Paul Krugman: Scary Movie 2

Paul Krugman wonders if the administration is about to commit yet another catastrophic mistake:

Scary Movie 2, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: Attacking Iran would be a catastrophic mistake, even if all the allegations now being made about Iranian actions in Iraq are true.

But it wouldn’t be the first catastrophic mistake this administration has made, and there are indications that ... a powerful faction in the administration is spoiling for a fight. ...

[L]et’s talk about the basics. Are there people in Iran providing aid to factions in Iraq...? Yes, probably. But you can say the same about Saudi Arabia, which is believed to be a major source of financial support for Sunni insurgents — and Sunnis, not Iranian-backed Shiites, are still responsible for most American combat deaths.

The Bush administration, ... with its close personal and financial ties to the Saudis, has always downplayed Saudi connections to America’s enemies. Iran, on the other hand, which had no connection to 9/11, and was actually quite helpful ... after the terrorist attack, somehow found itself linked with its bitter enemy Saddam Hussein as part of the “axis of evil.”

So the administration has always had it in for the Iranian regime. Now, let’s do an O. J. Simpson: if you were determined to start a war with Iran, how would you do it?

First, you’d set up a special intelligence unit to cook up rationales for war. A good model would be the Pentagon’s now-infamous Office of Special Plans, led by Abram Shulsky, that helped sell the Iraq war with false claims about links to Al Qaeda.

Sure enough, last year Donald Rumsfeld set up a new “Iranian directorate”.... And ... McClatchy Newspapers ... reported that “current and former officials said the Pentagon’s Iranian directorate has been headed by Abram Shulsky.”

Next, you’d ... repeat ... the highly successful strategy by which scare stories ... were disseminated to the public.

This time, however, the assertions wouldn’t be about W.M.D.; they’d be that Iranian actions are endangering U.S. forces in Iraq. Why? ... Congress [won't] approve another war resolution. But if you can claim that Iran is doing evil in Iraq, you can assert that ... Congress has already empowered the administration to do whatever is necessary to stabilize Iraq. And by the time the lawyers are finished arguing — well, the war would be in full swing.

Finally, you’d build up forces in the area ... to prepare for the strike and, if necessary, to provoke a casus belli. ...[S]ending several aircraft carrier groups into the narrow waters of the Persian Gulf, where a Gulf of Tonkin-type incident could all too easily happen, might be just the thing.

O.K., I hope I’m worrying too much. Those carrier groups could be ... just as a warning.

But you have to wonder about the other stuff. Why would the Pentagon put someone who got everything wrong on Iraq in charge of intelligence on Iran? Why wasn’t any official willing to take personal responsibility for the reliability of alleged evidence of Iranian mischief, as opposed to being an anonymous source? If the evidence is solid enough to bear close scrutiny, why were all cameras and recording devices, including cellphones, banned from yesterday’s Baghdad briefing?

It’s still hard to believe that they’re really planning to attack Iran, when it’s so obvious that another war would be a recipe for even bigger disaster. But remember who’s calling the shots: Dick Cheney thinks we’ve had “enormous successes” in Iraq.

_________________________
Previous (2/9) column: Paul Krugman: Edwards Gets It Right
Next (2/16) column: Paul Krugman: The Health Care Racket

Comments

[ken melvin]

They, congress, gave Bush permission because they thought he was going to bluff Saddam down. He had no interest in anything but invading. Why think this a bluff?

[Jim Harrison]

Fast forwarding a few months, it's easy to imagine a situation where Bush attacks Iran with the predictably dire consequences, Congress dithers, and we wind up in something rather more serious than a constitutional crisis as resistance to the rogue regime in the Whitehouse begins to move into the streets.

says...

When you have a crazy President who cares not a fig about public opinion you are in trouble. DEEP trouble.

says...

Bush is answerable only to his God, who of course is a projection of himself. Rather like Hitler, no?

says...

Interesting how quickly the group of wise men whose recommendations were supposed to solve our problems in Iraq have been sent packing and their suggestions dumped into the waste basket. I wonder what papa George thinks of sonny now. Perhaps what he thought when sonny was drinking and drugging---hopelessly out of control? No wonder papa breaks down in public and cries. LOL.

[kharris]

By the way, Iran is running naval games in the Gulf early this week. It would not be a surprise to see headlines about near misses and mini-confrontations, given the close proximity of US and Iranian naval forces.

[elvis]

But remember who’s calling the shots: Dick Cheney thinks we’ve had “enormous successes” in Iraq.
Cheney is obviously using an unusual measure of success-perhaps the number of billion$ Haliburton is making.

calling the shots-- Was this a subtle joke?

I wonder if the military would go along with an attack on Iran. How do most brass think about Iraq? At some point, you would think a general would tell his secretary, "If the President calls, tell him I'm out!" and just forget to call back.

[maria]

Testimony at the Libby trial has revealed that Cheney was running a second presidential office that made decisions of vast importance on its own without consulting the Bush presidency. Ari Fleischer was blindsided on various occasions by this and had no idea who was really in charge. I think that when Bush was put up for the office in 2000 Cheney was included to be his handler, insiders knowing Bush was a lightweight. From that Cheney has grown to be the administration's "eminence grise", the power behind the throne occupied by the brain impaired Shrubby.

[maria]

The distinguished historian of modern warfare, Gabriel Kolko, has some perinent comments on the Middle East:

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/kolko.php?articleid=10505

[ECONOMISTA NON GRATA]

Where are the flags...?

I think that it's a given. Bush is definitely going to take some sort of hostile action against Iran. I'm not so sure what form it will take, but it will happen. I just wonder if I should buy some stock in flag manufaturing companies. Will we see flags flying on every car on our highways and hanging on every house in the neighborhood or, has the Bush Administration made the work "patriot", a dirty word? I am overcome with disgust.

It's going to happen, don't you worry about it. The potential consequences of this are frightening.

The World is already viewing us as a rogue and dangerous state and I'm certain that escalating our hostilities into Iran will over a period of time result in a national catastrophy not unlike that which Germany suffered in the 1940s because of it's aggression.

These guys are NUTS...! They are very dangerous to you, your families and to everything that America has ever stood for.

Best regards,

Econolicious

[calmo]

O Econo and your "Best regards" It's going to happen, don't you worry about it. It's not going to happen, you can relax.
But can you, feeble willed, emotionally insecure, putty in my hands, fellow commenters? Are you ready to chuck your worry threshold and fall in behind the beyond-worry Econo who has obviously had it with this passive response to dangerous living.

[realpc]

We are not going to attack Iran. The American public is barely tolerating the war in Iraq, and we are the real deciders.

[maria]

"...we are the real deciders." That's a joke, isn't it? It sure reads like a joke to me.

[realpc]

It is not a joke. The American public decided to give up on Vietnam.

[howard]

realpc, in 1968, richard nixon ran on a "secret plan" to end the war in vietnam, while hubert humphrey, finally, distanced himself from johnson and ran on a negotiated settlement to the war. only the wallace/lemay ticket ran on the 1968 equivalent to a "surge."

and sure 'nuff, a mere 6 years later, the war ended....

[William Smith]

I think ascribing an active component to Bush's Iran strategy is a mistake. Bush will ramp up hostilities, engage Iran in bluffs and brinksmanship, but won't attack unless attacked first, which is what Bush really wants. Then he'll use his Iraq authority to extend into Iran.
What happens next will be a bad deal for the entire region, particularly in view of the increasing hegemony of Russia with its old SSRs. I can easily see Russia reaching out to Iran to increase the oil hegemony and then that hegemony becoming anti-American on all fronts.

[Boomer]

Bush won't invade Iran, he will just bomb their nuke plants, if he can find them. Hopefully he won't use tactical nukes. If he does, all the world will be saying that we let the nuclear genie out of the bottle. Bush can justify bombing Iran because Clinton bombed Libya and nobody complained, except the Republicans.

[ilsm]

Calmo,

I am relaxed. It is all Karma anyway.

The brass will do what they are told. A duty thing, I would go to Iraq today if I were still in.

Iran is a fools errand, but we are governed by the decidimators.

Their having nuclear weapons is a tempest in a teapot.

I recall Tonkin being quite a big event although no one really knows what they shot at.

A Tonkin type event would be a crisis which could precipitate response whether it made sense or not.

These guys are the ones who spend huge sums on missile defense, one supposed reason is so no US president should have to nuke a foreign city because of an accidental launch.

That level of insanity, the idea of a nuclear eye for a nuclear eye is fundamentalist insanity.

But we have spent trillions on such logic.

These cowboys are not much for reason.

[ken melvin]

Did Dr. Seuss write Bush?

[Noni Mausa]

ken melvin: "Did Dr. Seuss write Bush?"

I recommend Dr Seuss's only movie, "The 5000 Fingers of Dr. T".

Not because of the parallels (although 5000 Fingers does have a crazed megalomaniac) but because it's a great movie. Weird, too. The orchestral dungeon dance scene is particularly impressive.

More to the point, does anyone here know how one might request a psychiatric evaluation of "this Pres"? Or even a random drug test?

Noni

[dissent]

I think the Administration will attach Iran in spite of their declining support among American voters. The reason is that they are true believers. Bush believes God wants him to do remake the Middle East. Declining support actually makes an attack relatively soon more likely because they will sieze the opportunity before it vanishes entirely. It will probably be an air attack but it may well involve tactical nukes, which could have catastrophic casualties. I can't imagine what the world will think of us then!

The attack will in my opinion further destabilize the Middle East until a regional war breaks out. I think oil will soar and our economy will be rocked into recession. Our leaders do not care, about us or about the citizens of the countries they attack.

I think it is in large part the fundamentalist Christians who have brought us to this point. They are the true blue supporters of this Administration. There has also been a deafening silence from the fundie community on the catastrophe of this war and their own bad political judgement. Indeed many in that world want the Middle East to dissolve into chaos and brutality because they think that signals the End of Times.

[dissent]

attack, not attach, duh!

[maria]

Well the US public has given up on Iraq, but that hasn't brought the war there to an end at all. The Neocons who keep pushing Bush (as if he needs pushing) to "stay the course" are far more fanatical than any group that pushed the Vietnam war.

[maria]

Not to mention Israel pushing the US into war with Iran:

http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/
CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3364342,00.html

[maria]

More on Israel pushing the US into war with Iran:

http://www.alternet.org/story/47921

And when Israel pushes, Washington tends to go where it is pushed, sadly enough. In fact, the strongest argument that we will go to war with Iran is that Israel wants us to do so.

[Movie Guy]

Paul wrote an interesting column.

But this is over the top: "[S]ending several aircraft carrier groups into the narrow waters of the Persian Gulf, where a Gulf of Tonkin-type incident could all too easily happen, might be just the thing."

Several? Does he know the composition of a Carrier Strike Group? And he thinks that the U.S. would send "several" up to or past the narrow passage in the Persian Gulf? Come on, now.

How many CSGs does he think are now in the Middle East region? And what does he think the deployment time is for pushing another one forward? And from where?

"[S]ending several aircraft carrier groups into the narrow waters of the Persian Gulf..." was a humorous line. Nice try, though.

I give him a "B" for logic. And an "A" for creativity.

[anne]

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/02/12/opinion/12krugman.html

There's precedent for the idea of provocation: in a January 2003 meeting with Prime Minster Tony Blair, The New York Times reported last year, President Bush "talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire."

In the end, Mr. Bush decided that he didn't need a confrontation to start that particular war. But war with Iran is a harder sell, so sending several aircraft carrier groups into the narrow waters of the Persian Gulf, where a Gulf of Tonkin-type incident could all too easily happen, might be just the thing.

[Precisely what has taken place, and precisely what we should be worried about.]

[Movie Guy]

[Precisely what has taken place, and precisely what we should be worried about.]

Are you saying that you know where the Navy's CSGs are presently located?

I doubt if you know that. And I know that you don't the corrrect answer if you think that "several" CSGs are in the Persian Gulf right now.

I would like to see someone speak up and say how many they "know" are in the Persian Gulf vs. Med Sea vs. wherever else.

[anne]

"But war with Iran is a harder sell, so sending several aircraft carrier groups into the narrow waters of the Persian Gulf, where a Gulf of Tonkin-type incident could all too easily happen, might be just the thing."

Flippity floppity; and there we know what we know, as Shakespeare wrote somewhere about light on light being light or at least not dark.

[ilsm]

MG,

No serious Naval planner would put a CBG west of Dubai without a wing of Marine F-18E's and wing AF F-15C's to provide CAP.

Land based air power, even degraded, is too robust!

Did not James Webb before he changed sides write about sorties of a number of CBG's through the Iceland passage should the Red Army start something in Europe?

Sold all those CBG's we now float around the world.

But, there may be no serious planners left in the building.

[Movie Guy]

ilsm,

Well said.

Krugman doesn't understand the Naval tactics involved. It was pretty funny, actually.

I tracked three CSGs (they're no longer called CBGs according to Navy, by the way) last night. But I won't share that here.

[anne]

"But war with Iran is a harder sell, so sending several aircraft carrier groups into the narrow waters of the Persian Gulf, where a Gulf of Tonkin-type incident could all too easily happen, might be just the thing."

Imagine being able to, say, read with care. Tra la.

[maria]

Yeah MG it is utterly unbelievable that Bush would create an "incident" in the Gulf, isn't it? I mean after his complete and exemplary honesty re Iraq and all, it is out of the question that he would go so far as to manufacture a new war, isn't it? Anybody who thinks this administration is devious and warmongering, like Krugman, is just bonkers. Or overcome with "creativity."

Do you ever stop attacking people who expose the duplicity and deviousness of this administration? If Tony Snow gives up, you should promptly apply for his job. You spin things beautifully to argue that the administration is above suspicion.

[maria]

If sensible Americans don't much believe anything the military or this administration says, the reason without any doubt lies completely with the administration and its record of lying and lying again. Once you trash your credibility it is ingenuous to think that people are going to pretend that things you say can be believed. Admiral Fallon needs to think about why people don't believe him and his cohorts in the administration.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,,-6415126,00.html

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/14/opinion/l14iraq.html

Doubts About Iran Because of Iraq

To the Editor:

"Doubts Greet U.S. Evidence on Iran Action":

You report that Philip D. Zelikow, who until December was the top aide to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, said American politics and the increased unpopularity of the war in Iraq are obscuring the larger issue of the Iran evidence. "People have lost their moorings," Mr. Zelikow said.

You report, "He said the administration was trying to overcome public distrust by asking, in essence, 'Don't you trust our soldiers?' "

We have not lost our moorings. The administration lost its moorings some years ago. The answer to Mr. Zelikow's question is that we trust those soldiers who are neutral and objective, and many are. But the Bush administration has for years bullied and cherry-picked the officers and intelligence personnel who will toe its neocon party line.

At this point, how can we the American people trust anything that comes out to us?

John Carlton-Foss
Weston, Mass., Feb. 13, 2007

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/14/opinion/l14iraq.html

Doubts About Iran Because of Iraq

To the Editor:

The people have not "lost their moorings." After the Iraq fiasco, this dishonest administration has lost all credibility. When do we begin to hear about "smoking guns" and "mushroom clouds" in Iran?

John H. Klemke
Glenview, Ill., Feb. 13, 2007

[Emma]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/14/opinion/l14gates.html

One War Is Enough

To the Editor:

"Softly, Gates Counters Putin's Words on U.S. Power": Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates's response to criticism of United States imperialist actions by President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia ("One cold war was quite enough") was profound. Most Americans believe that one Vietnam war was enough as well!

Bill Merrill
New York, Feb. 12, 2007

[maria]

The Democrats need to force Bush to end this war before the end of his term. Force him to admit defeat and take the consequences. If they do not, they will be the ones who were "defeated" in Iraq and bear the stigma. They need to do whatever it takes to force Bush to bring HIS war to an end before the end of 2008. If they don't understand this, they are too dumb to win in 2008.

[anne]

Curious, that was me before and not the person to whom I had been writing. This library computer system is not keeping names well or possibly just Typepad.

[anne]

Maria:

"The Democrats need to force Bush to end this war before the end of his term. Force him to admit defeat and take the consequences. If they do not, they will be the ones who were 'defeated' in Iraq and bear the stigma."

Interesting and important political observation that I had not understood till now. Another reason to pressure Hillary Clinton to join Barack Obama and John Edwards on leaving Iraq. Thank you.

[anne]

Not to worry though, the new new new, not old, but new Iraq security plan is begun with a heartening picture of a soldier kicking down the door of a home that fortunately is not mine but unfortunately is, well, someone's. The new security plan is better than the old insecurity plan, even if it evidently means insecurity. Out with the old, in with the new.

[anne]

Are you feeling more secure already? I am.

[Movie Guy]

maria | Feb 14, 2007 3:52:05 AM - "Yeah MG it is utterly unbelievable that Bush would create an "incident" in the Gulf, isn't it? I mean after his complete and exemplary honesty re Iraq and all, it is out of the question that he would go so far as to manufacture a new war, isn't it? Anybody who thinks this administration is devious and warmongering, like Krugman, is just bonkers. Or overcome with "creativity."

"Do you ever stop attacking people who expose the duplicity and deviousness of this administration? If Tony Snow gives up, you should promptly apply for his job. You spin things beautifully to argue that the administration is above suspicion."

There you go again, telling another lie. Seems to be a problem with you.

You apparently have no idea what I was discussing or discussing with ilsm.

I gave Paul Krugman due credit for raising the issue of engaging Iran - as I stated, I gave him a "B" for logic. The "A" for creativity was the overreach comment.

I didn't agree with his military thinking that CENTCOM would send "several aircraft carrier groups into the narrow waters of the Persian Gulf, where a Gulf of Tonkin-type incident could all too easily happen, might be just the thing." That's not necessary in order to create an incident with Iran in light of its dispute over territorial waters in the Persian Gulf. To draw Iran into a fight, CENTCOM could do it with one ship. No point in exposing an aircraft carrier or an entire Carrier Strike Group, let alone several such CSGs.

The Borg Left can think that all day, but it's a amateur's pipe dream. It's not going to happen. Moreover, it demonstrates a general ignorance of Iran's plans for the Strait of Hormuz and the crude oil tanker traffic working their way through the channel in the Persian Gulf. Letting "several" carrier groups get trapped in the Persian Gulf isn't part of CENTCOM's approach. It may be the approach of Krugman, yourself, and others perhaps, but not those in the professional U.S. Navy. You know, the same ones you hate and distrust.

Have you not read this: Iran Readies Plan to Close Strait of Hormuz, March 1, 2006

It might help if you looked at few maps of the Persian Gulf, particularly detailed maps of the Strait of Hormuz.

As for your Tony Snow remark, the Bush Administration would only select a Republican for that position. And I'm not a Republican.

It appears to me from your writing that you are wishing for a U.S. military defeat in Iraq and the Persian Gulf. You are welcome to deny it, but that is how you sound (or read).

[Movie Guy]

maria - "Admiral Fallon needs to think about why people don't believe him and his cohorts in the administration."

Why is you didn't hate Admiral Fallon last year? Or did you?

Are their any U.S. Armed Forces military officers that you like or are neutral? Or do you just hate them all?

[Movie Guy]

That should read, "Are there any..."

[Movie Guy]

maria | Feb 14, 2007 8:20:37 AM - "The Democrats need to force Bush to end this war before the end of his term. Force him to admit defeat and take the consequences. If they do not, they will be the ones who were "defeated" in Iraq and bear the stigma. They need to do whatever it takes to force Bush to bring HIS war to an end before the end of 2008. If they don't understand this, they are too dumb to win in 2008."

How would the Democrats serving in the U.S. Congress end the war? Cut off funding? The Bush Administration probably can move enough funding around to carry the OIF and OEF operations through the next 22 months if the Republicans in the Congress do not stop such Congressional action(s). Absent that effort, how would the Congressional Democrats "force Bush to end this war before the end of his term"?

Didn't the Congressional Democrats, with few exceptions, support the nominations of the new military leaders responsible for improving the situation in Iraq? You know, the new general and admiral. If they didn't want them confirmed, why did they support their nominations with their votes? And do they intend to support their leadership in dealing with Iraq or only undercut their leadership initiatives? Which will it be?

What will you say in September or earlier if the ongoing operations in Iraq prove to be fairly successful? What if those efforts provide the very exit from Iraq that many would like to see occur? What then? (gasp)

I find it interesting that few have focused much attention on the possibility that the operation might offer success. Personally, I don't out much hope for substantial success, but I do wish them every opportunity for success. No question.

What happened to your followup on this statement: maria | Feb 9, 2007 11:31:20 PM - "Council on Foreign Relations and Anne on the same wave length".

I thought you liked the CFR plan as you provided the news article in support of it. Here's the CFR plan you referenced:

Council Scholar Recommends Policy Shift to Containing Conflict, CFR

Interview - Diminishing Returns in Iraq, CFR

Full Report - After the Surge
The Case for U.S. Military Disengagement from Iraq
CFR, Simon, Feb 07

What happened, maria? Have you cut and run on that plan? So soon?

Speaking of what happened, why did the far left Democrats stop calling for increased troop levels in Iraq? Wasn't that their prior position? Seems like I read that on the liberal blogs and in the general news media. Even some of the Borg Left blogs covered and endorsed such a move - increase the troop strength. Heck, they went all out and DEMANDED IT. All of that seemed to vanish after November 2006. Such a strong position followed by the flip flop. Odd, that.

maria, sorry that you appear to have broken off your relationship with the Council on Foreign Relations. I was hoping for big things between you and Steven Simon. After all, it's Valentine's Day.

Peace be with you. That and a beautiful rose.

[anne]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/09/AR2007020901917_pf.html

February 11, 2007

Victory Is Not an Option: The Mission Can't Be Accomplished -- It's Time for a New Strategy
By William E. Odom - Washington Post

The new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq starkly delineates the gulf that separates President Bush's illusions from the realities of the war. Victory, as the president sees it, requires a stable liberal democracy in Iraq that is pro-American. The NIE describes a war that has no chance of producing that result. In this critical respect, the NIE, the consensus judgment of all the U.S. intelligence agencies, is a declaration of defeat.

Its gloomy implications -- hedged, as intelligence agencies prefer, in rubbery language that cannot soften its impact -- put the intelligence community and the American public on the same page. The public awakened to the reality of failure in Iraq last year and turned the Republicans out of control of Congress to wake it up. But a majority of its members are still asleep, or only half-awake to their new writ to end the war soon.

Perhaps this is not surprising. Americans do not warm to defeat or failure, and our politicians are famously reluctant to admit their own responsibility for anything resembling those un-American outcomes. So they beat around the bush, wringing hands and debating "nonbinding resolutions" that oppose the president's plan to increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq.

For the moment, the collision of the public's clarity of mind, the president's relentless pursuit of defeat and Congress's anxiety has paralyzed us. We may be doomed to two more years of chasing the mirage of democracy in Iraq and possibly widening the war to Iran. But this is not inevitable. A Congress, or a president, prepared to quit the game of "who gets the blame" could begin to alter American strategy in ways that will vastly improve the prospects of a more stable Middle East.

No task is more important to the well-being of the United States. We face great peril in that troubled region, and improving our prospects will be difficult. First of all, it will require, from Congress at least, public acknowledgment that the president's policy is based on illusions, not realities. There never has been any right way to invade and transform Iraq. Most Americans need no further convincing....

[ilsm]

Anne,
Who is Odom?

[anne]

William Odom is a retired Army Lieutenant General who teaches at Yale, and was a leader in the intelligence community from Ronald Reagan on. I have however no sense of military or intelligence leadership structure.

[anne]

General Odom was head of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan, though I am not sure what that means. While Odom has thought we have "lost" in Iraq for at least a year, I agree. Even if we "won" tomorrow, we would have already lost. From a purely strategic view, from my minimal strategic understanding, I agree, we have already lost no matter any prospect or imagining of winning. The problem is speaking in terms of winning and losing masks for me the needless tragedy of occupying Iraq, so I never speak in those terms.

[anne]

There is a surreal quality to the occupation, as to find a soldier kicking down the door of a house, with children watching, to save, well to save whom or what? We do not seem to understand that after 4 years of occupation we are continually bombing in urban areas in a country with which we are not at war. Children with no one able to care beg along the streets, according to the United Nations, but who else notices. Syria has closed the border for how many refugees can Syria afford? We need to leave; we need to leave.

William Odom wrote a year ago, "Cut and run? You bet."

[Movie Guy]

anne - "William Odom is a retired Army Lieutenant General who teaches at Yale, and was a leader in the intelligence community from Ronald Reagan on." ..."General Odom was head of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan..."

There is much more to the William Odom story.

Who lit the al Qaeda match?

Zbigniew Brzezinski and William Odom, The White House Boys, Carter Administration, 1977-1981

Who helped put the Taliban and al Qaeda in power? Who also helped set off the revolution in Iran? Zbigniew Brzezinski and his military assistant, William E. Odom.

Zbigniew Brzezinski was in charge of the Office of the National Security Adviser throughout the Carter Administration. Brzezinski's title was 'Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs' (APNSA). William Odom served as Brzezinski's 'Military Assistant to the APNSA and Crisis Coordinator'. Odom worked for President Carter from 1977-1981. He entered the White House a colonel and was promoted to general in May 1980 while still working for Brzezinski and the White House.

Odom is the other half of the Brzezinski Taliban and al Qaeda creation team.

Here's Brzezinski's interview in France after Robert Gates, now serving as the United States SecDEF, blow the cover off of the Brzezinski and Carter Afghanistan operation:

The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski,
President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser
Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998
Link here

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

Brzezinski: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

Translated from the French by Bill Blum

[Movie Guy]

More info on William Odom in the Carter Administration:

Registration Statement
White House Office of the National Security Adviser, 1977-81
Accession No.: 80-1

Date Opened: 9/28/98 - GENERAL ODOM FILE. 1977-81. 61 containers.

"Correspondence, reports, notes, and briefing books. General Odom was Military Assistant to the National Security Adviser and Crisis Coordinator throughout the administration. (He later served as Director of the National Security Agency during the Reagan administration.) This Subject File is arranged alphabetically by subject and chronologically thereunder."

Carter Administration: 1977-81

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs

William E. Odom, Military Assistant to the APNSA and Crisis Coordinator

----

NOVEMBER 28, 1977
THE DAILY DIARY OF PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

NOVEMBER 28, 1977
Excerpt:

3:52 - 5:14: The President met with: Vice President Mondale, Secretary Brown, Gen. Brown, Deputy Secretary Duncan, Mr. Brzezinski, Col. William E. Odom, Military Assistant to Mr. Brzezinski, Col. Lawton W. Magee, Chief, Strategic Operations, Office of the JCS

5:14 - 5:30:

The President met with: Charles H. Kirbo, partner with King and Spalding law firm, Atlanta, Georgia, Mr. Jordan

----

THE DAILY DIARY OF PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

May 30, 1980

Excerpt:

1:46 - 1:47: The President talked with his son, Jack Carter.

2:52: The President went to the Roosevelt Room.

2:52 - 2:54: - The President attended a promotion party in honor of Brig. Gen. William Odom, Military Assistant to the President's Assistant for National Security Affairs. [Mr. Brzezinski]

2:54: The President returned to the Oval Office.

2:55: The President returned to the second floor Residence.

3:13: The President and Jack Carter went to the tennis courts. The President and Jack Carter played tennis.

[anne]

http://shakespeare.mit.edu/History/kinghenryv/kinghenryv.3.1.html

1599

The Life of King Henry the Fifth
By William Shakespeare

Act III. Scene I.

France. Before Harfleur.

Alarum. Enter KING HENRY, EXETER, BEDFORD, GLOUCESTER, and Soldiers, with scaling-ladders

KING HENRY V

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
Or close the wall up with our English dead.
In peace there's nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility:
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage;
Then lend the eye a terrible aspect;
Let pry through the portage of the head
Like the brass cannon; let the brow o'erwhelm it
As fearfully as doth a galled rock
O'erhang and jutty his confounded base,
Swill'd with the wild and wasteful ocean.
Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide,
Hold hard the breath and bend up every spirit
To his full height. On, on, you noblest English.
Whose blood is fet from fathers of war-proof!
Fathers that, like so many Alexanders,
Have in these parts from morn till even fought
And sheathed their swords for lack of argument:
Dishonour not your mothers; now attest
That those whom you call'd fathers did beget you.
Be copy now to men of grosser blood,
And teach them how to war. And you, good yeoman,
Whose limbs were made in England, show us here
The mettle of your pasture; let us swear
That you are worth your breeding; which I doubt not;
For there is none of you so mean and base,
That hath not noble lustre in your eyes.
I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,
Straining upon the start. The game's afoot:
Follow your spirit, and upon this charge
Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!'

Exeunt. Alarum, and chambers go off

[anne]

Flippity floppity, we must war on and on, always and forever, floppity flippity. We must leave iraq immediately. We must end the insane immoral tragic occupation of Iraq, immediately.

[Movie Guy]

anne - "William Odom is a retired Army Lieutenant General who teaches at Yale, and was a leader in the intelligence community from Ronald Reagan on." ..."General Odom was head of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan..."

There is more to the Bill Odom's story.

Who lit the al Qaeda match?

Zbigniew Brzezinski and William Odom, The White House Boys, Carter Administration, 1977-1981

Who helped put the Taliban and al Qaeda in power? Who also helped set off the revolution in Iran? Zbigniew Brzezinski and his military assistant, William E. Odom.

Zbigniew Brzezinski was in charge of the Office of the National Security Adviser throughout the Carter Administration. Brzezinski's title was 'Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs' (APNSA). William Odom served as Brzezinski's 'Military Assistant to the APNSA and Crisis Coordinator'. Odom worked for President Carter from 1977-1981. He entered the White House a colonel and was promoted to general in May 1980 while still working for Brzezinski and the White House.

Odom is the other half of the Brzezinski Taliban and al Qaeda creation team. Came on board as a Colonel, departed as a general officer.

Here's Brzezinski's interview in France after Robert Gates, now serving as the United States SecDEF, blow the cover off of the Brzezinski and Carter Afghanistan operation:

The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski,
President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser
Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998
Link here

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

Brzezinski: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

Translated from the French by Bill Blum

-----

More info on William Odom in the Carter Administration:

Registration Statement
White House Office of the National Security Adviser, 1977-81
Accession No.: 80-1

Date Opened: 9/28/98 - GENERAL ODOM FILE. 1977-81. 61 containers.

"Correspondence, reports, notes, and briefing books. General Odom was Military Assistant to the National Security Adviser and Crisis Coordinator throughout the administration. (He later served as Director of the National Security Agency during the Reagan administration.) This Subject File is arranged alphabetically by subject and chronologically thereunder."

Carter Administration: 1977-81

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs

William E. Odom, Military Assistant to the APNSA and Crisis Coordinator

----

THE DAILY DIARY OF PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

NOVEMBER 28, 1977
Excerpt:

3:52 - 5:14: The President met with: Vice President Mondale, Secretary Brown, Gen. Brown, Deputy Secretary Duncan, Mr. Brzezinski, Col. William E. Odom, Military Assistant to Mr. Brzezinski, Col. Lawton W. Magee, Chief, Strategic Operations, Office of the JCS

5:14 - 5:30:

The President met with: Charles H. Kirbo, partner with King and Spalding law firm, Atlanta, Georgia, Mr. Jordan

----

THE DAILY DIARY OF PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

May 30, 1980

Excerpt:

1:46 - 1:47: The President talked with his son, Jack Carter.

2:52: The President went to the Roosevelt Room.

2:52 - 2:54: - The President attended a promotion party in honor of Brig. Gen. William Odom, Military Assistant to the President's Assistant for National Security Affairs. [Mr. Brzezinski]

2:54: The President returned to the Oval Office.

2:55: The President returned to the second floor Residence.

3:13: The President and Jack Carter went to the tennis courts. The President and Jack Carter played tennis.

[anne]

Floppity flippity, trash and bash and bash and trash. Trash and bash away, but Iraq is all death and destruction. We must leave Iraq, immediately. Peace is not war and war is not peace, no matter those who would have it otherwise. We must leave iraq, immediately.

[Movie Guy]

Only dishonest fools would think that it is an insignificant matter that the Carter Administration created and funded the Taliban which, in turn, led to the creation and further funding of al Qaeda resulting in the complete destruction of the Twin Towers in New York City, all the deaths involved there, the loss of lives at the Pentagon, and those poor souls on the Pennsylvania jetliner.

People who conveniently ignore these historical matters are not anchored in reality.

The Carter group continues to get a free pass in the U.S. mainstream news media and on this blog.

There is no honor or sense of decency in letting their intentional creations to slip away quietly in the night as such has occurred for the past 27 years. These acts have never been subjected to the harsh glare of extensive U.S. mainstream news media focus.

Carter - Brzezinski - Odom. The creators and financial supporters of the Taliban and al Qaeda... who hate Americans and other Westerners.

[Movie Guy]

Le Nouvel Observateur,
Paris, 15-21 January 1998:

Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

[anne]

Floppity flippity and flippity floppity, imagine the bashing and slashing and imagine how much I care. We must leave Iraq immediately and all the obfuscation only deepens the insane tragedy. Colonel John Murtha could scarcely finish calling for leaving Iraq, so many months ago, before being called a cut and run coward in the House of Representatives. We must leave Iraq, immediately.

[anne]

Notice the language, notice the intimidation, always the intimidation. I am this and I am that and I am the other. Intimidators can only intimidate and notice how much I care for the lunatic intimidation. How lovely to be a fool who would leave Iraq immediately. Honest enough, for a fool? Tra la.

[Movie Guy]

anne is apologist for the creators of the Taliban and al Qaeda. In fact, I have never heard her condemn either group to the best of my knowledge. Not once. Interesting, that.

Here's the probable anchored-in-reality exit plan for Iraq:

Council Scholar Recommends Policy Shift to Containing Conflict, CFR

Interview - Diminishing Returns in Iraq, CFR

Full Report - After the Surge
The Case for U.S. Military Disengagement from Iraq
CFR, Simon, Feb 07

[anne]

"Anchors Away" Ah, yes, I must learn that tune for the viola to viol away with the anchors. Notice how intimidated I am, for I know that intimidators canot help themselves. War is peace and peace is war, but we must leave the tragic insanity of Iraq immediately. There is an anchor; say what?

[anne]

Notice the desperate lunatic intimidation. I am so intimidated. "Anchors Away" Ah, yes, I must learn that tune for the viola to viol away with the anchors. Notice how intimidated I am, for I know that intimidators cannot help themselves. War is peace and peace is war, but we must leave the tragic insanity of Iraq immediately. There is an anchor; say what?

[Movie Guy]

anne is an apologist for the creators of the Taliban and al Qaeda. Carter-Brzezinski-Odom.

Moreover, she appears to be an apologist for al Qaeda and the Taliban terrorist groups.

In fact, I have never heard her condemn either terrorist group to the best of my knowledge. Not once. Interesting, that.

Here's the probable anchored-in-reality exit plan for Iraq:

Council Scholar Recommends Policy Shift to Containing Conflict, CFR

Interview - Diminishing Returns in Iraq, CFR

Full Report - After the Surge
The Case for U.S. Military Disengagement from Iraq
CFR, Simon, Feb 07

[anne]

Notice the lunatic intimidation. Always intimidation, always insane intimidation, all the time because that is what intimidators do, they intimidate. Notice how intimidated I am by all the intimidation. Tra la, tra lo. We must leave Iraq, immediately. Am I slashed and bashed enough? We must leave Iraq, immediately.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/25/opinion/l25iraq.html

Deeper Into the Maelstrom of Iraq

To the Editor:

"The Empty Chair at the Table," by Bob Herbert:

On May 23, 2004, you published a heart-wrenching letter written by Celeste Zappala, the mother of Sgt. Sherwood Baker, who was killed in Iraq a month earlier.

I cut out the letter and taped it to my computer screen so I could think about the cost of this ill-conceived war. I sent copies to friends and relatives who supported President Bush and the war in the hope that a mother's anguish would help persuade them to reconsider their positions.

Two and half years later, Mr. Herbert writes that Ms. Zappala's grief is unabated and her pain endures.

While the debate over withdrawal continues, more soldiers are dying and more mothers will have to face the unbearable pain of losing a child.

President Bush and his administration led the country into this fiasco and then failed Sergeant Baker and thousands of other troops with their ineptitude and indifference. It is my hope that the Democratic Congress will hold them responsible.

Cindy L. Harden
Brooklyn, Nov. 24, 2006

[Movie Guy]

Notice that anne did not deny what I said about her or the Carter-Brzezinski-Odom Taliban and al Qaeda creator team.

She didn't deny one word. Just spouted out the usual babble.

Taliban anne.

[anne]

Notice the intimidation, and notice the form of the intimidation. Preciely the sort of intimidation used again a war hero Congressman-Marine Colonel who would ask that we leave Iraq. Notice the desperation of the intimidation. Notice how intimidated I am. Tra la. Tra lo. We must leave Iraq, immediately.

[anne]

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/11/23/opinion/23herbert.html

November 23, 2006

The Empty Chair at the Table
By BOB HERBERT

Philadelphia

The old stone house in the close-knit Mount Airy neighborhood that Sherwood Baker grew up in had for many years been the scene of rollicking holiday gatherings.

"We would have big, ridiculous dinners," said his mom, Celeste Zappala. She chuckled. "They weren't formal, believe me. The dishes wouldn't match and we'd never have enough silverware. But it was great fun."

Sherwood, a big man at 6-4 and about 250 pounds, would be there with his wife, Debra, and son, J.D., his two brothers, and sometimes his dad, even though he is divorced from Ms. Zappala. Others would be there, as well. "We'd look for stray people," Ms. Zappala said, "somebody who didn't have someone to be with. We could always fit more people around the table. "

The gatherings are more subdued now. Ms. Zappala can still remember almost every detail of the April evening in 2004 when the man in the dress uniform with the medals on his chest showed up on her porch with the bad news.

"He had a notebook in his hand," she said. "I could see him very clearly even though it was dark and kind of raining. So I came out on the porch and I looked at him. And I knew, but I didn't want to know."

Sgt. Sherwood Baker of the Pennsylvania National Guard had been in Baghdad only six weeks when he was killed. The bitter irony that will always surround his death was the fact that he was helping to provide security for the Iraq Survey Group, which was hunting for the weapons of mass destruction....

[anne]

Notice that to ask for peace in Iraq, to ask for leaving the lunatic tragedy of Iraq after these impossible years, is to call forth intimidation that would not have been guessed at in America after all the generations. Notice the intimidation, always the intimidation, the intimidation which was used with deception to drive us to war in and occupation of Iraq. Imagine.

says...

anne-you're a clown. gameplayer

[anne]

Imagine how intimidated I am by lunatic intimidators who would try to intimidate Colonel John Murtha or General William Odom. Deary me, I am in such wonderful company. Notice though, the intent is always to destroy any and every call for peace. Intimidators have a purpose, and the purpose, beyond intimidation for the sake of intimidation, is always war and occupation. I am so intimidated.

[anne]

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/01/18/opinion/18herbert.html

January 18, 2007

The Lost Voice of Protest
By BOB HERBERT

On the evening of the fourth of April, 1967, one year to the day (almost to the hour) before his assassination, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. walked into Riverside Church in Manhattan and delivered a speech that was among his least well known, yet most controversial.

"I come to this magnificent house of worship tonight," he said, "because my conscience leaves me no other choice."

The speech was an eloquent, full-throated denunciation of the war in Vietnam, one of the earliest public critiques by such a high-profile American. Silence in the face of the horrors of that war, said Dr. King, amounted to a "betrayal."

The speech unleashed a hurricane of criticism. Even the N.A.A.C.P. complained about Dr. King stepping out of his perceived area of expertise, civil rights, to raise his voice against the evil of the war. The Times headlined an editorial, "Dr. King's Error."

The war would go on for another eight years, ultimately taking the lives of 58,000 Americans and a million to two million Vietnamese. Dr. King himself would be silenced, at the age of 39, by a bullet in Memphis.

The widespread celebration of Dr. King's birthday on Monday brought that Vietnam speech to mind. It's both gratifying and important that we honor this great man with a national holiday. But it's disturbing that we pay so much more attention to the celebrations than we do to the absolutely crucial lessons that he spent much of his life trying to teach us....

In the Vietnam speech, Dr. King said, "A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death." He may as well have been speaking into the void. The war in Iraq, a reprise of Vietnam, will cost us well over a trillion dollars before we're done, and probably more than two trillion. More than 3,000 American G.I.'s have been killed and the death toll for Iraqis is tallied by the scores of thousands....

[anne]

What is interesting is that the very same intimidators who deceived and intimidators us to Iraq, were in the New York Times this week "advising" those who are for peace to stand and show real courage. The very intimidators and war-makers know how to direct the peace movement. Interesting analogy; there is deceiving and intimidation, linked. We must leave Iraq, immediately.

Are we to be allowed to remain free to say such a horrid thing?

[ilsm]

Movie Guy,

Carter had more to do with helping Rickover get the nuclear navy up and running than he and Ziggy had with the Taliban.

In fact, I believe it was the CIA under the next adminsitration who armed the Mujahadeen with the best stingers available, many still rolling around somewhere.

Was it not a current Fox news person who helped send stuff to the Iranians while holding tenure in the Reagan NSA?

And how long did we look the other way in the Reagan years while Saddaam gassed Kurds and Shiites?

Whose CIA implanted the Pahlavi clan in Iran? And no kill Khomeini?

What is Odom now a Walter Cronkite for write a bit in an opinion section?

[maria]

Tony Snow tonight, trying to explain away why in 2002 the warmongers predicted that by 2007 only 5000 US troops would be needed in Iraq, said he didn't think "anything necessarily had gone wrong." Hey, MG, can't you come up with a defense of Tony? He tends to view things your way, does he not? LOL.

[Movie Guy]

Taliban, al Qaeda, Iran, and The Carter Doctrine: Odom, Brzezinski, and Carter, 1979

Everyone has a right to know about the background of William Odom as well as Brzezinski and President Carter. The same applies to President Carter's State of the Union speech in January 1980 and the creation of the Carter Doctrine in January 1981, only days before the Carter Administration left office.

I have addressed the issue of Bill Odom's background because he is seldom identified as the Deputy National Security Advisor for President Carter, serving 1977-1981. He pinned on his first general officer stars while in the White House. I mention all of this because of what occurred in 1979, 1980, and 1981. Odom was involved. And readers have an expectation to know that if his op-eds are cited on this blog or elsewhere. That doesn't take away from what he is saying, but it does clear up his prior background with the creation of the Taliban and, subsequently, al Qaeda, as well as the revolution in Iran.

I agree with some of Bill Odom's views on U.S. foreign policy, but I will not mask nor forget Odom's role as the four year (1977-1981) Deputy National Security Advisor in the Clinton Administration, working under Brzezinski.

Odom supports Brzezinski's "Grand Chessboard" foreign affairs strategy. This is the same strategy employed by Brzezinski, Odom, and President Carter to secretly launch the July 1979 Taliban campaign to draw the USSR into a war with Afghanistan rebels; the same secret campaign that they denied publicly though the USSR raised a furor at the time. The Afghanistan war, orchestrated by the Carter Administration's national security team of Brzezinski & Company (William Odom, Madeleine Albright and a few others) resulted in the deaths of 1,800,000 people, exceeding the death toll of the subsequent Iraq-Iran war by 80%. Moreover, 5 million Afghans fled to refugee camps in Pakistan, Iran and other countries. Though the USSR withdrew in 1989, some ten years later, the Afghan revolution continued until 2000. In the process, the U.S. sponsored Taliban gained control of 95% of Afghanistan. This was caused by the Carter Administration, and Bill Odom and Brzezinski were sitting at the center of the covert effort that caused all those deaths and refugees.

Absent from communications that I and others have reviewed (and we are still researching this issue), including friends who are scholars in D.C. is any condemnation by Odom, Brzezinski, and Carter of the Taliban and al Qaeda. Occasionally, they have acknowledged the failure of Iran - referring to the 1979 revolution - but they seldom if ever have taken any blame for their role in that power transfer and the purges that have occurred since 1978 in Iran. The result of their actions was creation of the Carter Doctrine which serves as the general blueprint for U.S. presence in the Middle East. Administrations following the Carter Administration have objected to parts of the doctrine and what led to its creation, but they have followed the framework of the doctrine that now governs U.S. policy in the Middle East.

That Odom, Brzezinski, and Carter are not openly and actively condemning the Taliban, al Qaeda, and other radicals elements including those sponsored directly by Iran is an issue that I and others will not blindly overlook. Similarly, the absence of condemnation of Iran is also a concern. Odom, Brzezinski, and Carter have every right to condemn the Bush Administration if they are so inclined, but their lack of character in not condemning the Taliban, al Qaeda, other radical elements and Iran are major moral and strategic failures in their presentations to date.

I suggest that they are each demonstrating considerable ignorance and arrogance as has been the case previously on matters.

Brzezinski's blunt remarks during a 1998 interview appear to sum up their collective foreign policy positions.
The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski,
President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser
Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998
Link here

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

----

Carter's secret actions against the USSR over Afghanistan in 1979 before the USSR invasion occurred, and his dishonest, though bold, presentation in his State of Union speech on January 23, 1980 led to the creation of the Carter Doctrine, January 15, 1981.

President Jimmy Carter
State of the Union Address 1980
January 23, 1980

The Carter Doctrine, Presidential Directive/NS-63
January 15, 1981

Carter Doctrine Analysis
Dr. Lawrence E. Grinter
Professor of National Security Affairs, Air Command and Staff College, Air University
Air University Review, January-February 1983
Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama

[Movie Guy]

ilsm - Movie Guy,

Carter had more to do with helping Rickover get the nuclear navy up and running than he and Ziggy had with the Taliban.

In fact, I believe it was the CIA under the next adminsitration who armed the Mujahadeen with the best stingers available, many still rolling around somewhere.

You have the facts wrong on this one.

The Afghanistan war was a Carter Administration initiative from the start, and they funded it covertly from July 1979 through January 1981 when they left office.

The subsequent Administrations continued funding the Taliban operation, the Russians pulled out in 1989, and the U.S. funding of the Taliban (and al Qaeda) continued through 2000, just before 9/11 occurred.

[Movie Guy]

ilsm - Movie Guy,

Carter had more to do with helping Rickover get the nuclear navy up and running than he and Ziggy had with the Taliban.

In fact, I believe it was the CIA under the next adminsitration who armed the Mujahadeen with the best stingers available, many still rolling around somewhere.

You have the facts wrong on this one.

The Afghanistan war was a Carter Administration initiative from the start, and they funded it covertly from July 1979 through January 1981 when they left office. The subsequent Administrations continued funded the operation, the Russians pulled out in 1989, and the U.S. funding of the Taliban (and al Qaeda) continued through 2000, just before 9/11 occurred.

[Movie Guy]

ilsm - "What is Odom now a Walter Cronkite for write a bit in an opinion section?"

He testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on 18 January 2007. His subject matter was Iraq military operations.

Retired generals Odom, McCaffrey, and Hoar testified.

[Movie Guy]

maria - "Tony Snow tonight, trying to explain away why in 2002 the warmongers predicted that by 2007 only 5000 US troops would be needed in Iraq, said he didn't think "anything necessarily had gone wrong." Hey, MG, can't you come up with a defense of Tony? He tends to view things your way, does he not? LOL."

I suspect that Tony Snow is aligned with your Council on Foreign Relations source that you cited here: maria | Feb 9, 2007 11:31:20 PM - "Council on Foreign Relations and Anne on the same wave length".

I assume that Tony Snow looks forward to those press briefings after September 2007. I know that I look forward to briefings that support the CFR plan that Steven Simons outlined here:

Council Scholar Recommends Policy Shift to Containing Conflict, CFR

Interview - Diminishing Returns in Iraq, CFR

Full Report - After the Surge
The Case for U.S. Military Disengagement from Iraq
CFR, Simon, Feb 07

[maria]

"I assume that Tony Snow looks forward to those press briefings after September 2007."

Hmmm...you "assume" Tony Snow (who says he doesn't think anything has gone wrong in Iraq) "looks forward" to press briefings.......about what? Tony Snow is a model of denial of reality as is the White House. What makes you think he wants the US out of Iraq? Are you defending him? Do you want the US out of Iraq? When? In several years? Immediately? I would strongly suspect you would like us to be in Iraq when the next President comes into office so that Bush could duck out from responsibility for "losing" HIS WAR. Your position is as usual devious and fuzzy on Iraq. You guys have lost your war, but can't bring yourselves to admit it and be done with it. "Surrender" seems to be anathema to you. Learn to accept it. The US will have to.

[Movie Guy]

maria,

If you had read the CFR withdrawal plan, then you would understand why I said, "I assume that Tony Snow looks forward to those press briefings after September 2007."

It's covered in the plan.

I have already stated that I am in agreement with CFR's Steven Simons Iraq withdrawal plan. Previously, I have explained that I supported shifting to a containment then withdrawal strategy.

Instead of reading my statements and reading the links that I have posted to the CFR Iraq plan, the very one that you referenced on another thread, you continue to engage in ugly poltical banter built fully around a pack of dishonest "beliefs" and outright lies.

You are always fishing for the worst in other individuals, as if to convince yourself of some sick fantasy that is rolling around in your head. I am an American citizen, but I have always maintained that the U.S. should not have invaded Iraq and must find a way out that does not cause a regional expansion of radical violence. I support the CFR plan. You are demonstrating your typical ugliness and dishonesty when you spew junk like this:

"I would strongly suspect you would like us to be in Iraq when the next President comes into office so that Bush could duck out from responsibility for "losing" HIS WAR. Your position is as usual devious and fuzzy on Iraq. You guys have lost your war, but can't bring yourselves to admit it and be done with it. "Surrender" seems to be anathema to you. Learn to accept it. The US will have to."

Your repeated lies are disgusting. You have a black heart, Chicago grad (if you did graduate from there) Plenty of wasted hatred.

I am in agreement with the CFR Iraq withdrawal plan outlined here:

Council Scholar Recommends Policy Shift to Containing Conflict, CFR

Interview - Diminishing Returns in Iraq, CFR

Full Report - After the Surge
The Case for U.S. Military Disengagement from Iraq
CFR, Simon, Feb 07

Stop telling lies. Just read the CFR plan that I endorse. That covers my opinion about the best course of action for Iraq containment and withdrawal.

There is no call for you to tell another lie about my position on the subject of Iraq containment and withdrawal.

[ilsm]

MG,

I do not recall Carter being reelected in 1980.

It was not all Reagan's innovative economics.

[anne]

Remember the reasons we went to war in and occupied Iraq were deception and intimidations, and the very people who brought the grievous tragedy of Iraq on us are the people who are the continued authorities keeping us in Iraq. People who understood from the beginning are alternately ignored and intimidated still. Still deception and intimidation, and still the insanity of Iraq.

[anne]

We need to leave Iraq immediately, as we have needed to leave Iraq from the day the government was deposed though we never needed to invade Iraq at all. We need to leave Iraq, immediately. The tragedy of Iraq is beyond comprehension; leave. Enough with deception and enough with intimidation, leave Iraq.

[Movie Guy]

ilsm,

Not sure what point you're making about President Carter's term of office or events related to such. Carter's last State of the Union address was in January 1981 just before he left office. Same situation as explained regarding the implementation of the Carter Doctrine. Here is the record, including Official and Presidential Library historical documents:

President Carter Inauguration: January 20, 1977

President Carter State of the Union Address 3: January 23, 1980

President Carter Farewell Address: January 14, 1981

The Carter Doctrine, Presidential Directive/NS-63
January 15, 1981

President Carter State of the Union Address 4: January 16, 1981

President Reagan Inaugural Address: January 20, 1981

.

[anne]

Yes; I am completely convinced, absolutely convinced, the war in and occuption of Iraq was begun by Abraham Lincoln. The inauguration address of 1860 shows that clearly and I can post the address for proof. So, we can and should blame the insane tragic forever occupation of Iraq on Abraham Lincoln and since Lincoln is gone there should be no reason not to leave Iraq immediately.

[anne]

So, we can and should know that Abraham Lincoln is the cause of all woes everythere and knowing this we have a reason to leave Iraq immediately blaming Lincoln which is after all a victimless blame though imagine how many victims of Iraq there have already been. Blame Lincoln and leave Iraq immediately.

says...

you're such an ass. read what was posted:

The Afghanistan war, orchestrated by the Carter Administration's national security team of Brzezinski & Company (William Odom, Madeleine Albright and a few others) resulted in the deaths of 1,800,000 people, exceeding the death toll of the subsequent Iraq-Iran war by 80%. Moreover, 5 million Afghans fled to refugee camps in Pakistan, Iran and other countries. Though the USSR withdrew in 1989, some ten years later, the Afghan revolution continued until 2000.

[anne]

Always intimidation all the time, for that is what intimidators do. Nonetheless, I am smart, essentialist smart, and I know that the cause of the war in and Occupation of Iraq was Abraham Lincoln and knowing that, since Lincoln is sadly gone, knowing that we can leave Iraq immediately.

What was it? "Free at last, free at last, than God, Almighty, I'm free at last." Lincoln was one, now leave Iraq immediately and save so many lives and bodies and minds and souls and so much treasure. Lincoln was the one. We are free.

[anne]

Yes; I read every word of mine and I am ever so excited, oh me, oh my, who would have guessed that Abraham Lincoln, whose birthday, we have already given up celebrating, was responsible for occupying Iraq. I never knew, but I know now.

"With malice toward none...."

[anne]

There are times when we are surrounded with such lunatics that all the Monty Python's questing for Grail (what's a Grail?) would fail to capture the lunacy. During the House of Representatives debate on Iraq, a Representative was incensed that Democrats might not spend the proper sums to supply armor to the soldiers going to Iraq. Of course, this could never be so, but American soldiers are being sent to Iraq just now with a lack of armor that will not be supplied till this summer. Good grief.

[maria]

"The Afghanistan war, orchestrated by the Carter Administration's national security team of Brzezinski & Company (William Odom, Madeleine Albright and a few others) resulted in the deaths of 1,800,000 people, exceeding the death toll of the subsequent Iraq-Iran war by 80%."

So, MG, one war justifies another? If X killed his wife and all his children, that would justify you killing just your wife since you are killing fewer people than he did? Other things to be mentioned are that the war was one of liberation by Afghans vs. Russian imperialists. The US was then simply supporting the natives who wanted to drive out the Russian invaders. You think we should not have helped them? You seem as always to think better of the imperialists than those who are victims of the imperialism. That probably is why you tend always to excuse Israel. I presume you would say all the deaths in Vietnam were "orchestrated" by the Russians. Otherwise the Vietnamese would not have liberated their country from the vestiges of French imperialism, which I presume you also supported? Was it was wicked of the Russians to support the Vietnamese in liberating their country? You always manage to let your colonial, imperialist nature shine out; hard to disguise it, isn't it, MG?

[maria]

House passed the non-binding resolution, with 17 Republicans defecting to the opposition. It isn't much in itself, but perhaps it will get the ball rolling to stop the insane direction that Bush and Cheyney are taking, and begin to reverse the disaster of the invasion. The Democrats very much need to force Bush to admit defeat and withdraw before he leaves office, else they will be obliged to clean up his terrible mess. HE is the one who needs to start cleaning up HIS mess. But true to his inner nature, he will try desperately to shove the responsibility onto others.

[anne]

Yes; but I really do not understand even though I pretend I do, so Abraham Lincoln was responsible for attacking and occupying Iraq and Vietnam?

The only possibility of slowing the insanity is John Murtha making sure military appropriations are directed only to completely combat ready forces, which could slow the flow of soldiers to Iraq. I do not understand whether this really is possible though, but I truly admire John Murtha for every effort.

[Dirk van Dijk]

MG, would you prefer that the Berlin wall were sitll up and the USSR were still around? I think that Zbig is fundimentally correct that 11/9/89 outweighs 9/11/01 over the long span of history. That certianly would have been true if we had a rational reaction to 9/11 and only went after those who were responsible. Instead we put only a token effort into doing that and applied all our resources to go after those that had mo connection to it. The policy you decry was a bipartisan one that continued after Carter left office. Of course, you also have to arge that the Carter administration would have h]to have had perfect foresight of events 21 years after they helped arm the Mujahedeen, that they would so fundimentally turn against us. This is not at all to downplay the significace of 9/11. To me that is very personal, 2 close childhood friends never made it out of the North Tower. Bush totally dishonored their memory by using their deaths by using them as a pretext for an unjustified war. For that I can never forgive him.

[Movie Guy]

Dirk van Dijk - "MG, would you prefer that the Berlin wall were sitll up and the USSR were still around? I think that Zbig is fundimentally correct that 11/9/89 outweighs 9/11/01 over the long span of history. That certianly would have been true if we had a rational reaction to 9/11 and only went after those who were responsible. Instead we put only a token effort into doing that and applied all our resources to go after those that had mo connection to it. The policy you decry was a bipartisan one that continued after Carter left office. Of course, you also have to arge that the Carter administration would have h]to have had perfect foresight of events 21 years after they helped arm the Mujahedeen, that they would so fundimentally turn against us. This is not at all to downplay the significace of 9/11. To me that is very personal, 2 close childhood friends never made it out of the North Tower. Bush totally dishonored their memory by using their deaths by using them as a pretext for an unjustified war. For that I can never forgive him."

Dirk,

That is not the issue that I raised. I will address the collapse of the USSR briefly in a moment.

My original point: Carter, Brzezinski, and Odom are not openly condemning their ultimate creations, the Taliban and al Qaeda, nor the revolution that they ended up supporting in Iran then countering mildly and ineffectively. This should be raising eyebrows, but we don't have a mature and professional investigative news media capable of recognizing and researching these matters.

The Carter Administration made three major strategic errors - creating the Taliban (and al Qaeda), not blocking the installation of the exiled supreme cleric as the government ruler in Iran, and feeding the expansion of asymmetrical warfare by nongovernment sources.

I know that they were warned that they were backing the wrong elements to counter the USSR in Afghanistan. Moreover, the Carter Administration techniques to create the Afghanistan uprising were built around the very principles of Islamic Fundamentalism and that is what was pushed by the Carter Administration to create the insurrection. This is the same issue that resulted in the core revolution of Iran. Again, the Carter Administration fueled it and thought that it could be "controlled". Sheer ignorance and arrogance. Again, they were warned. To his credit, Brzezinski was originally opposed to Carter's moves on that front.

The Carter Administration concurrently created similar support conditions and political climates in Central America. Again and again, they were warned. The potential outcomes were obvious and they happened. Carter's surrender of the Panama Canal Zone was one of the dumbest moves in modern day U.S. history, with the Bush Administration invasion of Iraq being the dumbest. The repercussions of Carter's actions are still playing out in Latin American and South America.

The USSR could have been collapsed or rendered ineffective without creating, funding, feeding, and importing the resistance that led to the USSR-Agfhanistan war. They chose the shortcut, and denied that they initiated it. That they chose to back the wrong elements in Afghanistan only adds fuel to scope of their strategic error.

As to whether the presence of the USSR would be a better alternative to the ongoing Islamic Fundamentalism revolution (in its early stages once again during the last two centuries), the unchecked expansion of China's influence in Asia, Latin America, and South America, and other power shifts is a subject worthy of a separate main post and subsequent discussion.

For you to say that the Afghanistan events of 7/79-89 and 77-00-present day/future events in Iran and Afghanistan outweigh the events of 9/11/01 is to presume that we know the outcome of events related to the presence of the Taliban, al Qaeda, and other Middle East of origin radical elements, as well as the revolution in Iran. We don't know those answers. And we won't know them for some time...perhaps three decades.

I contend that the potential outcomes of Islamic Fundamentalism and Middle East of origin terrorism are very dangerous not only for the Middle East, but the European nations, portions of Asia, Oceania, and the Americas. The growing problems with Islamic Fundamentalism and related terrorism beyond the boundaries of the Middle East are evident.

For clarity, know that I agree with you on the Bush Administration response in Afghanistan and the invasion/occupation of Iraq.

[Movie Guy]

maria,

I read your post. More phony claims and bogus conclusions.

Think smarter.