Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Why are Obama's closest advisers inveterate hawks who needlessly provoked tension with the Russians during the Cold War?

100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Cold War Hawks Hovering Around Obama

By Robert Scheer, Truthdig. Posted November 12, 2008.


Why are Obama's closest advisers inveterate hawks who needlessly provoked tension with the Russians during the Cold War?

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Also in Top Stories

Atrocities in Gaza: Piecing Together the Story
Liliana Segura, AlterNet

Unprecedented Numbers of Americans Question Israel's Actions in Gaza
Max Blumenthal, Huffington Post

The End of the Financial World as We Know It
Michael Lewis, David Einhorn, The New York Times

Big Booty Beauty and the New Sexual Aesthetic
Myra Mendible, American Sexuality Magazine

Should the First Lady Get a Paycheck?
Sheila Gibbons, Women's eNews

Why Colleges Are Just Not That into You
Zac Bissonette, The Daily Beast

Why Belief Isn't That Different for Atheists or Religious People
Larry Beinhart, AlterNet

More stories by Robert Scheer

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

So, Vladimir Putin was right: It was Georgia that started the war with Russia, and once again it was President Bush who got caught in a lie. As the New York Times reported last week, "Newly available accounts by independent military observers of the beginning of the war between Georgia and Russia this summer call into question the long-standing Georgian assertion that it was acting defensively against separatist and Russian aggression."

The Bush White House knew -- but kept from the American public -- facts concerning provocation by Georgia's U.S.-trained forces, which killed civilians in the capital of South Ossetia before Russian troops crossed the border. The provocation has also been documented in a BBC investigative report and by a growing consensus of other reliable sources.

No surprise, but it is a reminder of just how eager some are for a new Cold War and how indifferent they are to the truth of the matter. The career hawks are influential in both political parties, as was evidenced by the knee-jerk response of both presidential candidates, who claimed that the Russians had launched a totally unprovoked attack.

Sen. John McCain, whose top foreign policy adviser had been a paid lobbyist for Georgia, was most eager to confront the Russians, while Sen. Barack Obama was a bit more cautious. But as recently as in his Oct. 29 infomercial, Obama promised to "curb Russian aggression," which hardly suggests the change we need from the unilateral belligerence of the Bush foreign policy.

The result of that policy has been increased estrangement from the one country whose cooperation is totally indispensable in the effort to control the spread of nuclear weapons, given that Russia possesses roughly half of the world's nuclear arsenal and the ready means to build more nuclear arms. Yet instead of putting up a common front against nuclear proliferation, and even before the Georgia fracas, the Bush administration insisted on placing missiles on Russia's borders in a deal-breaker with Putin, whom President George W. Bush had previously embraced.

Improved relations with Russia are critical to the change toward a more peaceful world that Obama has promised, but it is disquieting in the extreme that some of his closest advisers are inveterate hawks with a history of needlessly provoking tension with the Russians during the Cold War days. Key among them is Zbigniew Brzezinski, who, as President Jimmy Carter's national security adviser, engineered the U.S. involvement on the side of Islamic fanatics in Afghanistan.

Of course, the official story line at the time was that the Soviets had invaded Afghanistan to support their ally, which happened to be the governing power in Kabul, against the fanatic mujahedeen rebels, whom President Ronald Reagan would later officially embrace as "freedom fighters." Those freedom fighters came to be united by our CIA with the likes of Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the architect of the 9/11 attacks.

It was decades later that the truth came out that the Soviets invaded only after being deliberately provoked by U.S. hawks. One of them was Robert Gates, who worked for Brzezinski in the Carter administration and who is currently the secretary of defense; President-elect Obama is now reported to be considering retaining Gates in that position. A 1996 press release promoting Gates' memoir promised the revelation of "Carter's never-before-revealed covert support to Afghan mujahedeen -- six months before the Soviets invaded."

The Gates revelation prompted an interviewer for the French publication, Le Nouvel Observateur, to ask Brzezinski in a 1998 interview whether he regretted "having given arms and advice to future terrorists," and Brzezinski replied: "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? ... What is most important to the history of the world? ... Some stirred-up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?"

That was three years before those "stirred-up Muslims" attacked us on 9/11, but Brzezinski has not lost his nerve for escalating wars. While advising Obama, he gave interviews hyping the Russian "invasion" of Georgia as the occasion for a new global conflict, telling journalist Nathan Gardels that Putin's action "was ominously similar to Stalin's and Hitler's in the late 1930s."

I know, Obama is not yet in office. I voted for him with enthusiasm in part because he does seem to have transcended the preoccupations of the Cold War. But as a buyer, I have to beware of those unrepentant Democratic hawks now hovering.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: russia, obama, cold war, hawks, brzezinski

Robert Scheer is Editor in Chief of Truthdig and author of a new book, The Pornography of Power: How Defense Hawks Hijacked 9/11 and Weakened America.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
C the B
Posted by: C the B on Nov 12, 2008 11:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please don't drink the Kool Aid
President Obama...

PLEASE , PLEASE , PLEASE !!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: C the B Posted by: DCostello2
» RE: C the B Posted by: fitzjohn
The Corporate Welfare State Reaches New Heights
Posted by: Richard Sharp on Nov 12, 2008 8:17 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Part One:

k. Think of yourself as a free person, with the opportunity to earn a decent wage and provide for your children and theirs. Then understand that employment is only a slightly upgraded form of serfdom.

Just read Dilbert, probably the greatest business guru of all time.

It’s because management can’t help its perpetual, three-fold quest: 1) to squeeze every extra minute from our time at work, such as by extending it to our off-duty hours and homes, 2) to make sure we adhere to their rules, kind of like robots and, all the while, 3) to cut our pay, benefits, union rights and any other workplace protections it never wanted to promise us in the first place.

That’s what management does. Increase production. Control labour costs. Unions are so “old school.” Part-time job anyone? Whoops, we’ve outsourced to China.

This is Sociology 101. Large corporations seek the power to control their environment to assure their survival and growth. One of my heroes (JK Galbraith) defined power as the ability to get others to do what they would not otherwise do.

“Others” would be governments, who have an unending capacity to be bought off (by their corporate masters). And us, as employees but also as citizens, consumers or “client groups” as we are often called.

Organizations love predictability and that means we citizens, customers and employees have to do what we’re told. That’s where marketing and HR departments come in.

And they love to grow. In terms of market share, earnings and assets, of course. But, the fewer encumbering employees, the better. Dissidents? Mow them down.

Management also knows that charity begins at home. It’s a closed shop (guys or guy-like gals only) so only the best for the executive class, these masculine titans of industry (or what’s left of it). 1500% salary increases (since 1980)? Bonuses no matter the results? Some off-book things like glutinous expense accounts or stock options? (Isn’t insider trading sweet?) No problem, but did I tell you we had to shut down Michigan?

Yet, these guys are little more than landlords, keeping their owners happy.

"Increase profits! Faster! Don’t worry. If you screw up, we have the money and lawyers to protect you. If you do get caught, we have this nice little golden parachute for you. All you have to do is keep our little secrets."

In terms of really big screw-ups like, say, a savings and loans collapse or a global economic meltdown, that’s when the feds bail us out. We can't lose.” (Uncle Rich)

In the name of “liquidity” and other absurdities, unimaginable trillions are being showered globally on banks, insurance companies, brokerages firms and now, apparently, the (former) Big Three. Where’s this money coming from? Why from taxpayers. Can we get it back? Well, no, it’s about those executive employment contracts.

Governments scurrying around bailing out failed corporations really shouldn’t surprise us. Governments have been scurrying around fulfilling corporate wish lists the past quarter century: privatizing anything in sight, cutting corporate taxes and deregulating financial and other markets.

This has also been called a race to the global bottom to reduce environmental, worker, investor, consumer and other protections (uh, from corporations). You can look this stuff up under such euphemisms as globalization and “free” trade.

Free trade for capital, that is, not labour. Corporations get to invest, buy stuff they need, make and sell their products just about any way they want, just about anywhere in the world. The single rule is, “Money talks.”

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

9/11 was an inside job
Posted by: 911FalseFlag on Nov 13, 2008 3:15 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I do not understand how authors like Robert Scheer still believe that Osama bin Laden was the perpetrator of 9/11. How is it that the FBI does not even accuse Osama bin Laden of having anything to do with 9/11. Because there is no credible evidence against him.
I agree with everything else that Robert talks about in this article other than the fact that elements of this government planned and orchestrated 9/11 and used the 19 Arab terrorists as Patsies.
There is no way that the agenda of the neocons, including 32 dual Israeli citizens in this Bush administration would leave it to chance for a "new Pearl Harbor" to give them a plausible reason to attack Afghanistan and Iraq.
Go to my website which is www.911insidejob.net.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Out with the dinosaurs!
Posted by: fitzjohn on Nov 15, 2008 8:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I did not vote for Obama, but will certainly give him a chance. If he improves race relations, I might vote for him in 12. But, he needs to take a lesson from W.

Junior got elected by the neocons. He should have danced with the ones who brung him to the party, but he didn't. He hired on corporate lackeys and the old discredited paleocons. His neocons never had the chance to guide his administration as W promised. Now, we see H surrounding himself with old discredited "liberals" who were/are just as guilty as their collaborators the paleocons for the mess we're in.

So much for change, huh? Take a lesson, H, from W's playbook and don't do what he did. Dance with those who brung ya, and you may just get my vote next time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: Cold War Hawks
Posted by: ahm on Nov 15, 2008 2:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm with you, Robert Scheer. I was thinking about this today after reading, somewhat belatedly, that Hillary has been tapped for Secretary of State. That, along with Emanuel's comments on the trade pact with Colombia being tagged to the economic stimulus thing, made me wonder exactly what President-elect Obama has in mind. (I agree with Emanuel on the Colombia and economic package. It's a bad idea to combine the two.)

The idea of the hawkish, free-marketeer Clintons (you know it will be a package deal)advising Mr. Obama on foriegn policy is downright frightening. And, I wonder, would it cancel out Mr. Emanuel's current slant or perhaps embolden him to trumpet the same free-market ideas that got us where we are today? I also agree that a renewed Cold War precludes a reduction in global nukes. Thanks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Change
Posted by: dockboy on Nov 17, 2008 8:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Change we can believe in. And you guys bought it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Misleading and shrill column this time. Hawks? Only 2 names-- Gates & Zbig; neither of whome have
Posted by: doinaheckuvajob on Nov 20, 2008 6:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
been appointed to anything yet.

If they do end up in the mix, which I seriously doubt, then it's still a huge improvement to have 2 hawks among a whole bunch of liberals, progressives like Susan Power, moderates, and realists.

I support a campaign against Gates but this column is just shrill and silly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When Will Scheer Wake Up to 9-11 Being Inside Job
Posted by: 911FalseFlag on Nov 30, 2008 4:59 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If I know that 9/11 was an inside job then how does Robert not know this. Like Chomsky and Zinn,Scheer will not honestly look at 9/11 and actually give an opinion based on mountains of evidence showing that 9/11 was an inside job.

It is these people who do much more harm than the everyday person who just does not know since he watches the five o'clock news and reads the local newspaper.

Go to www.911insidejob.net and watch numerous videos and read any articles showing 9/11 was an inside job.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]