Zbigniew Brzezinski’s op-ed in Saturday’s edition of the Washington Post offers a scary glimpse into how the mind of a foreign policy disgrace works. Here’s an example:

Constant reference to a “war on terror” did accomplish one major objective: It stimulated the emergence of a culture of fear. Fear obscures reason, intensifies emotions and makes it easier for demagogic politicians to mobilize the public on behalf of the policies they want to pursue. The war of choice in Iraq could never have gained the congressional support it got without the psychological linkage between the shock of 9/11 and the postulated existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

Congress voted to authorize the use of military force to remove Saddam because hoping he wouldn’t use the WMD’s, which we know he used on the Kurds and Iranians, was a fool’s policy in a post-9/11 world. We didn’t need to postulate about WMD’s because he used them in the past. We didn’t need to postulate on them because the cease-fire his generals signed demanded that he either (a) turn over his chemical or biological weapons or (b) show he disposed of them. We didn’t have the obligation of proving that they existed at the time of the attack. Saddam had the obligation of proving that he didn’t have them. Brzezinski is also wrong in hinting that President Bush has been a demagogue about Iraq.

Support for President Bush in the 2004 elections was also mobilized in part by the notion that “a nation at war” does not change its commander in chief in midstream. The sense of a pervasive but otherwise imprecise danger was thus channeled in a politically expedient direction by the mobilizing appeal of being “at war.”

Why is Mr. Brzezinski hinting that we weren’t a nation at war? Is he suggesting that we aren’t at war with the jihadists? The truth is that the jihadists declared war on us during Brzezinski’s time as Carter’s National Security Adviser. We ignored the acts of war, such as the terrorist attacks of the Marine barracks in Beirut, the first World Trade Center attack, the bombings of the East African embassies, the Khobar Towers and the USS Cole. We chose to ignore them until 9/11 forced us to realize that the jihadists had been at war with us for a quarter of a century.

Support for President Bush grew because people understood that we were at war and that John Kerry wanted to pretend that this was all just a police matter. They rejected Kerry’s approach because they knew how foolhardy his ideas were.

To justify the “war on terror,” the administration has lately crafted a false historical narrative that could even become a self-fulfilling prophecy. By claiming that its war is similar to earlier U.S. struggles against Nazism and then Stalinism (while ignoring the fact that both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were first-rate military powers, a status al-Qaeda neither has nor can achieve), the administration could be preparing the case for war with Iran. Such war would then plunge America into a protracted conflict spanning Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and perhaps also Pakistan.

Just because the jihadists don’t have massive standing armies like the Nazis and Soviets had doesn’t mean that they don’t have substantial, though unconventional, military tools at their avail. Furthermore, to assume that the war against the jihadists will be a short war is dangerous. This war might well last a generation. Our participation in World War II didn’t even last half a decade. Any comparisons between WW II and the war against the jihadists is irresponsible and inaccurate.

This is one article that I’d strongly recommend that you don’t read. Simply put, it’s too painful for truth-seeking serious-minded people. That’s what you’d expect from a man whose record is one of a foreign policy disaster.

Technorati Tags: Zbigniew Brzezinski, GWOT, Jimmy Carter, Khobar Towers, USS Cole, World Trade Center Bombing, National Security

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

1. [...] Cross-posted at California Conservative Categories: Iraq, Iran, Intel, Terrorism, 9/11, Foreign Policy, Middle East, Radical Islam, Appeasement | [...]

   Pingback by Let Freedom Ring » Blog Archive » Brzezinski: Bush Is Harming U.S. — March 25, 2007 @ 12:34 am

1. If Saddam had had WMD’s, he’d have used them on our troops as soon as they crossed the border into Iraq. He didn’t have them anymore - the UN Inspectors knew it, and Bush knew it as well. Bush used our fears following 9/11 to start a war that he had and still has no idea how to end.

   Bush keeps babbling on about “victory” without ever telling us what that “victory” will look like. How will we know when we’ve “achieved our objectives” when no “objectives” have ever been defined? There will never be any “victory” in Iraq. The American people want out of there, and the Democrats will be the ones to finally pull the plug on this tragic blunder.

   Comment by Mike — March 25, 2007 @ 2:42 am

2. The war on terror should be fought with 90% policeman and 10% armies. Bush has it backwards.

   Comment by gregdn — March 25, 2007 @ 6:59 am

3. Yea sure…. 25 million people, now free and living under democratically elected governments. Yea what a collosal failure…. Sheesh… Ive got something you can add to that kool-aid, it will make all of our lives better.

   What a bunch of crocodile tear crying apeassing anti-EVERYTHING elitists.

   Mike and Greg are 2 perfect examples of “LOSE at ANY COST” traitors and should be treated as such…

   Comment by Mitch — March 25, 2007 @ 10:44 am

4. You have argued in your columns that you are not a fool. But the truth is you are. Like most right wing sealots, you ignore or deny the facts, again and again. Saddam didn’t have weapons of mass destruction and most of the world’s smart people were not convinced by the Bush administration show and tell. The fact that he did use weapons on the Kurds several decades ago when he had them does not justify and invasion. War crime trials, perhaps, but not the killing of tens of thousands of innocaent Iraqis who had nothing to do with Saddam’s old weapons programs. I’d like just once to see an old right wing fool lament over the thousands of innocent people who have died from the policies he or she advocated. You never dO. Another thing you fools refuse to do is to acknowledge that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center. In fact in today’s column, you try to link the two again. After so many years, one would think you might have figured this out. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, you fool.

   Comment by Lonn — March 25, 2007 @ 11:29 am

5. No one ever said that Saddam was anything other than an evil despot, but frankly, why should we have cared? There are tons of evil leaders in this world. We’ve triggered the deaths of at least as many people as he did by starting this war. Plus, the infrastructure and the economy have been destroyed. That’s why the Iraqis want us out as much as 65% of Americans do.

   And you never told us what “victory” would look like. You never told us how we will know when we’ve “achieved our goals.” Should we expect to see Sunni, Shia and Kurds hugging in the streets and singing “Kumbaya” before we pull our troops? Are we just waiting to go a month with fewer than once-a-day car-bombings? The Iraqis were killing each other long before we got there, and will keep doing so long after we finally get our guys out of there.

   You accuse me of drinking “kool-aid” when I’m posing questions that are quite blunt AND in my OWN words. Your comment looks like it was written by the White House for broadcast on FoxNews - “lose at any cost”, “crying appeassing anti-everything elitist”, “free and living under a democratically elected government” - can you not even think of your own phrases?

   Comment by Mike — March 25, 2007 @ 11:35 am

6. On reading FURTHER into your article:

   1) We absolutely DID have an obligation to prove Saddam had WMD’s before triggering a war with Iraq. Why do you think Bush talked about Nigerian yellow cake in his speech when he and his staff already knew that that was not true? It was to scare us into believing that Iraq was an immediate threat so he’d have an excuse to push for war.

   2) You say that jihadists had declared war on us prior to 9/11. This is true, and it is why the war in Afghanistan was and is justified. That was the country where the jihadists were thick - along with Saudi Arabia - but NOT Iraq.

   3) You state “to assume that the war against the jihadists will be a short war is dangerous,” that “might well last a generation.” It was Rumsfeld who told us it would be “days, weeks, maybe six months.” It was the Far Left who was warning at the time that it wouldn’t be that simple and would take MUCH longer. Who turned out to be correct?

   Comment by Mike — March 25, 2007 @ 12:18 pm

7. FIRST OFF I SEE YOU HAVE ALOT OF ADMIRERS FROM READING THE ABOVE COMMENTS. I HAVE A QUESTION. RUMOR CONTROL HAS THAT SADDAM HAD HIS GENERALS TRANSFER ALL THEIR “WMD” INTO SYRIA FROM AROUND LATE 2001 TO LATE 2002 UNDER THE DISGUISE OF A HUMANITARIAN MISSION DUE TO THE SYRIAN FLOOD CALAMITY. HAVE YOU HEARD ANYTHING ABOUT THIS OR HAS THIS BEEN SUBSTANTIATED.
   RICH

   Comment by RICHARD DAUGHERTY — March 26, 2007 @ 11:40 am

8. If Bush’s half assed handling of a war in Iraq is any worse than the flip flopping, idealistic and incompetent handling of Iran under Brzezinski’s tutelage of Jimmy Carter what is?

   Both were unecessary interferences with another countries soveriegnty with disasterous effects. On one hand a prolonged war, on the other the embarrassment of Americans held hostage for over 400 days with both Presidents seemingly stupified, unable to react except to mumble vague platitudes and promises of reconcilition and retribution.

   And lets not forget the bungled attempt at soothing Taiwan after falling ass over tincup to recognize Communist China that saw American diplomats scampering back home from Taipei with their tails between their legs within less than 20 minutes after landing.

   Yet Brzezinski gets held up as being the worlds foreign policy sage?

   Comment by T. A. Gray — March 26, 2007 @ 2:10 pm

9. Brzezinski’s comments were brilliant. Bush has done virtually EVERYTHING the terrorists have wanted. Remember Bin Laden- that guy he doesn’t care about said “for every dollar we spend, you will spend a million”. Bush has done FAR more damage to America than Bin Laden ever dreamed. He has left America a weaker and much poorer nations. It’s too bad there are so many kool-aid drinking apologists helping him out.

   Comment by Rob Gordon — March 26, 2007 @ 6:25 pm

10. And the table for Bin Laden was set when Carter and Brzezinski under handedly encouraged the coup against the Shah of Iran.

    Its too bad his brilliancy wasnt that good in 1978.

    Comment by T. A. Gray — March 27, 2007 @ 8:14 am