Brzezinski Talks Bases
INTERVIEW: The former national security adviser on the Bush Pentagon's spending binge: "Do we really need that for our security?"
August 22, 2008
|
|
Mother Jones: The United States military has a huge overseas footprint—nearly 800 bases around the world. We're the only country that does this. Do you think that's necessary or wise?
Zbigniew Brzezinski: It might be useful for the next president to ask a few experienced, independent-minded people to take a broad look at the scale and thrust of our defense efforts, without prejudging what such a group might say. There's something troubling about a condition in which one country, which has roughly 5 percent of the world's population, spends more than 50 percent of the world's defense budgets. There's something weird about it. Maybe it's inherent in the role we have to play in the world—that we have to have a very, very large defense budget. But one just has to wonder whether that's really necessary. I have been struck by the pervasive frequency of highly patriotic, pompously patriotic-sounding ads for defense industries, usually accompanied by deferential salutations to our men and women who are heroically sacrificing their lives in our defense, but sponsored by the defense industry. We are the most defense-oriented or military-oriented country in the world today. Do we really need that for our security?
MJ: Regarding Iraq, we've built a number of what can only be called permanent bases...
ZB: Permanent bases can become impermanent.
MJ: Do you think that's the plan?
ZB: That's not the plan, but the fact that we build something doesn't mean that we have to sit in it forever. I think if the Democrats win we're not going to be sitting in permanent bases in Iraq in a scale and in a fashion that Bush is currently, maybe, designing. If he signs some agreement with Maliki, do you think the Democratic Congress is going to endorse it?
MJ: We'll see.
ZB: I think we know.
MJ: What do you think might happen if we were to start eliminating our military footprint?
ZB: I wouldn't eliminate our global footprint. There are a number of places in the world where it's in our interest to be present, and where we're welcome. The question is, do we need to be all over the world on the scale that we are now reaching, and do we need to spend as much as we're spending on defense? Especially if you look at some other aspects of American society—the decaying character of our infrastructure, the increasingly primitive railroad system that we have, the overburdened air services that we have, etcetera. And if we add to it the potential consequences of the misguided policy with Iran, then before too long we'll be thinking of the $4-a-gallon price as being a bargain. Because we'll be paying $10 per gallon.
For the full interview, click HERE.
Michael Mechanic is a senior editor at Mother Jones.
is´ n it ?
reducing the military budget. Keep up the good work.
It's also part of a big international game. Note the entry in there about the price of gas. Not much in there about pursuing alternatives to make us oil-independent. Oil independence would be a great step forward for us, and probably the beginning of the end of the Iraf war, as well as prolonged involvement in the middle east.
Global gated community? I think we're there already, to a greater or lesser degree, save the conflicts of interest that prevent us from having good border security, and no matter how high and mighty the military ever might become, there's always going to be the issue of borders, specifically the US/Mexico border, as poor border security has hurt both countries. I'm not an isolationist so much as I'm a 'lets not be stupid about this-ist', when our country is at war, or preparing for war overseas, and then their citizens are over here, taking notes and anything else they can lay hands on, apparently, then you have to wonder if the global gamesters/gangsters aren't just playing both sides of the board, there. Maybe they think it's a big RISK game? I don't feel like being a plastic action figure for this game. I think we can do a lot better with military and energy and border policy than we've done in the past, and economic policy, too. Start with the energy part, and work from there.
In case people don't know, he's one of the originators of the Afghan War with the USSR. You can read his statements here:
http://www.counterpunch.org/brzezinski.html
And the interview is found in many other places on the net.
Cooly and calmly, he justified arming and training terrorists to fight in Afghanistan to encourage the Soviet Union to invade and bleed themselves into self-destruction.
For Brzezinski, this was a good thing: he suggested to Carter that encouraging the USSR to invade Afghanistan would be like giving them their own Vietnam. And, like Vietnam, millions of people died in Afghanistan, and Brzenski did it all just to take a shot at the Soviet Union.
I'm sure Brezinski would be happy to use all the money from those international US bases in order to invade his real "enemy" - Russia.
You know, the writers at Mother Jones ought to research who they're interviewing more, insteading of just finding useful spouts of talking points.