Five Flawed Observations

What is with Zbigniew Brzezinski in this analysis of the President's plan? He used to be the only sane voice on policy toward the Soviets in the Carter administration (and I'm not damning Zbig with faint praise by saying this).

In his first observation, he says the President's speech was less Islamophobic than past speeches and that it is dubious to say a young democracy is under attack by extremists who would be a threat to us if we don't beat them in Iraq.

Let's set aside the stupid term "Islamophobic." Our President has used the term "religion of peace" more than a CAIR reprentative on a slow day. Saying our President is anti-Islam is blindingly wrong. And is Iraq not a young democracy? Are the League of Women Voters-in-Iraq the main enemy? And haven't our jihadi enemies claimed that establishing a caliphate there just the first step on an assault on us?

Second, Brzezinski says that adding more troops is a "political gimmick of limited tactical significance and of no strategic benefit."

Does he not recognize that we are in effect in a new phase of the war? Does he not recognize that the troops are really a small part of an overall plan to win this new phase? He is stuck in 2005 or 2004 and just doesn't even recognize the reality of what he is commenting on.

Third, he thinks the benchmarks for the Iraqi "sovereign" government (his scare quotes, not mine) are meant to fail so we have an excuse to run or to hit Iran with the blessings of the Neo-Cons (his choice of word).

Iraq is sovereign. Why Brzezinski doubts this, I do not know. And as a matter of policy I won't comment on any argument that tosses around the term "Neo-Con." It is a sure sign that the user hasn't a clue and just wants an easy applause line. The fact that he isn't sure whether the plan set forth by the President is a devious way to expand the war or a devious way to get out of the war should indicate the bankruptcy of his observation.

Fourth, he laments the lack of dialogue with enemies inside Iraq or outside. Says Brzezinski, "The U.S. refusal to explore the possibility of talks with Iran and Syria is a policy of self-ostracism that fits well into the administration's diplomatic style of relying on sloganeering as a substitute for strategizing."

Anyone who drones on about "dialogue" with killers and their enablers as a solution is surely guilty of substituting sloganeering for strategizing. Since he seems unaware of our strategy to begin with, he is woefully unprepared to lecture our President on this score.

Finally, says Brzezinski, "The speech reflects a profound misunderstanding of our era. America is acting like a colonial power in Iraq. But the age of colonialism is over. Waging a colonial war in the post-colonial age is self-defeating. That is the fatal flaw of Bush's policy."

Clearly I overestimated his grasp of reality by saying he was in 2004 or 2005 in his thinking. If the Iraqi government ever asks us to leave, we will. Brzezinski's thinking is not a couple years out of date, but a century or two. The age of colonialism is over but not, apparently, the age of complaining about non-existent colonialism.

I guess I will simply thank the stars that he didn't have a sixth observation. The mind reels at the depths to which he could have sunk.

Once Brzezinski was a giant among dwarves. What happened to him in the last thirty years?