Update #1: more information has been added re: Zbig’s involvement with the current Director of National Security, Robert Gates, as well as Gates’ history in the CIA and the Iran/Contra scandal.
An interesting part of our conversation at the most recent Drinking Liberally Oakland Sunday brunch touched on some of the organizations and individuals who wield extraordinary control over our federal government, inasmuch as there are “outsiders” who affect both our domestic and foreign policy. One of the key figures is introduced here: Zbigniew Brzezinski (Jimmy Carter’s former National Security Adviser, as well as a former adviser to the Kennedy and Johnson administrations on Eastern European and Soviet affairs).
I would also like to encourage you to look into the 1997 book by Zbigniew Brzezinski, entitled “The Grand Chessboard.” On pages 210 – 211, ‘Zbig’ says:
[…] the critical uncertainty regarding the future may well be whether America might become the first superpower unable or unwilling to wield its power. Might it become an impotent global power? Public opinion polls suggest that only a small minority (13 percent) of Americans favor the proposition that “as the sole remaining superpower, the U.S. should continue to be the preeminent world leader in solving interantion problems.” An overwhelming majority ((74 percent) prefer that America “do its fair share in efforts to solve international problems together with other countries.” Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fasion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat. Such a consensus generally existed throughout World War II and even during the Cold War. It was rooted, however, not only in deeply shared democratic values, which the public sensed were being threatened, but also in a cultural and ethnic affinity for the predominantly European victims of hostile totalitarianism.
In the absense of a comparable external challenge, American society may find it much more difficult to reach agreement regarding foreign policies that cannot be directly related to central beliefs and widely shared cultural-ethnic sympathies and that still require an enduring and sometimes costly imperial engagement. If anything, two extremely varying views on the implications of America’s historic victory in the Cold War are likely to be politically more appealing: on the one hand, the view that the end of the Cold War justifies a significant reduction in Ameirca’s global standing; and on the other, the perception that the time has come for genuine international multilateralism, to which America should even yield some of its sovereignty. Both extremes command the loyalty of committed constituencies.
Let’s keep in mind that Zbig has been a player in the field of international policy for ~40 years. He is a long time member of the uber-secretive Council on Foreign Relations (the non-Commonwealth countries’ counterpart to the Royal Institute of International Affairs). He was also a founding member of the Trilateral Commission (the more public iteration of the CFR). He was also the one who identified Jimmy Carter as a potential Presidential candidate to the Rockefellers, several years before his first run, after which time they poured unprecedented resources into his campaign. Don’t forget to look into the connections between the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds. Talk about power, money and control.
Lest anyone think I am unduly targeting a member of a former Democratic administration, one of Zbig’s associates at the CFR, Robert Gates. He was also the co-chairs of the task force which produced a 2004 publication, entitled: Iran: Time for a New Approach (Report of an Independent Task Force Sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations). In addition to Gates’ current position as GWB’s Secretary of Defense, he is also a former Director of the CIA agent (he was recruited to join the Agency while still attending Indiana University), as well as a rather “questionable figure” in the Iran/Contra scandal.
In that vein, we need to look at the manner in which these two both worked to facilitate the creation of the Mujahadeen, which was the precursor to the Taliban and, subsequently the father organization to [“very scary”] al Qaeda (oh, my).
When it comes to setting the table for future operations, here is another great article from a researcher I respect, Michel Chossudovsky at Global Research. Please note:
Amply documented, but rarely mentioned in 9/11 news reports, the “Islamic Militant Network” (the forerunner of Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda), was actually created during Jimmy Carter’s presidency (1976-1981). In July 1979, Carter signed a presidential directive to launch a secret plan in support of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. Confirmed by former CIA director, Robert Gates, in his book, From the Shadows, this “secret plan” was instrumental in triggering the Soviet-Afghan war. (Robert Gates, From the Shadows: The Ultimate Insider’s Story of Five Presidents and How They Won the Cold War, http://www.gtexts.com/worthreading/gates.html ).
Most American high school history books describe how the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, “without provocation and with overwhelming force”. America then “came to the rescue” of the Afghan “resistance”. This happened under president Jimmy Carter.
Yet Carter’s National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski confirms that it was the US and not the Soviet Union which started the war:
“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….” (Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, Le Nouvel Observateur, 15-21 November 1998.)
We must always ask, “cui bono?” (Who benefits?)