Does America Want the Creator of Osama Bin Laden Guiding Obama’s Foreign Policy
Brzezinski with Islamic Soldier
Many Americans who are looking for “change” see the foreign policy of George Bush as being too aggressive. Opposition of the so-called “Bush Doctrine” of preemptive military action against a possible rather than a proven national threat is seen by many Americans as their greatest reason to support Senator Barack Obama over Senator John McCain for President. In fact many conservatives think of Obama even as offering too much “Appeasement and Groveling” (American Thinker)
In the most recent Presidential Debate, Senator Obama had this to say about foreign policy
“It is important for us to understand that the way we are perceived in the world is going to make a difference, in terms of our capacity to get cooperation and root out terrorism. And one of the things that I intend to do as president is to restore America’s standing in the world. We are less respected now than we were eight years ago or even four years ago…
But because of some of the mistakes that have been made-and I give Senator McCain great credit on the torture issue, for having identified that as something that undermines our long-term security-because of those things, we, I think, are going to have a lot of work to do in the next administration to restore that sense that America is that shining beacon on a hill…
And part of what we need to do, what the next president has to do-and this is part of our judgment, this is part of how we’re going to keep America safe-is to send a message to the world that we are going to invest in issues like education, we are going to invest in issues that relate to how ordinary people are able to live out their dreams.”
This and statements Senator Obama has made about increasing the Peace Corps would suggest that he wants to effect American influence globally by peaceful non-military means. However, at the same time he has called for increasing the size of the military and also interestingly has called for more aggressive military intervention into Pakistan if identifiable targets associated with the 9/11 attack on the United States are located. Paradoxically, Senator John McCain has called for restraint on entering Pakistani territory because of a fear that such incursions will help destabilize the very weak government of the new President, Asif Ali Zardari.
By his own statements, Senator Obama has stated that former Carter advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, has taught him the most about foreign policy. Yet curiously not to long ago Mr. Brzezinski was very vocal in warning against military intervention in Pakistan saying that civilian casualties and incursion would likely turn the local Pashtune tribes against America and destabilize the fragile Pakistani government. Just this week, the Obama principle was once again reinforced by Vice-Presidential candidate, Senator Joe Biden, in the televised Vice-Presidential debate.
How do we explain this Obama Paradox?
Some might argue that Obama wants to appear as a strong leader capable of being “commander in chief”. He often uses the phrase “kill” when talking about Osama bin Laden rather than “capture” or “bring to justice”. He argues that diplomacy needs to be maximized but that military action should never be ruled out as a last resort say his defenders.
Yet at the same time he is endorsed a those who favor a very popular concept in modern progressive thought, of the acceptance of multiculturalism and declining American prominence. The foremost authority of this view, Fareed Zakaria, author and CNN personality, rebuked the Republican selection of Sarah Palin as not being conducive to his view of the Post American World and has strongly endorsed Obama for President.
One reasonable explanation for the paradox is to say that Obama is using the Pakistan threats as a means to look “strong” for the election but that it is not reflective of his real policy. He could argue lets kill Osama bin Laden and then go home as a quick political strategy which would probably appeal to the voting public.
On the other hand some his recent decisions and associations may under inspection reveal a possible different idea of foreign policy.
The selection of Senator Joe Biden was influenced says Obama himself in large part by Mr. Bidens long experience in foreign affairs. Interestingly, many have called Biden an “interventialist”. Among Democrats he has been one of the most hawkish . Over the years interventions in Bosnia, Darfur, Lebanon, and Iraq have been espoused by the Senator. One of his most controversial suggestions was that Iraq should be divided into a tripartite confederated state rather than one nation. How could Barack Obama choose such an “interventionalist” it seems inconsistent?
Let’s remember who Barack Obama says influenced him “more than anyone else” in foreign policy, Zbigniew Brzezinski. During the Carter Adminstration, he was the principal author of the Islamic uprising in Afghanistan that did ultimately drive the Russians out but also created the Osama Bin Laden legend. Many argue that Brzezinski’s core philosophy is to divide and conquer separate groups and prevent centralization. The best method is through covert support of opposing factions even if they are potentially hostile to long term goals as they are a means to an end. His critics have called him ruthless and dogmatic but practical. For example, Mr. Brezinki was widely criticized for “forcing Israel to give up the Sinai” in return for peace with Egypt. He praised Obama saying “What makes Obama attractive to me is that he understands that we live in a very different world where we have to relate to a variety of cultures and peoples.”In 1998, when asked by a reporter if supporting an Islamic terrorist could create a problem for the world, he had a one word answer “Nonsense”.
Mr. Brzezinski has come under fire recently for being associated with concept of globalization. This is the idea that multinational corporations conspire together for their own profit without regard to nationality or purpose. Critics point out that he is a frequent attendee at the Bilderberg Group, an organization of industrial and political leaders whose detractors cite as the leading proponent of globalization. In his defense, Mr. Brzezinski denies membership.
When you remember that Barack Obama has received more corporate and Wall Street campaign contributions in history than any candidate then perhaps this leads the way in understanding his statements and putting them together with his associations. Will the Obama Presidency herald the return of more covert actions pitting competing violent groups one against another in the world while we talk “nice” in the United Nations? This approach to foreign policy puts distance between accountability and bad consequences. Will we see a return to “reasonable deniability”. What will be the effect of having a Joe Biden “interventionalist” and Zbigniew Brzezinski “any thing goes covertly is best approach” at the right side of the Obama strategic planning team? Is the Obama plan just to build schools as was stated by Joe Biden or will it be more in keeping with Brzezinski concept of fomenting chaos?
John McCain comes from a background that favors diplomacy as diplomacy and military action as military action. He has experienced the failure in Vietnam when goals and methods become obscured in hidden subversive dealings of valueless temporary alignments. His ideas seem to echo those recently stated by Lisa Curtis of the Heritage Foundation: “Winning the global war on terror will require far more than capturing and killing terrorists. U.S. strategy must allow our forces to defend themselves and proactively go after the enemy. At the same time, it will require the U.S. to engage in more robust regional diplomacy to defuse deep-seated animosities and to generate economic and trade initiatives that build support among local populations for uprooting the terrorists among them.”
America has to worry when the man who created its greatest enemy, Osama Bin Laden, will be the man closest to the Obama Presidency.
