by Carlhole » Tue 23 Oct 2007, 15:58:21
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', ' ')The idea was to get the Soviets into a war on their southern flank and use the Islamic population from all over the ME as fighters, the US supplying arms. It was intended to bleed the Soviets to death. Brzezinski wanted to hand them their "Vietnam". He has said this and defended it and is proud of it..
The USSR did indeed have a VietNam-style defeat in Afghanistan, but it didn't occur while Bzezinski and Jimmy Carter were in office. Carter made weak ineffectual protests after the Soviet invasion, like stopping the US Olympic team from competing. Yes, the US participated in aiding the Mujahadeen along with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, China, etc. but US aid was small because Carter was afraid to send aid that could be traced back to the U.S. For that reason Carter refused to authorize Stingers. It was only after Carter and Brzezinski left office and Reagan took over that the US initiated the "Reagan doctrine" and the US greatly expanded its aid effort and provided enough money, weapons and a large numbers of advanced Stinger missiles that allowed the Mujahadeen to destroy the Russian air superiority and led to the military victory by the Mujahadeen. To his credit, Brzezinski was an early advocate of confronting the Russians in Afghanistan, and I'm sure Brezinski supported the expansion of the effort it occurred under Reagan, and I'm sure he supported the Reagan doctrine and cheered when the USSR was defeated.

You should go argue it with Zbigniew Brzezinski.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Le Nouvel Observateur', 'A')ccording to this 1998 interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, the CIA's intervention in Afghanistan preceded the 1979 Soviet invasion. This decision of the Carter Administration in 1979 to intervene and destabilise Afghanistan is the root cause of Afghanistan's destruction as a nation.
Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?
B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.
Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?
B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.
B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.
Translated from the French by Bill Blum
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The URL of this article is:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html Copyright, Le Nouvel Observateur and Bill Blum. For fair use only.
That interview segment has been published far and wide and it is referenced everywhere.
In everything you've ever posted here on PO.com, Plant, you have shown a blind acceptance of any official version of history or current events. But the fact of the matter is, human beings act like human beings the world over and their machinations and ingenuity for intrigue, beguilment and deception are hallmarks of leadership going back thousands of years in any country or region you care to investigate. Nothing is different about our present time.
This sort Truth, Justice & The American Way version of events you subscribe to is a figment! Pure crap. Or, strike that, NOT pure crap, crap mixed with truth, which makes it even more challenging to discern.
Not that there's anything particularly wrong with America or Americans, it's just that this country has been the richest and most powerful for such a long time, that political intrigues here are of so much more consequence than elsewhere.