Did anyone see Zbigniew Brzezinski on the Lehrer Newshour last night?

[coalition_unwilling]

Lehrer had him in a one-on-one debate with Walter Russell Mead (of the Council of Foreign Relations).

Brzezinski pretty much demolished the idea that there is going to be any "victory" or "mission accomplished" in Iraq. He even hit hard the idea of the government having much legitimacy, repeating several times that they could only govern from within the confines of the Green Zone, what Brzezinski called "an American fortress."

Brzezinski compared Iraq to Vietnam and to Algeria. Mead vehemently disagreed, but wouldn't make any unequivocally optimistic predictions.

[skypilot]

1. I saw it.

That was the first time I heard anyone address the issue of Iraq in terms of "the white man's burden" and how American has to give up on this paternalistic approach. I don't remember alot of what was said but I do remember being impressed with Brzezinki and also impressed that the other guy wasn't necessarily a "cheerleader" for the war.

[cali]

2. He was great

and Meade was pathetic- particularly with the stupid comparison to the US civil war and aftermath. I was impressed when Brzezinski held up the photo of Baghdad with Green Zone highlighted and spoke about it being an American fortress, and the only place where the Iraqi government was in effect.

[coalition_unwilling]

6. My favorite spot in the piece came when Lehrer asked

Brzezinski whether he could see any signs of progress. Brzezinski replied (holding up said map of Baghdad), "I would need a large magnifying glass to see any sign of progress." I started cackling so loudly my wife had to "shush" me.

[shain from kane]

3. The fight over Algeria has some interesting parallels to the current

situation.

From Amazon.com, review for "The First Helicopter War" ---


>>>"Using recently released French official documents and a variety of other sources, this study explains how the French Army, so recently defeated by the Viet Minh insurgents in Indochina, was able to successfully defeat the Algerian nationalist rebels on the battlefield, while nevertheless losing the war at the conference table. This French success, between 1954 and 1962, was due in large part to the superior logistical system of the French Army and the use of the helicopter to enhance French operational mobility. French counter-mobility measures, particularly the construction of heavily defended interdiction zones on the eastern and western borders of Algeria, proved highly effective against the rebels. Such methods essentially cut off the rebel forces from their bases and from sources of supply located outside Algeria, and consequently strangled and destroyed the rebel forces within Algeria.">>>


By the way, France still lost in the end, and had to abandon its colonial aspirations in Algeria. (And Viet Nam.)

[Jara sang]

4. I saw it. That was great.

[Arkansas Granny]

5. Yes, I saw it and was impressed with Brzezinski's assessments

on the Iraq war. He put forth a well reasoned argument.

Something I've noticed about the News Hour, they generally have two (or more) people on to debate the issues from different stances. You nearly always hear more than one side to any story that they report on and their reporters seem to be very careful not to interject their own opinions into the discussion.

[coalition_unwilling]

7. I have a far more dour assessment of the News Hour. They

generally have two (or more) people, granted. But usually those are all from one side of the spectrum. (The only exception to this I can think of besides last night was a couple years ago when they had Richard Perle and Jodie Evans of Code Pink. Jodie fed Perle a real shit sandwich.)

[Tactical Progressive]

11. NewsHour went chickenshit years ago

when PBS funding was threatened.

They cowed into deferring to mainstream journalism consensus, which itself has gone wholesale to deferring to the Republican's dishonest perspectives on everything. It's a shame, part of the larger, monumental disgrace of American journalism, or what's left of it.

Gwen Ifill is a Repub. Rumsfeld manhandles a terrified Lehrer. Maggie wimped out years ago. Mark Shields gets his credibility by kicking Democrats in the shins to balance any point he makes about Republican malfeasance. And the rest just go along to get along. It's still marginally better than the broadcast 'news' and certainly cable's Fox-chasing, but it's been going downhill ever since Robin McNeil retired. I didn't think it would but it emphatically did. The Brzezinski-Mead segment is the exception rather than the rule. So sad.

[coalition_unwilling]

12. I have to say I agree about NewsHour. However, I have seen some

positive signs on Pentagon Broadcasting Service (although I'm still holding my wallet tightly and only contributing to Pacifica radio):

"Frontline" has done some kickass reporting on Katrina and Iraq

"Now" with David Brancacchio has done some kickass stories on BFEE's shenanigans.

[Tactical Progressive]

8. He was phenomenal

He's always both so knowlegeable and insightful on foreign affairs that I expect to be educated whenever he talks, but he really delivered last night. Best strategic assessment on the Iraq situation I've yet seen.

Mead, who has always seemed very centrist-right to me, was really good as well, and while his analogy of post-Reconstruction KKK was probably not that applicable, his refutation of Zbigniew's Algerian analogy had merit.

That segment needed one more go-round.

For those that missed it, one of Brzezinski's main points is that however it looks like the Iraqi government might be coming together it's a mirage because that 'government' exists only within the fortress protection of the US-controlled green zone. It can't stand on its own or it would be standing on its own. As such its credibility is minimal operating as it is within a foreign occupier's territory.

Other points too like insurgency spreading to Basra in the south, and autonomous Kurdish government not really lending credibility to a unified Iraq.

Oh, and he had a real good 4-point plan to get out of Iraq involving cooperation with Iraq's neighbor countries. Best I've heard.

[coalition_unwilling]

9. The thing that struck me, in addition to everything you've noted

above, is how sad Brzezinski seemed. When he smiled, his smile seemed "sad," when he refuted Mead, he did not do it gleefully like a "gotcha" moment (or at least it seemed so to me).

I was particularly struck that Mead himself would not predict success, just that there was a chance for success. To which Brzezinski replied (correctly, imho), "If we have to wait 3 more years, what will be the cost in blood and treasure?"

[Tactical Progressive]

13. I think Brzezinski was under the weather

He looked sick and it sounded like head-cold sounds in the background whenever he was off screen.

[bdamomma]

10. I saw it, he was telling the truth also.

[Bushwick Bill]

14. Keep in mind about Zbiggie...

PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" was just a poor rip-off of Zbig's Grand Chessboard, from domination of the middle east down to a New Pearl Harbor. He is a neocon in sheep's clothing, and it is significant that he is ripping neocon ideals now, just like Fukuyama.

[coalition_unwilling]

15. Interesting point. I knew that Brzezinski had been involved

in trying to sucker the Soviets into invading Afghanistan, but didn't realize his own geo-strategic thinking served as a pre-cursor to PNAC. You say that he is a "neocon in sheep's clothing." But I wonder whether he isn't more the Kissinger-esque real-politiker?