The Men Behind Obama

[JihadJane]

Its not as if Brezinski is some particularly important cog in the wheels of history. He's a policy guy who's had some high-level access to decision making in American foreign policy. Take him out of the picture and I'm sure things may have come out ever-so-slightly differently, but I can't believe that it would have changed all that much.

While I understand the disgust people have for the ways in which the Cold War relegated millions to misery and devastation (I share it), I think its misguided to pick out favourite villains when the real problems are not so much the individuals, but the development of worldviews that allow people to rationalize callous decisions as necessary and the perception of threat (sometimes grounded, sometimes not).

I think you are underplaying both Brzezinski's influence on US foreign policy at the time and US influence in Afghanistan:

* http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a86fourbillion

The point of the OP isn't to pick out Brzezinski as a favorite villian but to point out that this callous man, happy to back murderous drug traffickers like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, is now an important adviser to a President-elect who has sold himself as the candidate of Change. What change?

 

[TexasJack]

The point of the OP isn't to pick out Brzezinski as a favorite villian but to point out that this callous man, happy to back murderous drug traffickers like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, is now an important adviser to a President-elect who has sold himself as the candidate of Change. What change?

Can you provide a reliable source that states Brzezinski is an important advisor of Obama.

 

[JihadJane]

Can you provide a reliable source that states Brzezinski is an important advisor of Obama.

These people appear to think he's an important adviser:

'Obama Adviser Leads Delegation to Damascus'

On August 24, Mr. Brzezinski, a one-time national security adviser to President Carter, announced in an interview on Bloomberg's satellite news channel that he was endorsing Mr. Obama, and he has been an adviser to the campaign since.

A spokesman for the senator's presidential campaign, Tommy Vietor, said the campaign did not know Mr. Brzezinski was leading the delegation [to Damascus]. "The first we heard of this trip was from you," he said. He added: "Brzezinski is not a day-to-day adviser for the campaign, he is someone whose guidance Senator Obama seeks on Iraq."

A supporter of Mrs. Clinton, Rep. Eliot Engel, a Democrat from New York, said he found it hard to believe that one of the Illinois senator's main advisers would not know that his visit to Syria would appear to have the tacit consent of the Obama campaign.

"People are going to say if you are advising Obama, you are representing Obama," Mr. Engel said. "At this time when we are in the middle of an election, I can't believe that for him to go to Syria at this moment would not appear he was going with at least some tacit approval of the candidate he is advising. I would think he would realize that," Mr. Engel said.

http://www.nysun.com/foreign/obama-adviser-leads-delegation-to-damascus/71123/

 

[TexasJack]

He doesn't sound like an important advisor to me, especially if Obama's people says he is not. You would think if he was an important advisor, Obama would know about the trip.

A spokesman for the senator's presidential campaign, Tommy Vietor, said the campaign did not know Mr. Brzezinski was leading the delegation. "The first we heard of this trip was from you," he said. He added: "Brzezinski is not a day-to-day adviser for the campaign, he is someone whose guidance Senator Obama seeks on Iraq."

 

[TexasJack]

Let's hear from Obama himself on Brzezinski
http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/811251,CST-NWS-sweet25.article

Obama also distanced himself from Zbigniew Brzezinski, the national security adviser in the Jimmy Carter administration who traveled to Iowa with Obama when he made an Iraq speech.

"I do not share his views with respect to Israel. I have said so clearly and unequivocally," Obama said. "He's not one of my key advisers. I've had lunch with him once. I've exchanged e-mails with him maybe three times. He came to Iowa to introduce ... for a speech on Iraq."

Sure doesn't sound like an important advisor, correct?

 

[Praktik]

I think you are underplaying both Brzezinski's influence on US foreign policy at the time and US influence in Afghanistan:

* http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a86fourbillion

The point of the OP isn't to pick out Brzezinski as a favorite villian but to point out that this callous man, happy to back murderous drug traffickers like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, is now an important adviser to a President-elect who has sold himself as the candidate of Change. What change?

You probably haven't read much from him recently on Iran or Iraq have you? Brezinski's current approach to both countries is completely different than the Bush administration approach.

Google his Op-Eds over the past few years...

But my larger point was that US foreign policy in the Cold War would likely have not changed much even without him - the pressures of that bipolar world incentivized America to take actions against the Soviet Union and vice versa.

 

[JihadJane]

@ TexasJack

Neither of phrases you highlight above deny that Brzezinski is an important Obama adviser though the lawyer-speak may make it appear so. That he travelled with Obama to introduce an important policy speech suggests he is an important adviser, though mentor may be a more accurate term or, as he is sometimes referred to, one of Obama's grand old men.

In the article I quoted from, above, there is general skepticism that Obama did not know of Brzezinski's trip to Syria. Brzezinski is not popular with Israeli hawks so it would make sense for Brzezinski to dress up his trip with plausible deniability to protect Obama, just as it makes sense for Obama to play down his links to Brzezinski to an Israeli audience.

 

[JihadJane]

You probably haven't read much from him recently on Iran or Iraq have you? Brezinski's current approach to both countries is completely different than the Bush administration approach.

Google his Op-Eds over the past few years...

I'm aware that Bzrezinski is focussed more on undermining Chinese and Russian power but his different strategies represent no change from the policy of maintaining US world hegemony by whatever means necessary.

But my larger point was that US foreign policy in the Cold War would likely have not changed much even without him - the pressures of that bipolar world incentivized America to take actions against the Soviet Union and vice versa.

Your point may or may not be true - it is hypothetical - but is not relevant to the OP. Bzrezinki's influence on Obama suggests business-as-usual just as Obama's possible choice of Treasury Secretary does ( Larry Summers) .

 

[Ocelot]

Your link said Webster Tarpley is a "hitorican". What is that? I am not familiar with that word.

The historicans were an 8 robot team of Decepticons brought to life when Galvatron first stole the Creation Matrix from Ultra Magnus. Their members were Epithelitron, Endothelitron, Mesothelitron, Mesenchyme, Haemo, Neural, Gamete and
Placental. They were all destroyed in battle with Ultra Magnus. Although they still appear in some divergent cannons.

In fact Webster Tarpley transforms into a delapidated garden shed which makes him a allotmentobot: one a group of Autobots created by accident when Otimus Prime got drunk amongst some smallholdings outside Stevenage. Despite being an Autobot he did betray his greenhouse cohort, Cracked Payne to Galvatron in exchange for a fresh coat of bitumen. His current loyalties remain unknown as he hides out somewhere in the home counties.

 

[TexasJack]

@ TexasJack

Neither of phrases you highlight above deny that Brzezinski is an important Obama adviser though the lawyer-speak may make it appear so. That he travelled with Obama to introduce an important policy speech suggests he is an important adviser, though mentor may be a more accurate term or, as he is sometimes referred to, one of Obama's grand old men.

In the article I quoted from, above, there is general skepticism that Obama did not know of Brzezinski's trip to Syria. Brzezinski is not popular with Israeli hawks so it would make sense for Brzezinski to dress up his trip with plausible deniability to protect Obama, just as it makes sense for Obama to play down his links to Brzezinski to an Israeli audience.

Your denial is astonishing, what don't you understand about "he is not a key adviser."? Oh, that's "lawyer-speak." Then you demote him to mentor, next thing you'll be saying is he's an important acquaintance. I'm not interested in your read-between the lines speculation, if you have anything of substance, please produce it. Because exchanging a few-emails, having lunch, traveling on a plane with someone and you're an important advisor shaping foreign policy, doesn't cut it. I'm sure he's done more than that with Bill and Hilliary Clinton, so I guess they're important advisors too.

 

[JihadJane]

Your denial is astonishing, what don't you understand about "he is not a key adviser."?

It means that Zbigniew Brzezinski is an adviser, for a start. Key is a usefully ambiguous term not synonymous with important. To me 'key' suggests more important than important, closer to the centre.

ETA:

Then you demote him to mentor, next thing you'll be saying is he's an important acquaintance.

Mentor is an upgrade.

 

[TexasJack]

Mentor is an upgrade.

OK, a mentor is someone who exchanges a few e-mails and you have lunch with, but has virtually no influence on his foreign policy. Got it. So you would have to agree that members of his administration will garner the most influence on Obama, in particular the VP, Sec. of State and Sec. of Defense, correct? Which begs the question, why did you ask, what change? If Brzezinski isn't a major player in the decision making process?

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

So, Obama has an extremely savvy, experienced international affairs acquaintance (of unverified degree) whose efforts over the last few decades have been in protecting the interests of the US—the nation Obama is shortly responsible for protecting—(and to a slightly lesser degree, the UK…and then other democratic nations)……………………and?

Even if you view Brzezinski as a cold, heartless, calculating tactician (which seems to be one of the contentions by some on this thread), vilifying Obama makes little rational sense unless coupled with some unseen ignorance and an inability to weigh and assess input from others on his part. If this is the line of reasoning, someone please make the case with facts that demonstrate Obama’s debilitating shortcomings.

Another obvious possibility is that those who find this association between Obama and Brzezinski to be so odious is that you perceive Brzezinski to have some puppet master like pull with the president-elect. If this is the line of reasoning, then (again) make the case with facts demonstrating that degree of persuasion in their association.

If neither of these are the line of reasoning, present ANY facts demonstrating why this association is so objectionable, or expect that skeptics will continue to classify this attempt to paint an apparently benign association as nefarious as anti-Obama propaganda...fairly simple really.

Until such facts are presented, you’ll have to excuse the lot of us on this side of the monitor who find ourselves unable to be moved beyond “so what” in the grand scheme of things.

 

[JihadJane]

... Which begs the question, why did you ask, what change? If Brzezinski isn't a major player in the decision making process?

(You missed out travelling with Obama to Ohio to introduce an important speech on the hottest foreign policy issue of the day.)

The actions of the Obama administration will show how much influence Brzenzinski has had on its foreign policy thinking.

- - - - - - -

So, Obama has an extremely savvy, experienced international affairs acquaintance (of unverified degree) whose efforts over the last few decades have been in protecting the interests of the US—the nation Obama is shortly responsible for protecting—(and to a slightly lesser degree, the UK…and then other democratic nations)……………………and?

The world has had enough of the US empire "protecting its interests".

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

...The world has had enough of the US empire "protecting its interests".

...jaded emphasis noted...

And what of Russia? China? I'll not defend all of the actions of the US by any stretch, but "nations" will always look after their own interests to whatever degree they are able.

...address my points if you can, CT-type...

 

[JihadJane]

...address my points if you can, CT-type...

"CT-type"?

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

Those who subscribe to Conspiracy Theories or conspiracy spin, in particular (and in the case of those asserting something reprehensible in Obama and Brzezinski’s association) without facts in evidence of the perspectives they express.

It’s not addressed to you specifically, though you seem to be in that number (feel free to correct me if I’m wrong by addressing my points as presented in paragraphs 2-4 of post #53 above or by explaining that I'm wrong in my perception that you are among those asserting a "foul" in Brzezinski and Obama's association).

 

[JihadJane]

Those who subscribe to Conspiracy Theories or conspiracy spin, in particular (and in the case of those asserting something reprehensible in Obama and Brzezinski’s association) without facts in evidence of the perspectives they express.

Are you talking about people or a hypothetical type? What's your type?

It’s not addressed to you specifically, though you seem to be in that number (feel free to correct me if I’m wrong by addressing my points as presented in paragraphs 2-4 of post #53 above or by explaining that I'm wrong in my perception that you are among those asserting a "foul" in Brzezinski and Obama's association).

I've no interest in proving you wrong about anything.

One fact that appears not to bother your type is that Brezezinksi has showed no remorse for his part in stirring up violence and Islamic extremism in Afghanistan and continues to believe that it's fine to kill, maim and destroy in order to "protect US interests" (a euphemism for colonial conquest and looting).

What good has the parasitic US empire brought to its hosts? Is Obama anything more than just its latest face?

 

[Praktik]

One fact that appears not to bother your type is that Brezezinksi has showed no remorse for his part in stirring up violence and Islamic extremism in Afghanistan and continues to believe that it's fine to kill, maim and destroy in order to "protect US interests" (a euphemism for colonial conquest and looting).

What good has the parasitic US empire brought to its hosts? Is Obama anything more than just its latest face?

Well, I think to assume that someone is "OK" with the vagaries of big power politics and the way weaker countries are exploited in competition is a bit of a leap.

I think its entirely possible to be morally opposed to such things and still be able to see that the root of such problems lies not with individuals like Brezinski, but rather in the systemic pressures that guide nations to make callous decisions for national security reasons.

In fact, if you are morally opposed to such things focusing on Brezinski and other individuals is really missing the point. The "arc of history" is replete with powerful nations acting in just the way America has - there are forces larger than any individual which create the context for decisions like arming the enemy of an enemy, or removing a leadership that is tilted too strongly to the "other side".

Thats just the way big power politics works, unfortunately. As much as we might prefer to live in a different world, we gotta deal with the one we have, not the one we want to have.

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

Well, I think to assume that someone is "OK" with the vagaries of big power politics and the way weaker countries are exploited in competition is a bit of a leap.

I think its entirely possible to be morally opposed to such things and still be able to see that the root of such problems lies not with individuals like Brezinski, but rather in the systemic pressures that guide nations to make callous decisions for national security reasons.

In fact, if you are morally opposed to such things focusing on Brezinski and other individuals is really missing the point. The "arc of history" is replete with powerful nations acting in just the way America has - there are forces larger than any individual which create the context for decisions like arming the enemy of an enemy, or removing a leadership that is tilted too strongly to the "other side".

Thats just the way big power politics works, unfortunately. As much as we might prefer to live in a different world, we gotta deal with the one we have, not the one we want to have.

Exactly. Thanks for putting it more clearly than I did.