27 September 2016

Brzezinski's Pivot or Recalibration?


This is a very interesting article and some will find it surprising. Brzezinski is villainised by many. He's considered part of the Globalist Cabal, a Rockefeller protégé turned puppetmaster, a collaborator, counterpart and friendly rival of Henry Kissinger. He has navigated many circles within politics, business and academia.

His 1997 book The Grand Chessboard became famous in the alternative media and conspiracy circles. This was the book that laid out the plans for the American Empire and predicated it on a Pearl Harbor-type event. 

Many would conflate the thought of Brzezinski and his Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and Trilateral Commission (TC) agenda with the Neoconservative project that came to dominate post 9/11... and arguably has continued under modified form during the Obama years.

This is both true and false. In terms of the big picture, Brzezinski stands with Neoconservative figures in seeing American ascendancy and Exceptionalism as necessary, moral, even destined.

The ideological goals are the same... the methods and certainly the style are very different.

On one level it could be said the Globalist-Internationalist wing of the American Establishment is quite opposed to the Nationalist Militarism of the Neo-Conservatives... and there's quite a bit of bad blood that exists between these factions. This came to a head in 2002 during the GW Bush administration's march toward war in Iraq. Figures affiliated with his father's administration (like Baker and Scowcroft) came out very strongly against the method and style of Bush II and the philosophy of figures like Rumsfeld and even Cheney, the latter of which served as Secretary of Defense under Bush I.

The form differs, but the substance is the same.

To be blunt Brzezinski is a far more sophisticated and nuanced thinker than the Neo-conservative strategists. He's capturing multiple layers and has a real understanding of how power functions in the global order. He understands its uses and its limits. He also understands the importance of stability, narrative and perception.

This is by no means an endorsement. From a Christian standpoint he's a very evil man. Drunk on power, he's essentially one of the architects of the US Babylon or to put it another way the 21st Century Babel project.

The Neo-Conservatives want it to be an American tower with an American flag on top. Brzezinski and other Internationalists of the American stripe want it to be a multi-national tower, but still unipolar. How is this manifested? The United States provides the foundation and framing that holds it up. It's an ostensibly more 'humble' manifestation of power but in reality has a better understanding of how the building works and where real strength is found.

Brzezinski believes post 9/11 policy has been largely in error. The War on Terror has succeeded in generating chaos and has bred violence, terror and led to its proliferation. The US squandered its geopolitical capital in the wake of 9/11 and instead generated antagonism and fear. Brzezinski would be like a surgeon wielding a powerful laser, patient and precise. The Bush administration wielded an indiscriminate war club and wounded friend, foe and self.

As he nears the end of his life, he seems to think the US has wasted the opportunity that it was presented with in the 1990s. Some will view his commentary as defeatist, an expression of acquiescence and compromise. At least that's how the Neo-conservatives will see it, and as usual they would be mistaken.

I think Brzezinski takes the long view. He's very knowledgeable and within his framework possesses a great deal of wisdom. He sees the danger that the world faces if the United States continues to pursue its present course. It leads to war and the potentialities in such a conflict are virtually unthinkable if not overtly suicidal.

European instability, while celebrated by Nationalists is seen as weakening US influence in Eurasia. While at one time the EU was viewed as a potential rival, Brzezinski the Internationalist viewed it as a partner... in other words a tool. He understands in a way the American Right does not that European power is predicated on an American system. It rests on American foundations. Its instability and fragmentation is nothing to celebrate. It has weakened US influence and contributes to the tensions with Russia.

If the US triangulates, and takes a different approach to Russia and China I think Brzezinski believes the US may still come out on top. Each nation, the US, China and Russia are all fraught with internal problems, contradictions and looming instability. And yet of the three, it is the United States that has the greatest potential to remain stable.

But it has to abandon its present course. US militarism is deeply wounding the domestic economy and generating exponential geopolitical instability. The US is falling into a self-made trap and risks implosion.

If the United States 'back's off' and begins a process of standing down through the form of compromise and cooperation, the tremendous costs of endless war can be re-focused into US society and possibly heal some of its cancerous wounds... if it's not already too late.

Russia and China face tremendous difficulties and yet their implosion would likely generate further war and instability. The very policy advocated by US foreign policy will in the end harm US interests and stability. The harvest of power gained by the United States might prove to be little more than a flash in the pan.

The article's author is right, for the most part Brzezinski is being ignored. It's also possible his task at this point is to provide a dialectical counterpoint meant to temper and soften the extreme. Hillary Clinton is running a Right-wing campaign. The question is... will she follow through on it? Nixon the hawk went to China. Will Hillary the supposedly liberal-feminist-globalist turn out to be the greatest warmonger and imperialist we've ever seen? Will she make Teddy Roosevelt and Reagan look like doves?

Brzezinski will turn 89 just a couple of months after the new president takes office. How much will he get to see? How long will his voice be heard?

His old mentor David Rockefeller is 101. I don't know how cognizant he is anymore. There's an online interview with him from last year and he sounds and looks pretty good for his age. Does power-lust keep you alive longer?

I could be wrong but I have to think these men must be somewhat depressed as they near the end. Have they really accomplished their goals? I suppose some would say they have. But I doubt it.

I think these men live for the game and irrelevance is probably more painful than anything else... even when compared with their greatest failures.

This article about Brzezinski, his article and his life and work are worth consideration and reflection. I do not say admiration.

Here's a link to another article which discusses some of the factional battles within the Establishment:

No comments:

Post a Comment