Brzezinski Talks Bases
The former national security adviser on the Bush Pentagon's spending binge: "Do we really need that for our security?"
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.
Page 1 of 1 
is incredible the cinism of this crap
is´ n it ?
Read The Limits of Power by John Bacevich for an eye opening discussion of the exercise of US foreign policy as an extension of the unsustainable US lifestyle. It is must reading.
Right on. Most of our military bases should be eliminated with it's resultant cost with the inclusion of
reducing the military budget. Keep up the good work.
[deleted]G[deleted]e[deleted]t[deleted] [deleted]o[deleted]u[deleted]t[deleted] [deleted]o[deleted]f[deleted] [deleted]I[deleted]r[deleted]a[deleted]q[deleted] [deleted]a[deleted]n[deleted]d[deleted] [deleted]A[deleted]f[deleted]g[deleted]h[deleted]a[deleted]n[deleted]i[deleted]s[deleted]t[deleted]a[deleted]n[deleted],[deleted] [deleted]C[deleted]u[deleted]t[deleted] [deleted]t[deleted]h[deleted]e[deleted] [deleted]D[deleted]e[deleted]f[deleted]e[deleted]n[deleted]s[deleted]e[deleted] [deleted]b[deleted]u[deleted]d[deleted]g[deleted]e[deleted]t[deleted] [deleted]i[deleted]n[deleted] [deleted]h[deleted]a[deleted]l[deleted]f[deleted],[deleted] [deleted]a[deleted]n[deleted]d[deleted] [deleted]g[deleted]e[deleted]t[deleted] [deleted]o[deleted]u[deleted]t[deleted] [deleted]o[deleted]f[deleted] [deleted]5[deleted]0[deleted]0[deleted] [deleted]o[deleted]r[deleted] [deleted]m[deleted]o[deleted]r[deleted]e[deleted] [deleted]b[deleted]a[deleted]s[deleted]e[deleted]s[deleted] [deleted]a[deleted]r[deleted]o[deleted]u[deleted]n[deleted]d[deleted] [deleted]t[deleted]h[deleted]e[deleted] [deleted]w[deleted]o[deleted]r[deleted]l[deleted]d[deleted].[deleted] [deleted]T[deleted]h[deleted]a[deleted]t[deleted] [deleted]s[deleted]h[deleted]o[deleted]u[deleted]l[deleted]d[deleted] [deleted]c[deleted]o[deleted]v[deleted]e[deleted]r[deleted] [deleted]t[deleted]h[deleted]e[deleted] [deleted]c[deleted]o[deleted]s[deleted]t[deleted] [deleted]o[deleted]f[deleted] [deleted]f[deleted]r[deleted]e[deleted]e[deleted] [deleted]h[deleted]e[deleted]a[deleted]l[deleted]t[deleted]h[deleted] [deleted]c[deleted]a[deleted]r[deleted]e[deleted] [deleted]f[deleted]o[deleted]r[deleted] [deleted]e[deleted]v[deleted]e[deleted]r[deleted]y[deleted]o[deleted]n[deleted]e[deleted].[deleted]
I like Zbignew, because he sounds like he comes from a place of being reasonably well-balanced, not really bent on aggression and so forth. Comma. I disagree on borders. I think part of our national problem these days has been this push for globalization and global engagement and this big push for more and more military. I think it siphons money out of the economy at a time when we apparently don't have the capacity to support it financially, I think it puts us in the role of empire, which is Not Good, and worst of all, how long can it be sustained as-is?
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.
Why interview this guy? He's an insane monster.
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.
Look, we've got lots of extra money to fund these small cities, and, besides, what better way is there to show the world some good old-fashioned all-American good will than to fill it to the brim with dangerously under-trained, barely literate American GI's? Stop whining!
Thank
