Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Rachel Maddow w/ Brzezinski: Are we going to be invading..every possible safe haven Al Qaeda seeks?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Political Videos Donate to DU
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 12:12 AM
Original message
Rachel Maddow w/ Brzezinski: Are we going to be invading..every possible safe haven Al Qaeda seeks?
Edited on Wed Sep-16-09 12:15 AM by Nikki Stone1
 
Run time: 09:23
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmMXTrMESRE
 
Posted on YouTube: September 16, 2009
By YouTube Member:
Views on YouTube: 0
 
Posted on DU: September 16, 2009
By DU Member: Nikki Stone1
Views on DU: 1405
 
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel...



Start watching from 5:12 on. Zbigniew Brzezinski pretty much makes the argument that we, who were opposed to the war in Afghanistan in 2001 made then in regard to Al Qaeda in Afghanistan; that is, that Al Qaeda can move around and that you can't invade and occupy every country where there are terrorists. That you have to cooperate with the countries involved to get these terrorists, not attack the country.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Rachel: When the President defines what it is that we are doing in Afghanistan and what requires the number of troops that he thinks we need to have there, he says it's for America's national security interest and Al Qaeda not having safe havens there from which they can project international force like they did against us on 9/11. Do you think that worthy goal is in any way meaningfully connected to having tens of thousands of US troops in that country? Is that the best way to achieve that goal?

Zbigniew Brzezinski: Well that is precisely the problem. You put your finger on it. The more American troops engage in the heavy lifting, the fighting, the more we are there, the more we are evidently the foreigners, the infidels with guns, the more the Afghans will gradually begin to resist us. Right now the Taliban is only supported by a minority and, incidentally, not all of the Taliban formations are hooked up with Al Qaeda. But the more our military effort escalates, the more the chances are the Afghans will be turning against us.

So my very simple proposition is let's clearly define the goals we have in mind, let's define the strategy, and then on that basis decide on how many more troops we need and should have there.

Insofar as Al Qaeda safe havens are concerned, you know they can relocate from Afghanistan to Pakistan, which they have already done partially. They can relocate to Somalia. They can perhaps relocate to some other countries. Are we going to be invading and trying to, in effect, occupy militarily every possible safe haven that Al Qaeda is going to seek? Or do we have to have a strategy in which we cooperate with the governments involved and also engage in effective strikes or punitive missions to take out Al Qaeda if we know where it is? But simply pouring troops into Afghanistan and potentially Pakistan, perhaps others, is hardly in my mind, a rational solution.

________________________________

Zbigniew Brzezinski is being a little disingenuous here. It was he who promoted a war in this location in Central Asia in his book "The Grand Chessboard." There is also proof at http://www.historycommons.org / (formerly Cooperative Research) that the Taliban were willing to turn over Bin Ladin before the Afghanistan war AND that the war plans for Afghanistan had been made prior to 9/11 and were sitting on the shelf.

Interesting that Brzezinki now thinks it's time to leave. He fears that the US will get bogged down in Afghanistan as the Russians did (and this was something else that a lot of people were worried about before the Afghanistan war--Afghanistan is not a place where outside powers succeed.)

It took him 9 years, but Brzezinki is finally saying what a lot of people were saying all along.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 12:36 AM
Response to Original message
1. Good info; Thanks.
'Mika's Dad, wondering why his daughter couldn't be as smart as Rachel!'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GivePeaceAchance Donating Member (950 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 12:46 AM
Response to Original message
2. I wish he had the President's ear now, but President Obama seems very one track minded on this...
Edited on Wed Sep-16-09 12:48 AM by GivePeaceAchance
I don't really try and think about it now, hopefully it all plays out positively. ONe thing I do know Brzezinski has a long historical knowledge of the region and very sage advice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Douglas Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 01:56 AM
Response to Original message
3. kick and recommended ... very good interview - highly recommended!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
psychopomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 04:23 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Seconded
I could repeat some of the points in the vid that helped me to understand the situation a bit better, but I'll leave it up to others to take the few minutes to just watch the link. :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jakeXT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 04:37 AM
Response to Original message
5. Therefore we'll have to use proxy armies and mercenaries, like in the good old days?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ejpoeta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 04:46 AM
Response to Original message
6. he is so right!! i've often wondered if we are going to invade everyone...
i mean, how is this keeping us safe. al quaeda is all over the place. we can't just go invade everyone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izquierdista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 08:08 AM
Response to Original message
7. COMPLETELY disingenuous
This was the ASSHOLE who ruined Afghanistan in the first place. Had he not directed the meddling that got the Soviets to invade in the first place, Afghanistan would today be just another central Asian backwater that nobody could pick out on a map. It was HE who focused attention on it in the first place, and got the fanatic Muslims to decide it was a good place to fight "the infidels". He should STFU while he is still behind, and not risk getting further behind. The one thing he never learned with all of his academic credentials is when to quit digging. Only now, when the hole is so deep that no sunlight gets to the bottom is he beginning to wonder why it is dark all the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Postman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 09:36 AM
Response to Original message
8. Greg Mortenson - Three Cups Of Tea
Edited on Wed Sep-16-09 09:37 AM by Postman
People won't hate you as much if you build schools and educate them as opposed to dropping bombs on their children....

Also - Of course there were plans on the table to invade Afghanistan pre-9/11. Does anyone remember the "carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs" ultimatum to the Taliban? There's a lot of natural gas reserves in the Caspian Sea region and they had plans for a pipeline....it all comes down to natural resources and profits for corporations....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
digidigido Donating Member (553 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 10:19 AM
Response to Original message
9. No Shit Sherlock, just amazed at how when things go wrong Hawks always say
Edited on Wed Sep-16-09 10:24 AM by digidigido
no one could have possibly imagined this scenario. He's a smart guy, so is Obama, but that
doesn't mean they don't make mistakes. Out of Iraq NOW, Public Option, Civility in Media
with a Fairness Doctrine, abolish computer voting, and re pass Glass - Steagall, and that's
just for starters

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 10:58 AM
Response to Original message
10. Exposing our stupidity, good points. K&R. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muttocracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 11:29 AM
Response to Original message
11. thanks for posting and your comments in the op. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Sep 21st 2014, 01:09 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Political Videos Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC