An October 5 headline in Politico screamed out, "Brzezinski: Obama should retaliate if
Russia doesn't stop attacking US assets."
Think about that: it sounds like Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security advisor in the Carter administration, is advocating a direct confrontation between the world's two nuclear superpowers. Either country has the resources to wipe the other off the face of the earth. Some say it could mean the end of human civilization as we know it today.
But if Russia is attacking US assets, that must certainly invite a reasonable response, right?
Did the Russians attack Fort Knox? Are America's gold reserves the assets he means? Or has Putin attacked a major US city? Has Russia already occupied and fortified the eastern tip of Long Island?
No. Brzezinski was talking about Syria, a place where the United States has no apparent strategic interests. It got involved there only to address a humanitarian crisis. That's what the Obama administration has maintained.
Syrian president Assad was killing his own people, claimed the administration. That is eerily reminiscent of how Washington characterized Saddam Hussein of Iraq and Muammar Gaddafi of Libya before the US intervened in those countries. And we all know the poor outcome US intervention brought them.
Now, Brzezinski is concerned about Russia's attack on ISIS, the de facto country that has brutally occupied parts of Syria and Iraq. There's no reliable evidence that Russia attacked any US assets in Syria. There have been many media allegations to the contrary. But Brzezinsky calls them out as "alleged." Politico calls them "apparent," but offers no corroboration.
The Politico story was written by journalist Nick Gass. He quoted Brzezinski as saying, "The Russian naval and air presences in Syria are vulnerable, isolated geographically from their homeland," and furthermore "they could be 'disarmed' if they persist in provoking the US."
So, presumed vulnerability and logistical disadvantage are all Brzezinski needs? That's enough to attack? What an opportunist he is! And to what end? What about this risk of causing massive destruction to our planet?
I honestly can't understand any rational justification for Brzezinski's crazy-sounding recommendations.
But Politico didn't get those Brzezinski quotes from the man himself. Instead, the publication cited an article written for the Financial Times by Brzezinski.
I went and checked out that FT article. I wanted to know if Brzezinski actually advanced the arguments described in Politico.
The first disparity I noticed is the title: Politico ran with "Brzezinski: Obama should retaliate if Russia doesn't stop attacking US assets."
But the FT source article was titled "Russia must work with, not against, America in Syria." The article's deck explained, "We should persuade Moscow to act with us in resolving such a problem, writes Zbigniew Brzezinski."
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).