Brzezinski: Surge In Afghanistan Risky, Some McCain Backers Want World War IV

All of a sudden, everyone seems to be in favor of sending more troops to Afghanistan. As Barack Obama encourages Europeans to dispatch more NATO forces and John McCain says that U.S. troops could be sent in greater numbers, the idea that a bigger military footprint is needed has become something of a consensus in the political mainstream.

But Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski is not on board -- though it's not the first time President Jimmy Carter's national security adviser has cast a skeptic's eye on the usefulness of dispatching great numbers of troops to the country. In an famous 1998 interview with France's Le Nouvel Observateur, Brzezinski admitted his own role in funding Afghanistan's Mujahadeen in 1979, thereby "increasing the probability" that the Soviets would invade a tough, demoralizing, mountainous theater for combat.

And it's with a similar perspective that Brzezinski now doubts the that the answer to what ails Afghanistan is more troops. "I think we're literally running the risk of unintentionally doing what the Russians did. And that, if it happens, would be a tragedy," Brzezinski told the Huffington Post on Friday. "When we first went into Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban, we were actually welcomed by an overwhelming majority of Afghans. They did not see us as invaders, as they saw the Soviets."

However, Brzezinski noted that just as the Soviets were able to delude themselves that they had a loyal army of communist-sympathizers who would transform the country, the U.S.-led forces may now be making similar mistakes. He said that the conduct of military operations "with little regard for civilian casualties" may accelerate the negative trend in local public opinion regarding the West's role. "It's just beginning, but it's significant," Brzezinski said.

His own program for improving the state of affairs in Afghanistan -- where U.S. casualties have surpassed those in Iraq for two months now -- revolves around pragmatism. He believes Europe should bribe Afghan farmers not to produce poppies used for heroin since "it all ends up in Europe." Moreover, he thinks the tribal warlords can be bought off with bribes, with the endgame being the isolation of Al-Qaeda from a Taliban that is "not a united force, not a world-oriented terrorist movement, but a real Afghan phenomenon."

Brzezinski, who has endorsed Obama, was far more critical of a few figures now surrounding McCain, who he suggested were pushing the presumptive GOP nominee towards a radical foreign policy on issues such as Iran.

"Well, if McCain is president and if his Secretary of State is Joe Lieberman and his Secretary of Defense is [Rudolph] Giuliani, we will be moving towards the World War IV that they have been both favoring and predicting," he said, calling that an "appalling concept" (and adding that by their lights, the Cold War counted as World War III). "So it depends on who are the principal officers. If it's [Richard] Armitage, or if it were to be Brent Scowcroft, I think it would be very different."

Asked who he would like to see in a potential Obama cabinet, Brzezinski said: "I think [Sen. Chuck] Hagel. I would like to see a bipartisan cabinet. I think we need one very badly -- and we did well in the Cold War when we had one. I would say Hagel and [Sen. Dick] Lugar would be very good Republicans [for Obama]." He also cited Sen. Joe Biden as a potential Secretary of State, in which case it would also be possible to "keep [Secretary of Defense Bob] Gates in the job for a few months."

Brzezinski said such a cabinet would be an important step in redressing the increased partisanship of foreign affairs in recent years, adding: "I think there is a tendency, because of the very complexity of the issues, for solutions to become polarized and more extreme. ... Republicans move toward neocon-ish formulas, and Democrats [follow] idealistically escapist formulas. In either case you don't end up with the necessary mix of idealism and realism."

Comments

[donaldw6]

01:15 PM on 07/28/2008

I want to go after bin Laden. I still have an absolute bloodlust for the perpetrators of 9/11 (assuming that bin Laden was indeed the culprit). I have never supported war on Afghanistan the country, even in 2001. Afghanistan would be much better served by judicious economic support that enables them to move beyond the drug trade as a means of subsistence. We certainly need to heed Brzezinski's warnings regarding the history of conflict in that poor country, and avoid the many pitfalls we would face if we rely on force for anything beyond bringing Al Qaeda leaders to justice.

Our own actions in the past helped to create the Taliban. They're a terrible lot, but they're not our main enemy. Afghanistan's difficulties should be addressed by peaceful means as much as possible, and we can turn all our righteous anger on Osama.

[Patriot0259]

07:43 AM on 07/28/2008

I agree with ZB's assessment here. I can forgive BO if he remains consistent on Afghanistan in order to appeal to Repub and Independent voters. But if he were to actually tie us up there as in Iraq, that would be very bad thing. I have to believe that he would pursue a wiser course there than McCain.

[thatvisionthing]

01:07 AM on 07/28/2008

I like Mr. Brzezinski. Everytime I see him, he is so clear and sane. Couple of things from the idealistic side: Why bribe farmers? That's fake economics. Why not end the war on drugs and get real again? Treat poppies and opium like they were corn or whiskey, just another crop or product. (And why do lefties take the hit for being idealistic? Authoritarian war on drugs is the biggest pie in the sky there is.) Second thing: Could someone please ask diplomats like John Brady Kiesling or Edward Peck what they think? They seem to have human decency and fairness down, while even Mr. Brzezinski here is talking about Afghanis as if they were chess pieces and not humans of free will deserving respect equal to what we want for ourselves. Why aren't we talking and reasoning, among friends? Too pragmatic?

[crazyhippiebiker]

12:17 AM on 07/28/2008

If we were smart we would offer the poppy farmers a deal to grow industrial hemp. It is a very easy crop to grow and would bring a good price if we ever started producing ethanol the way it should be done. The problems in Afghanistan need an integrated approach. Until Afghan farmers can grow something other than poppy that will make them money, there will never be peace. We owe it to them because Russia and the U.S. used there country as a wrestling ring and destroyed most everything. When the Russians left, so did we, and they were left with the mess. No wonder they hate us. OBL built schools and roads and hospitals, we are foolish to think that anyone would turn him in for the reward money.

[AbbieXHoffman]

11:40 PM on 07/27/2008

So BO was against the surge in Iraq that arguably worked (save me the contradictions on this point--the truth is that many voters believe the surged was effective) and now BO is initating a surge in Afgan? I am for BO, but he is setting himself up for some serious pause from voters.

[research]

08:30 PM on 07/31/2008

Violence in Iraiq IS UP!

More Iraqis died during the surge, and more are dying now then before the surge.

[AbbieXHoffman]

10:19 PM on 07/27/2008

BO was opposed to the war in Iraq because he thought it was dumb war based "not on principle but on politics." http://usliberals.about.com/od/extraordinaryspeeches/a/Obama2002War.htm

Sorry BO (and I support you) and JM but going to Afgan is a dumb war too.

1. It appears you are both playing politics (as BO accused Bush of doing). BO does so to show he are not soft on war, while JM does so to prove he is the superior war president.
2. It appears that BO is ignoring his alternative to fighting al-Queda with military efforts which he said in 2002 would better be served with an "effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings."
3. It apears BO and JM are ignoring that Afgan posses no direct threat to the US. A case for military in Afgan is just more fear-mongering.
4. It apears that both BO and JM are ignoring that the Russians got thier arses kicked in Afgan.
5. It apears that both BO and JM are ignoring that the insurgencies from diverse militant factions in Iraq are what made it so difficult and even more militant factions exist in Afgan.

Stop playing politics with peoples' lives.

[ICanHasDemocracy]

08:22 AM on 07/28/2008

Going? we are already there. It's just that our troops levels there diminish so GWB could flex his phallus in Iraq to show everybody what a big boy he is. Trouble is it got caught in the door. We took our eyes off Afghanistan and whoops there goes the Taliban again! The selfsame Taliban that opened up the country for AQ training camps.

So we've wasted 5 years, thousands of lives in a war of attrition- have the terrorists given up and are saying, "ok America, we'll go to Mickey Ds now and stop with the bombings.....nope. Has Petreus's CI strat worked- yeah to the degree that over all violence has lessened, but pockets exist. Had this war been properly planned and started ( no declaration of war was given, but a blanket "use of force" permission which essentially gives the President point and shoot powers) for a valid reason and enough troops put in place, most of them would be home now drinkin' beer and cooking hamburgers on their Weber grills.

What the hell is wrong with the bobble head yes-media that cannot even itself remember all the hoo-rah cheerleading they did about the war, and practically tripped over their tongues in adulation of Bush. They are as politicised as the process they comment on, and are beholden to advertisers and their corporate paymasters. They don't give a crap about getting the story right, they care about getting the story right now.

[wdw101]

12:28 PM on 07/28/2008

you just proved BO stinks........

[AbbieXHoffman]

12:37 PM on 07/29/2008

I think I proved that both BO and McCAin have some explaining to do about this Afgan surge.

I am for BO but am not going to just accept further deaths in Afgan for what appears to be political posturing by both candidates to get elected. The media needs to start demanding DETAILS on the objective, plans and exit strategies from both candidates before we surge in Afgan.

As it stands, the American people have absolutely no say on an escalation in Afgan because one of these guys is going to be president and they both want a surge there.

[goldenshaman]

09:02 PM on 07/27/2008

In Iraq, our troops protect the oil fields.

In Afghanistan, they protect the poppy fields.

Eventually we will give up in both place and retreat to lick out wounds, which will be huge.

[janvoght]

06:42 PM on 07/27/2008

Bravo, great insight...i too would not mind sen chuck hagel, or another choice from across the aisle, that sen obama would feel the integrity, independence, and same vision to maximize effectiveness and strength to guide and lead America out of the lies, corruption and blunders of the last two terms. DONT NEED MC SAME!!!
obama '08

[Ishmael1]

05:42 PM on 07/27/2008

When people tell you who they are, believe them. The Pushtun claim descent from the Lost Tribes of the Israelites. Watch these and judge for yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_bhO1RdkIs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U48n5-GfLnQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oghgoov6LY4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-L0cbf7OB4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWFiQ-RUIzo

A recent documentary traced a tribe in modern-day Zimbabwe back to a group of temple priests who fled after the destruction of the First Temple. Why can't we DNA test a sampling of the Pushtun to detemine this once and for all?

[shaitan]

03:28 PM on 07/27/2008

Brezinski is absolutely right. Afghanistan's long history shows it is the "Graveyard of Empires". He started the US supplying of the Mujhadeen with stingers, weapons etc. which was further pushed by Reagan. Although it helped defeat the Soviets, as a communist state the country treated its women and other citizens much better and gave them more opportunities than what has followed. The big mistake in getting enmeshed in other countries fights with soldiers on the ground and planes bombing is the inevitable killing of civilians. May be "collateral damage" to the war but every the natives will rise up. If the politicians would just read what Osama and his gang say is their reason for fighting the US (e.g. see his statements or Google: Jan 5, 2005 ... Michael Scheuer, ex-CIA bin Laden Unit Chief, Explains Why Insurgents Are Willing To Die Fighting Us...Maybe It's Not Our Freedom They Hate. ...) they will see the problem is US biased policies in Palestine and drive for Oil based imperialism. Bush's wrongheaded diagnosis lead us to the Iraq mess. Obama or McCain might well lead the US to share the fate of the British empire in Afghanistan. George Washingon and other founders warned against getting entanglements abroad. Obama should tread very carefully into that trap which can be Afghanistan.

[Canuckski]

02:52 PM on 07/27/2008

It is my belief that we should not make the same mistake in Aghanistan as we did with Iraq. Remember before the war in Iraq, it was a secular country with an educated population. Aghanistan on the other hand is still a tribal society and Hamid Karzai has been unsuccessful in bringing the country together and stamping out poppy growth. Dr. Zeb. is correct - a troop surge alone would not help. It would have to be backed by a massive influx of "civilian" help. - Roadbuilding, schools, medical supplies, education for adult womern. etc. etc. etc. to get the population on our side.

[Garvagh]

01:40 PM on 07/27/2008

Zbigniew Brzezinski quite rightly warns this country that it risks being seen as an occupier, by the Afghans, if it pours more troops into the war. Most Europeans leaders think there is no military solution to the growing insurgency.

[Sundialsvc4]

12:23 PM on 07/27/2008

"History repeats itself," and "Ike was right."

The high crimes that permeate our government in all Branches ... the high crimes that refer to war as "a project," for example ... are not victimless crimes, ladies and gentlemen. We are the victims. And as the world community turns away from and isolates the United States of America, the reason is very simple: they are doing it for their own self-protection. If America will not bring-to-heel the criminals who occupy its highest offices, the nation itself will be brought-to-heel (and no, not with bombs) by the community that surrounds it.

We are a nation of 300 million Plaintiffs. Isn't it time we started acting the part? Started demanding real leadership and wisdom from our elected and appointed leaders? Not... sound bites?

[jayburd]

11:20 AM on 07/27/2008

I don't get how a temporary troop escalation in Afghanistan could be viewed as similar to the mistake the Soviets made. The objective is to minimalize the threat of the Taliban and al Qaeda, not "spread democracy." Once that's done, any smart President would scale back the troops and rely mainly on intelligence and special forces to keep the threat in check.

[CologneCitizen]

09:52 AM on 07/27/2008

When the USA attacked Afghanistan in November 2001 there was an estimated death toll between 4000 and 5000 people among the civilians. Does anybody think the Afghan people have forgotten this? Sending more troops is a mistake. It doesn't matter who suggests it. Who has the right to force the Afghanis what they grow on their fields?

I was born after WW2 and have listened to a lot of stories about the bombing of the German cities like Hamburg, Dresden, Berlin or Cologne. We know that war should be the very, very last thing on the list. Americans have never felt the pain and horror of their cities bombed to dust. That's why they can be talked much faster into a war abroad. You took that one hit on 9/11 and look how many lives your retaliation has cost. The Taliban have a stronghold among the Afghan people. Send in secret service or similar forces. Stocking up on troops is wrong, no mattter if these troops are from Gemany, England or the USA. It will result in more death and destruction, more hate and less security for the USA.