|
Just read his books and articles and figure out his philosophy.It stands for everything I hate, it stands for power and control over humanity as a whole, it stands for decimation and rule by the few who hate "the useless eaters" it stands for the very few who control all the power and finances in the world.I voted for Obama but once I found out that he is friends with this man, I was sorely disappointed to say the least.In truth, it has opened my eyes. In all of our history there hasn't been a more intelligent yet most dangerous man as Brzezinski.Why.
I would have liked to read commentary about the electronic intelligence gathering systems used by the TSA, NSA and CIA. America and the World paints a hope filled future for America and the World. Saddam was afraid of his neighbors (Iran) and afraid of his own people."In America and Britain it way easy to believe this murderous tyrant was telling the truth, we assumed he had these weapons. I guess that's another book.Afghanistan was discussed: Post 9-11, NATO convened and voted for Article V, "condemning terrorism and calling on (but did not fully commit) member states to assist another member under attack." The U.S. did not seek further commitments from our allies, but mobilized into Afghanistan and militarily freed Afghan cities from the Taliban and Al Qaeda, all who retreated into Pakistan.
is, "too frightened in this age of terrorism, too hunkered down behind physical and intellectual walls." Anti terrorism is, after all, identifying your enemies and dealing with them appropriately. The internet is a great asset and a hindrance as it helps terrorists communicate and spread their fear of death ideology around the globe. The thesis for the U.S. The poster child of terrorists is Al-Qaeda so we go after them in Afghanistan. must finish the imbalance we created in the region.
He had to frame all these discussions into a sales talk to convince the American people that a troop surge was necessary, a talk to be understood by Americans, not necessarily the world. Today, outdated cold war thinking and solutions obscure new global realities such as fighting terrorism. Look at the political damage this assumption caused the Bush administration. We try to do it on the cheap and end up doing it in the manner that becomes prohibitively costly for us." Still, the U.S. Zbig stated that the U.S. Just the fact of making war creates a new environment, which may be favorable or may be unfavorable, But it's frequently different from what anyone can anticipate." Zbig stated: In Iraq we have become, "the solitary player, relying.on force.to structure what cannot be structured by force. But, you do not hear this depth of reporting and insights on CNN; this is what the joint chiefs probably talk about for hours in the White House.
We will never know. As a consequence, this book really challenged my belief system. When we look up and see the sky, do we all see the same sky. Zbig stated, "Saddam was bluffing." Brent's reply, "In retrospect it was quite clear. David, Brent and Zbig do not always agree, and they have different political affiliations, which makes the reading much more interesting.
Many of our world's leaders make decisions based upon this ambiguity. McLaughlin AIA, NCARB This December week president Obama sent 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan to again overthrow the Taliban and defeat Al-Qaeda. I suppose we all have to make decisions based on limited knowledge. Might the U.N. In an interconnected world where America is less centric as a superpower.what is good for the world can be good for America.Robert F. In a world threatened by political and religious conflicts, warning nations, nuclear threats, economic scarcities, human right violations and terrorist bombings, we need a roadmap to plot our foreign policies.This book is such a roadmap; it plots many viable courses down some pretty threatening roads.David Ignatius has paired two experienced All-Star foreign policy advisors, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft, to discuss America's future and the decisions that will confront us.
That much is our responsibility. What if we had gone into Iraq based solely on human rights violations. I needed to ponder the ramifications. Combating terrorism is about intelligence gathering. David's question and answer format is always interesting with in-depth discussion on all topics. Brent stated that, "War has a momentum of its own.
Terrorism was discussed:The discussions covered our new global reality. NATO was a solution to the cold war, how relevant is NATO now. Eliminating these weapon systems was our major thesis for going into Iraq. Listening to Obama's speech, I realized he'd heard many hours of enlightened foreign policy rhetoric by his own national security advisor, the joint chiefs and his field commanders. I am accustomed to a faster read, but many times I paused just to let the discussion sink-in.
David's chapters cover dozens of other foreign policy decisions in foreign lands.It has been a few days since I finished the book. My take away, and the advice expounded by Zbig and Brent was that once you go down this path (of war started in 2002) that you open up variables and conditions that are very much out of your control. Saddam bragged to the media that he had these weapons of mass destruction. He used them to kill hundreds of Kurdish people. Again we will never know.I've highlighted only some of the discussions regarding current policy topics. (All who may just again retreat back to Pakistan). (Who was it that said, wars are Gods way of teaching Americans geography).The depth and breath of topics covered is extraordinary and the countries discussed are those you hear about nightly on CNN: Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, and India, China, India, Japan and the European Union, Russia and the former soviet block spin-offs. become involved and helped politically.
I still reflect on what I learned. And I often referred to my world globe. incursion into Iraq was discussed:In 2002 we all knew Saddam had chemical weapons of mass destruction. Later we assisted Afghanistan in setting up a new democracy, which we are obligated to support and nurture. How can we better protect against terrorism today, who are our partners, what assets do we use. What might have happened had we sought further solidarity with our allies in NATO.
June 2007. Introduction. RelevanceReleased in the middle of U.S. involvement in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the relevancy of the content and timing of this frank on U.S. 17 July 2008. involvement in Iraq or Afghanistan, the compass needle swings towards the lodestone of current operations throughout the book. But they also reflect 150 years of tradition. A final comment on the corrosive nature of partisanship is offered as quite damaging to the conduct of statecraft, at home and abroad.Current operationsAlthough not specifically focused on U.S.
'I think what we've learned in Iraq is that you can't pick up a country, create a democracy, turn around and leave (Brzezinski, Scowcroft and Ingatius 101).'OverviewIn "America and The World" David Ignatius moderates a discussion between Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft on the state of the State. There are other specialized departments. There's a Department of Foreign Affairs. [.]. foreign policy is best expressed in a section entitled `The First Hundred Days'. In response to Ignatius' query on how the incoming President should approach the Administration's first one hundred days, Scowcroft's answer is couched in recent events and aimed squarely at the Administration, civil servants and the Pentagon:What we don't have is a system to manage issues that cut across traditional boundaries, for example, partly military, partly combat, partly reconstruction, and partly civil society building. Taking place over several months and committed first to audio at Perseus LLC in Washington, D.C., Ignatius covers old and new ground in a way that is refreshingly antithetical to the current culture of news as sound bite. A veteran Washington Post columnist and Washington insider, Ignatius leads Brzezinski and Scowcroft from the early cold war years through China's effect on U.S.
New York: Basic Books, 2008.Perseus LLC. These divisions, I think, have outlived their usefulness. There's a Department of War, as it used to be called, now Defense. Introduction, 17 July 2008, 1 November 2009.(2) Also see Thomas Barnett, [.]., June 2007, 1 November 2009.Works CitedBarnett, Thomas. The advice to the (then future unknown) President moves from problem definition through the role of the National Security Advisor and reaches another de-constructivist observation:There's a kind of gridlock that is inherent in functional specialization of the different departments.
America and the World: Conversations on the Future of American Foreign Policy. 1 November 2009. 1 November 2009.Brzezinski, Zbigniew, Brent Scowcroft and David Ingatius. foreign policy, nuclear deterrence and power generation and an interesting section on cultural dignity. (Brzezinski, Scowcroft and Ingatius)Ignatius' efforts to draw out lessons from two former National Security advisors provides a timely and concise first-person account of those events from key decision makers who lived through that time.(1) A merchant bank and private equity fund, Perseus LLC is headquartered in Washington, D.C.
Part of the reason is the complexity of their structures and the fact that the current arrangements are as Brent (Scowcroft) said, a continuation of cold war policies. Nowhere is this expressed more concisely than by Brzezinski in the following excerpt:Our involvement is a kind of radicalizing foreign intervention, which then produces unwelcome consequences (Brzezinski, Scowcroft and Ingatius 102). We have no way inside the government to manage those sorts of things (Brzezinski, Scowcroft and Ingatius 254).
Brzezinksi and Scowcroft combine experience at the highest levels of government with a willingness to elaborate their reasoning processes with greater richness, openness and candor than is typically the case with those currently serving in government or aspiring to do so. Would that we had more seasoned public servants willing to share their thoughts in this way--and able to make it worth readers' while when they do. It is a primer that also offers food for thought.
And the book is not entirely free of vague passages. I found the book interesting, informative, and an enjoyable and quick read as well. Given the high quality and minimal extent of BS in their remarks taken as a whole, though (kudos to the editors), I took this as more a reflection of these practitioners' evolving thinking than as evasiveness.
This is the best book I have seen that both lays out many of the major current foreign policy choices the US faces today and in the years ahead while providing enough context and background to be helpful to citizens interested in informing themselves about these matters. One can of course challenge and disagree with their analyses.
You don't need to agree with the views expressed to benefit from understanding how two prominent, still highly respected foreign policy analysts view the challenges and choices that lie ahead of us. They are both intellectually curious in challenging themselves over the years since they served to understand how the world has changed, and they offer large, strategic thinking and ideas.
They talked answering questions from a moderator from Hamas to China and Iran. Great reading for some of the most experimented foreing policy analysts. It's a recorded interview with two National Security Advisors to Ford and Bush Senior, Scowcroft, and to Carter, Brzezinsky.
|
