Bloomberg TV interview broadcast Monday 12 March 2007 of Zbigniew Brzezinski, and discussion of his recent book, "Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower." ZB now at the CSIS: Center for Strategic & International Studies.
Notes to follow.
--------------------------------
[] Is Congress taking the wrong approach to Iraq?
I think the Congress has no alternative, given the fact that the elections last November were fought largely over the Iraq issue, and the Democratic congress came to power because it had a very critical view of the stewardship of the president of the Iraqi war. So we are seeing the preliminary skirmishing, but I think the Congress really has to do what it is trying to do.
[]So the Bush administration, potentially, is making an error on this, as far as Iraq goes?
That depends. The president obviously is personally committed. He doesn't want to, in effect, have his policy refuted. But to the extent that he can succeed in blaming the Democrats for the "lack of victory," even though his definition of victory was really unrealistic, then to that extent he can score some political points. This is why I call it skirmishing.
[] Well you are quite critical of the Pres in a new book that you have written... You give the current president a grade of an "F". What has he failed at, in your view?
I think he has failed in global leadership, and I think that is the greatest tragedy of his administration. You know, he came to power with America still standing tall, after the leadership provided, first of all by his father, then, with some failings, by president Clinton. But he has managed to undermine American credibility, world wide, American legitimacy, worldwide, and respect for American power, worldwide. That is a real disaster. And this is why---in that table that I have ranking the three presidents in different categories---I do, very reluctantly as a citizen, give him the grade of F, failure.
[]Some of his supporters might argue that the president has kept America safe from any further terorist attack. How do you factor that into the equation?
I think the evidence for that is limited. First of all, thousands of Americans have died since then, both in Iraq and in Afghanistan. The war in Afghanistan has been neglected, thereby letting al Qeada reconstitute itself . It is true that domestically there has been no act of terror, but that's hardly related to what we have been doing in Iraq. In part it may be good work by the law enforcement agencies; in part it may be because al Qeada was disrupted initially in Afghanistan and hasn't had time yet to stage a come-back.
[]What should president Bush be doing now... to improve his grade?
I would think he should be giving serious negotiations a serious chance. He and his secretary of state have been so dismissive of diplomacy. They have been saying that diplomatic efforts are not worthwhile unless we know in advance that those we negotiate with agree with our positions. Well, that's a non-starter, in giving diplomacy a chance.
I think the conference over the weekend in Iraq with all of Iraq's neighbors suggests that the neighbors, at least, including Syria and Iran, recognize that a disrupted exploding Iraq is not in their interest. And therefore we should be able to exploit that attitude, to try to formulate some political context for the termination of the war, including American disengagement from Iraq.
[] You talk, in your book, about [how] America needs to restore its political credibility and legitimacy. If that's the case, how can the US move forward successfully on the diplomatic front, if it's lacking some of that that you mention in the book.
I think only by proving credibly that it is serious about negotiating. If our definition of negotiations is that we only talk to those who, in advance, agree to our demands, then we'll never demonstrate credibility and legitimacy in seeking alternative solutions to those imposed by force. Sometimes you have to use force. But when you choose to use force before giving the other alternative a chance, then the responsibility rests on you to be effective in the use of force. And the sad, sad fact of our engagement in Iraq is that the President has bungled badly in deciding to go to war, and then in the way he has waged that war.
[] Is Iran a major threat to the United Staes?
It is a country that is weak economically and militarily. It may, at some point, have weapons of mass destruction, but that's years away. We have time to undertake a serious effort to deter and forestall that from happening: by accomodation, by compromises, by promoting, at the same time, a dialog with the Iranians. Because we know that a large proportion of the Iranian people like America and don't like being ruled by the mullahs. And if we are smart about it, I think we can avoid the worst, and have our cake and eat it too---that is to say, have some accomodation with Iran while at the same time getting the Iranians not to cross the t's and dot the i's in the quest for nuclear weapons.
[] Do you think democracy is achievable in Iraq, if so when? And should American troups withdraw immediately?
I think American troups should withdraw within a year or so, while we go about creating a political context that absorbs some of the consequences of the withdrawl. And this is why the political effort is so needed.
Will there be a Democracy in Iraq? No! I don't think so. I think this was a totally unrealistic objective, made even less likely by the destructive impact of American war in Iraq on the Iraq society.
Just consider this one short list of figures. The Iraqi population was twenty-four million when we walked in. Two million have fled the country, probably the ablest and best educated. A million and a half have been displaced. And according to the John Hopkins University study, about a half million more were neither born, or died earlier than they would have. A total loss of close to four million people. How do you expect a democracy in that setting?
End of interview.
ZB points out how Secretary Rice has so often failed to engage diplomatically, and we need only look down a few posts in this blog to read Rice's own rationale as recently as Jan 11 2007, responding to Sen. Chris Dodd:
"I think it's extremely important to note that we have talked to the Syrians, we've generally gotten nowhere, and now we would be going in a way that I would fear looks like a supplicant." --- Rice.Right, g*d forbid that we should "look like a supplicant," let's continue to occupy a foreign land... is it so much better that they and their neighbors hate and fear us, than we fear "what it makes us look" like? I feel so strong now... I nominate that this president's name be changed immediately to "George F. Bush" to commemorate the "accomplishment" thus far achieved. You have two years of summer school (well, now 22 months) to make up your failed course in international relations. Argh.
