How Brezinski deliberately favor the muslism world

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by harrytrader, Sep 30, 2003.

  1. Interview of Brezinski who revealed how they had debiliteraly fainted and push the islam extremism :


    National Security Adviser in the Carter Administration

    Q: 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


    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

    [intégrisme], 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.

    [This interview was published in French in Le Nouvel Observateur

    (France), Jan 15-21, 1998, but it is believed not included in the

    edition sent to the United States. Translation from original 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".]"
  2. This to illustrate the "reaction's law" used by politicians to fool the people:

  3. I think that Brzezinski was absolutely right in backing the enabling a proxy at the time. The same problem has existed throughout history though... once the goal is achieved, the enabling power conveniently allows the episode to slide into history without fixing the aftermath. If we would have just kept a presence during the next couple of decades we wouldn't have had the same problem, but perhaps another version of it.

    For example, let's say we helped Afghanistan build and prosper after the war vs. the Soviets. It would have to have been on their terms, and given the neighborhood that they're in, it doesn't seem likely that democracy would have helped our interests (though the people would have a say in the govt., of course). They'd still be Islamic, tribal, maybe more understanding, but it's not certain that they would have been more peaceful. Remember that they have thousands of tribes that aren't used to having set boundaries like a modern state. We're still seeing that problem today.

    Still, I don't see how you can say that he deliberately favors the muslim world... over what? He has a good take on this as well...

    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?

    Not very PC, but through his prism I can understand it.