"That secret operation was an excellent idea"
This interview with sometime Obama adviser Zbignew Brzezinski (from 1998) acquires more and more ironic (and bitter) resonance with every day that passes. But even pre-9/11, Brzezinski's insouciant reference to "some stirred-up Moslems" drew the disbelief of his interviewer.
It certainly makes interesting reading on a day when Obama calls Afghanistan our war of necessity- nearly eight years on....
It certainly makes interesting reading on a day when Obama calls Afghanistan our war of necessity- nearly eight years on....
Advertisement
What is especially galling about this, besides the historical irony, is that even in the late 70s, it would have been inexcusable to dismiss any fallout from such an operation as the byproducts of "some stirred-up Moslems." It was thought, for example, that by 2020, the Soviet empire would begin to buckle under the pressure of its Islamic south without the aid of any CIA "secret ops."
Brzezinski thought he was being clever by accelerating this process by a half century or two. But to do this by unleashing a force capable of defeating the mighty Soviet empire- it is madness to dismiss such a force as a bunch of convenient pawns. But that is the American way.
August 18, 2009 3:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I found this section of the interview most telling:
One would like to believe that cold headed "realists" like Zbignew Brzezinski claimed to be were uninfluenced by personal considerations. But I think his personal experience and the experience of his country of origin gave him a mega-case of Russia-itis for which the country was prepared by red-baiting since the days of Joseph McCarthy and before.
I think historical consensus is that United States' relationship with Russia would have thawed in any case, and probably thawed in a way and at a pace which would have left the world a safer place.
He's right about there being no monolithic Islam, just like there's no monolithic Christianity or monolithic Judaism. There's something about monotheism which is inimical to the monolithic.
August 18, 2009 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
The interesting point you raise is this: By mentioning that there were two, seemingly independent analyses circulating at the time (U.S.-Russia relations would thaw; the Islamic south would destabilize Russia), and both of them correct, what is (was) overlooked is that they were also competing, and incompatible, narratives. Zbigniew chose one narrative, and that foreclosed the other, because he went right for the "two scorpions in the bottle" analogy of Oppenheimer, and trumped it by introducing a third scorpion, that he knew would go for the Soviet scorpion first.
Maybe Zbig's decision in 1979 was one of those nodal points writers of alternate history love to invoke, like what would have happened if the Spanish armada hadn't been blown away in 1588, or if Hitler had gotten the bomb first, etc.
August 19, 2009 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink