It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the national security adviser in the Carter administration, delivered a scathing critique of the war in Iraq and warned that the Bush administration’s policy was leading inevitably to a war with Iran, with incalculable consequences for US imperialism in the Middle East and internationally.
Brzezinski, who opposed the March 2003 invasion and has publicly denounced the war as a colossal foreign policy blunder, began his remarks on what he called the “war of choice” in Iraq by characterizing it as “a historic, strategic and moral calamity.”
Brzezinski derided Bush’s talk of a “decisive ideological struggle” against radical Islam as “simplistic and demagogic,” and called it a “mythical historical narrative” employed to justify a “protracted and potentially expanding war.”
“To argue that America is already at war in the region with a wider Islamic threat, of which Iran is the epicenter, is to promote a self-fulfilling prophecy,” he said.
Most stunning and disturbing was his description of a “plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran.” It would, he suggested, involve “Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks, followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure, then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the US blamed on Iran, culminating in a ‘defensive’ US military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.”
This was an unmistakable warning to the US Congress, replete with quotation marks to discount the “defensive” nature of such military action, that the Bush administration is seeking a pretext for an attack on Iran. Although he did not explicitly say so, Brzezinski came close to suggesting that the White House was capable of manufacturing a provocation—including a possible terrorist attack within the US—to provide the casus belli for war.
The following exchange took place:
Q: Dr. Brzezinski, who do you think would be carrying out this possible provocation?
A: I have no idea. As I said, these things can never be predicted. It can be spontaneous.
Q: Are you suggesting there is a possibility it could originate within the US government itself?
A: I’m saying the whole situation can get out of hand and all sorts of calculations can produce a circumstance that would be very difficult to trace.
Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the national security adviser in the Carter administration, delivered a scathing critique of the war in Iraq and warned that the Bush administration’s policy was leading inevitably to a war with Iran, with incalculable consequences for US imperialism in the Middle East and internationally.
Brzezinski, who opposed the March 2003 invasion and has publicly denounced the war as a colossal foreign policy blunder, began his remarks on what he called the “war of choice” in Iraq by characterizing it as “a historic, strategic and moral calamity.”
“To argue that America is already at war in the region with a wider Islamic threat, of which Iran is the epicenter, is to promote a self-fulfilling prophecy,” he said.
Most stunning and disturbing was his description of a “plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran.” It would, he suggested, involve “Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks, followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure, then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the US blamed on Iran, culminating in a ‘defensive’ US military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.”
This was an unmistakable warning to the US Congress, replete with quotation marks to discount the “defensive” nature of such military action, that the Bush administration is seeking a pretext for an attack on Iran. Although he did not explicitly say so, Brzezinski came close to suggesting that the White House was capable of manufacturing a provocation—including a possible terrorist attack within the US—to provide the casus belli for war.
Originally posted by brill
This is indeed quite the bombshell considering Brzezinskis background and what I thought was unquestionable support for US foreign matters & policy. To state that the US govt could possibly orchestrate an terrorist event to garner public support is draw dropping. I'm speechless and yet no mention of this on any major news sources (thus far). Does this give credence to alleged the 9-11 quacks?
brill
Originally posted by Regensturm
The burning of The Reichstag....the Germans faking a Polish attack on the German-Poland border to give an excuse to invade Poland......Gulf Of Tonkin.....Operation Northwoods.....
Remember always. He who forgets history, is condemned to repeat it.
[edit on 4-2-2007 by Regensturm]
Originally posted by brill
Northwoods was never actually carried out I believe it was only a proposal.
Originally posted by brill
I think what concerns me most here is that its not so much an admission by an unknown, we're talking about a former national security adviser who in some circles is still highly revered. Doesn't it seem odd for someone like this to break social and political rank by actually implying that the government could "produce a circumstance that would be very difficult to trace." This provides so much ammunition for the 9-11 conspiracy advocates.
brill
Originally posted by Regensturm
And it was a war of choice- for those who waged it. Not a war of neccessity, but a war of choosing, a war based on ideology of NeoCons.
Originally posted by Agit8dChop
'You have voted Regensturm for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.'
That is perfect.. what a way to describe it.
Originally posted by Agit8dChop
War should only ever be waged, when there are NO alternatives, or when not waging war means suffering and misery for your own people.
War should only ever be waged, when there are NO alternatives, or when not waging war means suffering and misery for your own people.
Originally posted by Shar_Chi
What's more interesting again is the media blackout on this. We are talking about a popular ex-National Security Adviser before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee... nothing in the press.