Should Carter alone be blamed for the triumph of the Khomeini regime in Iran? Why not the other great architects of the Abandonment of the Shah, and of the Resistible but Hardly Resisted (by America) Rise of Ayatollah Khomeini? Why not bring along Zbigniew Brzezinski, he who loves that word "strategic"? And of course there is the "Iran expert" Gary Sick, author of that absurd book that cost taxpayers millions for Congress to investigate and find completely without merit. Or even Robert Hunter, and don't forget Shirin, now resident "expert" on something -- "terrorism"? "Islam"? "the Clash of Civilizations?" at some think-tankery.
Let’s take Brzezinski for now. The shallow machiavellanism of Brzezinski led him to the notion that Islam was not to be worried about because it was a "bulwark against Communism" and Muslims could help destroy the Soviet Union. As it turned out, the Soviet Union did not disintegrate because of such efforts as these, pace Helene Carrere d'Encausse or Alexandre Bennigsen, or especially Zbigniew Brezinski, but because of the disaffection that extended beyond the highest classes of the intelligentsia to those who were in the nomenklatura. Their children often attended school with the children of dissidents in such prestigious places of higher education as the Institut Vostochnykh Yazykov (Institute of Eastern Languages). Disaffection with Communism extended even to family members of those high in the Party.
And of course there was Reagan's refusal to permanently contemplate mere "co-existence." The attitude of his administration had a galvanizing effect on many in Russia. As for Brzezinski's notion that the "Muslim peoples" would rise up against Soviet power -- there was no hint of it, even if some Muslim soldiers did betray their non-Muslim fellow soldiers in the army in Afghanistan. Brzezinski was not slightly wrong about Islam and about Iran -- he was totally, completely wrong. His mind was incapable of managing to think clearly about Islam; he was a child of the Cold War and possessed a fixation on Russia that went beyond any hostility to or fear of Communism.
Carter was, and remains, a sappy-sentimentalist. He has shown his spots repeatedly, as in his offer to advise Arafat on public-relations, and in his ill-concealed antipathy to Begin, and in his utter inability to empathize with, or even to understand, what the Israelis face, and what worries them. And part of his sappy sentimentalism was his belief -- far more advanced a case than anything that Bush has presented -- that people "of faith" are necessarily good people. As Taheri notes above, "[w]ritten in longhand, it was an appeal from 'one believer to a man of God.'" Yes, that was Khomeini through and through, for Jimmy Carter: a "man of God."
Andrew Young's description of Khomeini as a "20th-century saint" needs no comment.
These were the people in charge of the government of the United States from January of 1977 to January 1981, the period when the Shah fell and Khomeini rose and consolidated his power, and had his Judge Khalkhali start the judicial executions (beginning with prominent Jews and Bahais). He also forced through the legislation that mattered to him most – and what came first was the reduction in the age at which girls could be married (or forced to marry) to nine years, on the model of little Aisha.
That was the man Carter revered as a man of faith. That was how he and Brzezinski saw Iran. And neither one has ever shown the slightest embarrassment, expressed the slightest regret, over their colossal series of errors. Nothing Bush has done, stupid and obstinate as he has been in refusing to recognize the ethnic and sectarian fissures within Iraq as useful, as something to be encouraged, has approached what they did in their four awful years. The sum total of their accomplishments was to force Israel to turn over, in three tranches, the entire Sinai to Egypt (and to confuse Saint Sadat, or the presumed Saint Sadat, with Egypt), and to let Khomeini come to power in Iran. Khomeini had long before set down all his views in writing, but who – Gary Sick? – in the Administration was capable of reading Farsi, or even thinking of getting someone to find out what this Ayatollah was all about? No one did. Yes, and there was one more thing: the oil price rise of 1979, when a leader might have roused the public, might have insisted on a Manhattan Project to find new energy sources and free us from dependence on oil from the Middle East. Carter put on a sweater and gave a fireside chat. His conduct of foreign policy was a series of one disaster after another.
Yet he continues with his holier-than-thou performances, including that visit to North Korea where he cleared up everything for us, didn’t he? Posterity will not be kind to him, or to the egregious Brzezinski, who deserved him, and whom he deserved.
It's never too late to learn or recall forgotten history, especially when lives are at stake. Thanks, Hugh.
In just these few questions among several that where asked by a French reporter in a interview of Brzezinski in 1998, you can clearly see that Brzezinski was completely occupied with the former Soviet Union as being the only legitimate threat to the United States and completely dismisses the threat of Islamic fascism. Even in 1998 he appeared not to have a clue on the Islamic Ideology.
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski
Le Nouvel Observateur (France)
Jan 15-21, 1998
QUES: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they
intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in
Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of
truth. You don't regret anything today?
ZB: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the
effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to
regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote
to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its
Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war
unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the
demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
QUES: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism,
having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
ZB: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the
collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation
of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
QUES: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated:
fundamentalism represents a world menace today.
ZB: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to
Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a
rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading
religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in
common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan
militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more
than what unites the Christian countries.
Gee whiz, Hugh. You got my hopes up for nothing. When you wrote, "together again, at last," I thought that they had come together for their final rest, like in a romantic tale about old lovers. Now, I learn that these creatures are still befouling the mental landscape. Is there no remedy for Zbig and Jiminy?
"Carter was, and remains, a sappy-sentimentalist."
You said it .. and it's one kind of awful to have a Grandmother who fits that bill and entirely another kind of awful to have a former leader of the free world be a sentimental regressive sap. The man is a dangerous nuisance.
As for the Brzezinski et al alliance - perhaps it does take a village - of idiots.
Brzezinski didn't just hope that Islamic radicalism would turn against the USSR. Rather, he started a top-secret covert program to deliberately foment and aid Islamic radicalism. Not just in Afghanistan, where the Afghans fought the Soviet Red Army to a standstill; but everywhere around the periphery of the Soviet Union. The following article was written by Jane's Information Group shortly after 9-11:
Notice that Brzezinski was well aware that a vital part of this operation involved supplying the Islamic fighters with the appropriate "religious motivation."
Deliberately fomenting Islamic radicalism as a geopolitical pawn was a dangerous policy indeed. As we now know, Islam is nobody's pawn.
Interestingly enough, even Israel was involved, supplying weapons to the Islamic anti-Communist fighters. If we ever needed more proof of how morally corrupting the Cold War had been to Western democratic principles, this clinches it.
Andrew Young's description of Khomeini as a "20th-century saint" needs no comment.
Isn't poor Andy now an eminent figure among retired civil rights leaders? Yeah, that's right, he's up there with the extortionist Jessie Jackson and the admitted fraud Al Sharpton, the only difference being that these two are still running their cons.
** 33:21 ** ** 33:21 ** ** 33:21 ** ** 33:21 ** ** 33:21 ** ** 33:21 ** ** 33:21 **
Like the expanding universe, irony knows no bounds.
Carter is, fyi, a "man of god" a true believing Southern Baptist..and he has that much in common with Dubya, both are born again Christians.
So much for religion and religious belief.. who wins in the battle for god? No one wins. Religion, in an environment where there are no restraints and competition is inately repressive and conservative.
Islam, formulaicly, removes constraints and competition..
BTW, Reagan had nothing to do with the demise of the Soviet Union, and I doubt that the war in Afghanistan did as well.. for the simple reason that from 1982-1985 I was on the mailing list of the Bank for International Settlements Annual Report (expensively printed with gold leaf covers).. buried within the last few pages was a short paragraph.."The Soviet Union is a failed economic enterprise and must be restructured" six months later Serge Mikhaelovitch aka Mikhail Gorbachev was hired to do the job. His reward, his own NGO (The Green Cross) a healthy stipend and his own Dachau in Switzerland..
The B.I.S. by the way is the central bank of Central Banks and the only and real boss of the Federal Reserve... a documented fact.
mackie quoted Zbigniew Brzezinski
Gee, I think the answer is pretty obvious too, and I don't think I'd give the same one as Mr. Brzezinski.
The Soviet Union was ruled by pretty harsh fascists, but they didn't crash airliners into skyscrapers. According to theReligionOfPeace.com, hundreds of people every day are victims of Islamic Qur'an-motivated violence, which is more than the Soviet Union could claim. And that's not taking into account ongoing genocides, as in Darfur.
Sure, you can go back to Stalin's mass murder of his own citizens in Ukraine or Kazakhstan, but if you're looking at ancient history then you'll have to include a pretty long list of Islamic wars and genocides.
And as far as which is more repressive to its citizens, I don't think the Soviet's iron fist is even in the same league as Mohammad's bloody shariah.
All in all, I don't think the comparison is even close. Zbigniew/Carter fed steroids to the 500 lb. gorilla hoping he would get rid of the 50 lb. snarling dog. Big mistake, whether he admits it or not.
In their defense, whatever financial aid the Carter/Reagan administrations gave to the jihadists pales in comparison to the massive amount of funding available from petrodollars. Ironically, we all are the ones providing the Saudi and other Emirates with their wealth, that is then used to destroy us.
"These were the people in charge of the government of the United States from January of 1977 to January 1981" --From Mr. Fitzgerald, above
And who has been in charge since? Anyone who has had an appreciable role in countering the jihad threat?
I've become very disillusioned as of late concerning the government's ability to actually do anything about this. Of course, Mr. Fitzgerald you know this and you detest this about me, but I think it's a valid viewpoint in the debate.
I just wonder who, and under what circumstances, will be able to assume the presidency and actually take the effective kind of action we of the anti-jihad community consider to be necessary. It certainly isn't Bush and wasn't Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, etc.
By the way, your writing hand must be getting weary lately, Mr. Fitzgerald, you've kept quite a brisk pace for your recent updates. I applaud you.
Dear Sir:
Your criticism of Brezinski and Carter is largely on point. However, you go on to write this:
Nothing Bush has done, stupid and obstinate as he has been in refusing to recognize the ethnic and sectarian fissures within Iraq as useful, as something to be encouraged, has approached what they did in their four awful years.
I adamantly disagree. Bush has given us a disastrous foreign policy. He has undermined his own preemption doctrine by using it imprudently. It is needed now to the east of Iraq, but we are unable to employ it. The Iraq invasion has shown itself to have weakened the US militarily tremendously by overstretching our armed forces, and it has provided no benefit to the US whatever save the arguably marginal benefit of deposing a two-bit strongman (who was countering Iran). No democracy will ever be brought to Iraq, now can it be brought there at this time. Iraq has been an abysmal failure. Moreover, Bush has attacked the liberals in the US so ferociously when the country was in dire need of unity, it is in disarray. Bush might have a better understanding of the dangers of Islam, but he has squandered the goodwill of the American people; his Iraq policy is in tatters and his justified (yet tame) criticism of Islam seen as the part and parcel of a failed presidency. This must be reversed. Secularists must fight Islam, not religious nuts.
No Hugh, Bush has also been a failure like Carter before him. Carter might have been asleep at the wheel, and he is undoubtedly an idealistic idiot, but Bush has weakened us tremendously, and emboldened states like Iran.
However, I credit Bush with something you failed to mention: Pushing forward a misled defense system, which I have always supported.
Nariz:
I agree with you reasonable criticism of the religious idiots Bush and Carter. However, you do not credit Reagan with the defeat of communism. I am no great fan of Reagan, but one must give credit where it is due. While it is true that Reagan did not single-handedly defeat it, his emphasis on a very strong military hastened the collapse of the Soviet Union. One must remember that it was the liberals who were arguing for détente, and of course, less spending on the military.
"misled defense system"
-- from a posting above
Definitely missiled, and muscled. Only possibly "misled."