is major change in the domestic reality in that country.

    IMO, there is little doubt that this is going to be the Asian century any way you look at it. The U.S. has always been able to project its economic/military power through international alliances and organizations such as NATO. However, it seems like the U.S. is being isolated on the international scene, and even 'traditional allies' (as the article discusses) are drifting away and looking elsewhere (not because they like China or Russia, but because they dislike our policies; the EU is certainly no fan of the Chinese or the Russians).

    I think it's safe to say that a multi-polar world is fastly becoming a reality
     
  13. RocketMan Tex

    RocketMan Tex Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 1999
    Messages:
    18,452
    Likes Received:
    116
    Infiltrate and control their economy.....
     
  14. Mr. Clutch

    Mr. Clutch Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2002
    Messages:
    46,550
    Likes Received:
    6,131
    I find this implausible. If the US leaves too early then there is more likely to be an upsurge of violence between the groups. I don't get the theory that the US is stopping them from working together.
     
  15. Agent94

    Agent94 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2002
    Messages:
    2,701
    Likes Received:
    2,552
    Mr Brzezinski was the first director of the trilateral commision and is pro one world govenment. So of course he is against the Bush administration policies.

    Brzezinski is right that the Bush administration policies are terrible. However his world view is just as bad. What we need is limited govenment both on a national and international level.
     
  16. tigermission1

    tigermission1 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2002
    Messages:
    15,557
    Likes Received:
    17
    Done!

    However, in the process of doing just that, we have become too dependent on China as well; it's a two-way street.
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now