The discussion in this section covers two topics: withdrawal from Iraq and how the incoming president, who at the time was undetermined, should deal with Iran.
Brzezinski and Scowcroft disagree about withdrawing from Iraq. Both agree the troop surge was effective as a short term measure.
Scowcroft vehemently opposes a hasty withdrawal of American forces. He points to the pervasive ethnic and religious violence in Iraq, as well as what he views as the US’ moral responsibility to the people of that country. The fragmentation of Iraq into its summary parts would be the worst possible outcome. The lack of US soft power requires an alternative. Simply withdrawing would be an impediment to a favorable solution. A continuing US presence in Kurdistan would help prevent further instability.
Brzezinski views a continued US presence in Iraq as part of the problem, not the solution. He says a 16 month timetable is realistic, but must remain somewhat elastic. He says that the American presence in Iraq is part of what has made these various factions so powerful, and that their power will continue to grow as along as the US military is present. He also points to a general resentment in the area and that any long term solution requires the US to address the Palestinian situation as well. Withdrawing is a vital part of creating a stable Iraq. The US must avoid anything that could be perceived as a permanent presence in Iraq, in order to avoid looking like an imperialist power.
Both agree that US must negotiate directly with Iran, either without conditions, or after both sides have made concessions. There is no reason to continue isolating Iran. They have a strong potential, as with Turkey, to be a strong regional ally. The danger of an Iranian empire is minimal, because of internal unrest and conflicts. Iran has been committed to exploiting the unstable condition the US and Israel have created in the middle east. Iran was also, until relatively recently, a strategic partner with Israel. Both point out that the complicated state of Iranian politics makes negotiations difficult. Young Iranians are increasingly looking to Turkey and Europe as models for their own country. In terms of electoral democracy, Iran is far less autocratic than Russia and other quasi-democracies. An Iranian nuclear weapon would not be so dangerous in terms of its actual military use, but in the fact that it would spark an arms race throughout the entire region.
Brzezinski and Scowcroft,p 35-78
ReplyDeleteThe discussion in this section covers two topics: withdrawal from Iraq and how the incoming president, who at the time was undetermined, should deal with Iran.
Brzezinski and Scowcroft disagree about withdrawing from Iraq. Both agree the troop surge was effective as a short term measure.
Scowcroft vehemently opposes a hasty withdrawal of American forces. He points to the pervasive ethnic and religious violence in Iraq, as well as what he views as the US’ moral responsibility to the people of that country. The fragmentation of Iraq into its summary parts would be the worst possible outcome. The lack of US soft power requires an alternative. Simply withdrawing would be an impediment to a favorable solution. A continuing US presence in Kurdistan would help prevent further instability.
Brzezinski views a continued US presence in Iraq as part of the problem, not the solution. He says a 16 month timetable is realistic, but must remain somewhat elastic. He says that the American presence in Iraq is part of what has made these various factions so powerful, and that their power will continue to grow as along as the US military is present. He also points to a general resentment in the area and that any long term solution requires the US to address the Palestinian situation as well. Withdrawing is a vital part of creating a stable Iraq. The US must avoid anything that could be perceived as a permanent presence in Iraq, in order to avoid looking like an imperialist power.
Both agree that US must negotiate directly with Iran, either without conditions, or after both sides have made concessions. There is no reason to continue isolating Iran. They have a strong potential, as with Turkey, to be a strong regional ally. The danger of an Iranian empire is minimal, because of internal unrest and conflicts. Iran has been committed to exploiting the unstable condition the US and Israel have created in the middle east. Iran was also, until relatively recently, a strategic partner with Israel. Both point out that the complicated state of Iranian politics makes negotiations difficult. Young Iranians are increasingly looking to Turkey and Europe as models for their own country. In terms of electoral democracy, Iran is far less autocratic than Russia and other quasi-democracies. An Iranian nuclear weapon would not be so dangerous in terms of its actual military use, but in the fact that it would spark an arms race throughout the entire region.