from Adbusters
From Le Nouvel Observateur January 14-21, 1998, quoted in Adbusters #53:
Le Nouvel Observateur: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?
Zbigniew Brzeezinski: Yes. 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, December 24, 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-Soveit 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 oging to induce a Soviet military intervention.
LNO: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?
ZB: It isn’t quite that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.
LNO: 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 demoralisation and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
LNO: 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 Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
6 responses to “from Adbusters”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I am not sure what you mean by this post. Do you anticipate a horrified reaction to the US actions and/or Brzezinski’s justification of them, or applause at the US’s cunning strategy?
FWIW I am not sure what I think, but the more I do of it, the less I like Brzezinski’s argument.
The assumption of Godlike power by the US (shuffling nations around at whim) interests me.
Fair enough. It’s extraordinary that, as a Christian, Carter felt okay with “increasing the probability” that the Soviets would start a war – or at the least, meeting the challenge offered by the Mujahadeen in a much more aggressive & full-scale manner.
Don’t you think that the parallels between Christ and Carter are intriguing? Christ also confronted an imperial power (Rome) occupying a small nation (Israel), and could have brought a massive counter-weighing force against it (12 legions of angels, not to mention his followers and own power). And he surely had far greater justification to do so, because although Carter wanted an end to the Soviet Empire for the sake (presumably) of peace, Christ was backed by the Old Covenant expectation that God’s integrity as a faithful God required that He deliver His people.
Does it seem as if Carter should have done more following of Christ, and also refused to adopt the standard sword-bearing methods of his day?
After all, Christ actually brought the kingdom – God’s rule – into Israel’s midst by doing what he did. And by inviting people to follow him and adopt his methods, he asserted a new way to identify kingdom members. Didn’t he offer God’s vindication to these ones, saying “blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall see God”?
Wasn’t this offer a stark challenge to the standard assumptions about the importance and nature of both imperial and counter-imperial power tactics? And this challenge matched God’s old criticism of Israel – His rebuked her when she wanted to have a king, to be like the other nations. It seems that Israel never lost her desire to keep up with the neighbouring Jones’, and on their terms.
In the comparison between Jesus’ methods and the sword, Jesus’ methods proved to be God-pleasing. Positively, he was raised from the dead, and negatively, Israel went to the dead, as she stubbornly, unrepentantly, followed the way of the sword.
Doesn’t it seem as if Carter was on very dodgy ground? How did his actions reflect Christ’s incarnation of the true Israel, the faithful way to be human, and thus the new rule of God?
Oh come now! The REAL point of the story is to look at the dates (a degree in History teaches you many things):
The Soviets invaded on December 24th… Christmas Eve. And,
Carter signed the first directive on July 3rd… the day before Independence Day celebrations all across his country. Coincidence? I think not.
‘Governments are far more sneaky than we give them credit for’ is the clear message here. Carter knew that every American citizen who knew what his country’s ideals stood for would be barbequing and getting drunk the day after his rather important document signing. The Soviets marching in on Christmas is a little symbolic too: the unbelieving commies declaring war on a state supposedly aided by their Christian foes a day before the celebrations of their saviour’s birth?
You’re right Dan, that’s the REAL point. :)
…then again, I’m not sure I had a real point at all, other than to wonder out loud about the ‘bibilicalness’ of Carter’s actions.
And good on you for doing so. I believe God is in everything and trying to find him in even the most obscure piece of trivia is worthwhile eventually. Your thoughts were a good read.