1. Bill Narvey said:

Given that the less than illustrious President Jimmy Carter picked Zbigniew Brzezinski to be his national security adviser and that Zbigniew Brzezinski's counsel was not enough to make the lame duck President Carter anything but a lamer duck, one should be loathe to accept Zbigniew Brzezinski's advice unless there are known facts and circumstances that would lead one to think his views are sound.

Zbigniew Brzezinski is advocating a pull out from Iraq as soon as possible in a way that does not make it look like America is the loser. He does not exactly say how America can pull out of Iraq and still look good.

Brzezinski also suggests that America pull out and let the Iraqis have their little civil war to find their own level of governance comfort.

Brzezinski's idea of an Iraqi civil war to see who wins is what should have been done two years ago.

After Bush went in and laid the foundation for regime change by putting the Baathist leaders on the run or in jail, he ought to have let the Iraqis decide for themselves what new regime would replace the old.

It would almost certainly have meant a bloody civil war, but what would have emerged would be new leadership. That new leadership, even if radical would have been taught a very valuable lesson. You don't mess with Texas! America and the rest of the world likely would have been safer than it is.

There is now however a much greater reason for America to stay in Iraq and that reason is Iran.

The Americans and the EU are heading to the UN again, if they have not already arrived to open yet another special session to again pass ultimatums against Iran that as before will be toothless.

Iran however has even the EU very edgy and if recent reports are to be believed, Russia is getting worried too.

America and probably the EU would like Israel to attempt a pre-emptive strike against Iran. All could then blame Israel for its aggression win or lose, but if successful they would all silently heave a huge sigh of relief and say a little prayer, "Thank God for Israel". They would of course keep that to themselves.

America having recently floated the ideaof an Israeli pre-emptive strike, loses Israel the element of surprise.

Israel in any event, would not be able to launch such strike without flyover and refueling rights in Iraq. Further and more significantly, Iran, anticipating the possibility that Israel might opt for a pre-emptive strike against them as Israel did when it bombed Iraq's nuclear facility in Osirak, has spread its nuclear facilities throughout Iran in a great many locations.

The logistics are just not there for an Israeli strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.

With Ahmadinejad spewing more and more hatred and threats in America's and Israel's direction as he continues to go full tilt to complete his nuclear agenda including possessing nuclear weapons that he and other Iranian leaders have threatened to use, Iran is bringing the rest of the world ever closer to the brink of an all out war.

Neither America nor the EU want to contemplate having to wage yet another war, especially against a foe more formidable than Iraq was, but once they are brought to the point of staring into the abyss, they will have no choice, but to consider a pre-emptive strike themselves.

American forces are already in Iraq. If America, as much as it abhors the idea of yet another major war front, must know that with the Iranians, push is very quickly coming to shove and America might soon have no choice, but to mount a pre-emptive attack.

A pre-emptive strike option against Iran in the foregoing circumstances is very necessary to American interests and for that reason alone, America must remain in place in Iraq and increase troop strength and weaponry if Iran's continued actions and threats come ever closer to probably being realized.

Given the EU seems as worried about Iran as the Americans, this time the EU nations may be far more likely to join America in an allied attack on Iran.

Even a tangible show of force by allied Western nations on Iran's borders just might get Iran to back down, just as standing up to a bully is usually enough to get the bully to back away. Most bullies however are not filled with such hate, religious fanaticism and zeal as Iranian radicals, so whether the bully Iranian radicals would back down in such circumstances or insanely choose to prove their readiness to die as martyrs for their Islamic cause against the Great and Little Satan is very uncertain.

The simple point is however, America must know that it may have to go to war with Iran and would therefor need a pre-emptive strike option. It cannot make war or exercise such pre-emptive strike option against Iran from America so it must stand its ground in Iraq.

2. BobW said:

Human beings are creatures of habit. Thus, it's easy to see Zbigniew Brzezski is human with his same bad habits. He writes today like he performed in the Carter Administration. He is irrelevant.

The Bush Administration did not seek a SECULAR DEMOCRACY in a unified Iraq. The US showcase was the Iraqi Constitution with its Islamic article.

Stable ? Brzezski must be a professor.

In tandem with the Bush Administration, the US oil industry negated the B43 Hofjuden (relabeled "neocons") effort to privatise the Iraqi oil industry. Houston had fears a selloff would yield a repeat of the Russian energy privatizations. After the disestablishment of the Soviet Union, US companies could not bid for the Russian reserves. Today in Iraq, the US oil industry is maintaining OPEC pricing throughout the global oil trade and accessing Iraqi oil.

A close look shows Norway and subcontractor China present in Kurdish north Iraq. Share and share alike.

Brzezski's share is getting to write articles for the Washington Post.

Kol tuv,
BobW

3. Ted Belman said:

I found myself in much agreement with Brzezinski including
1. victory as defined by America is not attainable
2. the Kurds and the Shiites will maintain there militias within the Iraq army and such militias will be loyal to their ethnic base.

But his sanguine view of what would happen were America to withdraw3 in '06 is pollyanish. It is not based on any rational thought but on a desire to present a perspective that will encourage American withdrawal.

He writes that when the dust settles "authentic Iraqi majorities" would fashion "their own political arrangements". This totazlly ignores the neighborhood they live in. Just Look at Lebanon and you will see what will happen in Iraq.

But what I strongly disagree with is his remarks on the Iranian connection,"In an Iraq dominated by the Shiites and the Kurds -- who together account for close to 75 percent of the population -- the two peoples would share a common interest in Iraq's independence as a state. The Kurds, with their autonomy already amounting in effect to quasi-sovereignty, would otherwise be threatened by the Turks. And the Iraqi Shiites are first of all Arabs; they have no desire to be Iran's satellites. Some Sunnis, once they were aware that the U.S. occupation was drawing to a close and that soon they would be facing an overwhelming Shiite-Kurdish coalition, would be more inclined to accommodate the new political realities, especially when deprived of the rallying cry of resistance to a foreign occupier.".

While I do believe that Kurds and Shiites don't want Iraq to be broken up, that's a long way from concluding it will be an independant Iraq. The sentance highlighted must be substantiated. No where does he deal with Iranian intentions, influence and bomb. Isn't that at the heart of the American quandry?

Another elephant in the room is "oil" as Bob points out. Brzezinski has nothing to say about that also.

Bill, your argument was well made and well written.

4. Ptah said:

I feel that Brzezinski himself is positing an either/or situation when it comes to the "victory" condition. One must keep in mind that the MSM is trying to project an image of Bush not knowing what he is doing and not saying what he's going to do when he himself has stated what his intentions are: An Iraqui government and army capable of doing entirely for themselves what the US Army and Marines are doing on the ground now.

Brzezinski's postulated "victory" condition is the ideal, but to say that that is the ONLY acceptable victory condition is to state that one either gets 100 to pass or else fail with a score of 99: typical liberal demand for perfection when the intent is not perfect performance, but to ensure declaration of "failure".

The postulated victory condition assumes the normal Western way of western armies fighting other western armies: they fight until one surrenders and STOPS FIGHTING. One side admits defeat in the war, and the other thus can claim victory. However, if one side continues to persist in fighting, albeit at a much reduced level, in an attempt to say they haven't really lost YET, perfectionists like Brzezinski can claim the war is not over and victory can't be claimed.

As a perfect illustration of this, consider the Black Knight from Monty Python's "Holy Grail" movie: By all measures, King Arthur would have been declared the victor, having cut off the Knight's arms and legs, but the Knight still fights on, refusing to admit defeat because of his pride, and vicious, asshole, selective perfectionists like Brzezinski will taunt Arthur for "not winning" because the Black Knight is "still fighting", even though his capability has been reduced to jawboning and attempting to bite Arthur's codpiece.

We must understand that the Muslim world is not the Western World: Defeat in a war will never be acknowledged because such acknowledgement is an admission that Islam failed. While encouraging his troops of the rightness of Islam, Mohammed cited victory in various wars. If he was ever defeated, it was merely a single battle lost in the course of waging a longer and larger war. Truces made when Islam is losing are not peace treaties, merely hudnas agreed to to build up the forces of Islam to continue the fight. We should even have expected the hunger strikes in Guantanamo because that is the only way these guys can continue to fight.

The last time I looked, realism and real-politick meant ceasing chasing pipe dreams and ideal victory conditions and being realistic about what we can and cannot do. Unlike Brzezinski, whose party-hack thinking demands that republicans get 100 to pass, 99 or less to fail, while grading Donks on the curve, I'm willing to settle for a 92 or 88: We withdraw our troops when Iraqui troops are capable of tracking down and killing terrorists playing as insurgents. Iraquis can do things with their borders and do things to their neighbors that Americans cannot.

Don't get me wrong: I would LOVE a situation where 100% of the insurgents have been suppressed and there are no more carbombs or IEDs, but it is unrealistic to say you've 100% failed because 20% of the populace lusts for the days when it ruled things and wants to get back into power, and the opposition is willing to sacrifice lives to make an attack so that the MSM can still say, "you haven't won yet." FUCK the perfectionists.