I Wonder Why Many Don't Love Us

In his op-ed in today's Washington Post, "The Smart Way out of a Foolish War," Zbigniew Brzezinski asks what price the American public would have been willing to accept if honestly informed about the Iraq invasion's "costs":

"Nonetheless, if the American people had been asked more than five years ago whether Bush's obsession with the removal of Saddam Hussein was worth 4,000 American lives, almost 30,000 wounded Americans and several trillion dollars -- not to mention the less precisely measurable damage to the United States' world-wide credibility, legitimacy and moral standing -- the answer almost certainly would have been an unequivocal "no."

Is there a prominent omission here in the list of what would provoke a "no" from the American people?

Or is it my imagination?

What about the concept, "Scores if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed, untold wounded, and millions driven into being refugees"-- wouldn't this have also provoked a "no" from the famous "American people"?

Why is this omitted in the calculations by an ostensibly wise man like Mr. Brzezinski?

Can you wonder why non-Americans get a little put-off when they hear this stuff from even supposedly enlightened American powers that be?

[Appreciations to Uber.com, where this appears on my Brain Flakes blog.]

Comments

[WASanford]

How we ended up in Iraq may matter but can't we put it on the back burner while we make up our minds to extract ourselves from that quagmire. All the killing and dying, the expenditure of our blood and fortune, and the decimation of our good names cannot come to an end soon enough. We seem to be in a spell like someone who looking over a cliff cannot stop leaning forward until they begin to fall.
The most maddening part of this is everyone just pays lip service to ending this war. We keep making our departure from it conditional when we know we could just pick up and leave. Write you congress person and your senators and demand an end to the madness and inhumanity. Please.

[Doofus]

'Nonetheless, if the American people had been asked more than five years ago whether Bush's obsession with the removal of Saddam Hussein was worth 4,000 American lives, almost 30,000 wounded Americans and several trillion dollars -- not to mention the less precisely measurable damage to the United States' world-wide credibility, legitimacy and moral standing -- the answer almost certainly would have been an unequivocal "no."' - Z. Brzezinski

Well, consider it a rhetorical oversight. The context is as of five years ago, BEFORE the war, before there was general mayhem & destruction in Iraq. After all, Brzezinski is one of the good guys at the moment - cut him some slack. He's still got that naive Demo optimism that somehow we can find a way out of this mess, if we're 'creative' enough.

[MizJ]

You almost never hear mention of the poor Iraqi people who have had to endure bombs, IEDs, Blackwater employees, US military, insurgents, Al Qaeda, a corrupt puppet government, lack of electricity, lack of fresh water, increased gas prices, food shortages, school closings, absence of security, black marketeering, middle class flight, loss of homes and jobs, not to mention a severe drain on medical treatment.

[argeec]

And what about the gist of the article?
Getting out of Iraq would have the practical effect of sparing Iraqi lives as well as others.

[texpine]

Barry,

I think the main reason non-Americans are put off by the "Powers that Be" and
some other Americans is mainly that they have been socialized differently. Totally
different attitudes about almost everything.
Example: In 1968 & '69 I was stationed at Peshawar Air Station West Pakistan.
That's in the Tribal area very near the Khyber Pass into Afghanistan. The Pakistani
tribal people had a very harsh view of crime. If you were caught stealing, they might
cut off your hand. Get caught stealing again and they would cut off your head! They
just didn't put up with it! Can you imagine that attitude in America? Most Americans
can't understand that type of mind-set. They are totally offended by our actions and
attitudes. That's kind of an extreme example but I think you get the general idea.

[european]

I'm shocked that such a non-Likudnik viewpoint should even get any WAPO airtime...

Let me see if this falls to the censor, in the way any such similar criticism of WSJ editorials does...

[leftcoastliberal]

It would be soooo easy to infer from your comment about Likudnik views not getting an airing that you think the media is secretly controlled by a cabal of right-wing Zionists who censor all dissenting opinions.

[argeec]

And why wouldn't he?

[DougMontreal]

Exactly! As a Canadian, I see American self-centeredness as a key correlate of its jingoism and one of America's central flaws. The American attitude that only US citizens are important is so pervasive that I wonder how many Americans, immersed in their culture and rarely or never traveling beyond it, are even aware of it.

There innumerable examples like the one described by Mr. Yourgrau. Another serious one, which galvanized Canadian apprehension of the US government and the American public's attitudes, was the case of Maher Arar. Mr. Arar is a Syrian-Canadian who, while transferring flights in New York in 2002 on his way home to Canada from a vacation, was abducted by US authorities and sent to Syria to be tortured http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar//).

What is portrayed inside the US as American "moral authority" from here seems more like specious self-righteousness.

[Thorn]

Now you censor me after I correct your embarrassing typo? Why didn't I see that coming?

[tedbear]

I don't think hindsight is the issue here.

The issue here is that the people's representatives in Congress voted for war. Hillary Clinton and McCain voted for war and would do it again. So, because "history repeats itself" I think we can look forward to more thuggery and lying if Clinton or McCain win as "Commander in Chief."

[jrockbg]

Not that I agree with your assertions (McCain=thuggery) but I understand why you feel what you feel. However, the election isn't mentioned anywhere in the above post

[jrockbg]

Both you and Z.....ski are intentionally taking information out of context...­.YOU'RE BEING DISHONEST!!!

Why do you anti-war liberals not understand the concept of linear time? That things happen in a sequence..­.why do you not understand that hindsight is not wisdom?

They insurgency was unforeseeable, we had little reason to believe the conflict would be outside the scope of the military action in Afghanistan or Bosnia, and by the time we did know we had a moral committment to Iraq to not let her fall into Rwanda-like turmoil.

I don't mind those who had the courage to say going into Iraq to is mistake before we went in. But you hindsight=wisdom, liberal-co­me-lately'­s make me sick.

[DougMontreal]

"They [sic] insurgency was unforeseea­ble..." Not only was it foreseeable, but it was foreseen -- by many (including basically everyone who knew anything about the history of Iraq). For example, Barack Obama foresaw it and used this very point to argue against going to war. On Oct. 2, 2002, he said, "I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequenc­es." http://en.wikisource.org/wiki//Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech]

[MrUnlimited]

"They insurgency was unforeseeable, we had little reason to believe the conflict would be outside the scope of the military action in Afghanistan or Bosnia..."

What are you talking about? The Bush administration was too headstrong (or stupid, take your pick) to pay attention to facts; and the fact is this INFORMATION was available regarding Iraqi politics, sectarian tensions, etc. prior to our invasion.

Here's a report from 1991: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/iraq/us_policy.html

This was part of the reason why Bush Sr.'s administration DIDN'T INVADE. Don't make excuses for the current administration's incompetence.

[WASanford]

Hubris is not incompetence! It's something much worse.

I read zig's peice in the WP and I don't understand why everyone wants to make this more complicated than it needs to be. We're there and we need to leave. We'd do it too if only everyone would see how easy it would be. Make the decision to leave and then follow up. There, that wasn't so hard now was it?

[LeftRight]

The insurgency was unforeseeable? Then please explain how DARTH CHENEY FORSEE IT BACK IN THE 90'S?????????????

And for what it's worth, I don't suffer from hindsight, I KNEW that this would happen back in March 03, even BEFORE we went into Iraq.

You bushco(tm) apologists make ME sick

[LeftRight]

Correction:

...how DARTH CHENEY FORSAW..." not "...FORSEE­...."

[lisakaz]

Yes, it does speak to an arrogance that ppl elsewhere in the world have noticed. Maybe ZB decided that Americans would not have given that factor serious consideration (or only some would, not enough to stop a war). I think if Blair had stated that to his population, the public would have turned quickly against him. But they have more distance between themselves and their imperial past.

[Thorn]

If you can't spell "Brzezinski," why am I reading your bloody "expert" opinions?

[Thorn]

You're welcome for the correction.

[desmirl]

The idea that the Bush Administration is even capable of telling the truth about anything is simply not a self-starter. These people maintain their rule through thuggery and lying--and have seen a lot of success. Why on earth should they ever think of telling the truth?