Smart question, smarter answer:
Maddow: It seems like the emerging, um I guess the emerging debate about what to do in the whole Afghanistan/Pakistan region - it comes down to this idea of about whether or not the problem can be out-governed instead of out-gunned. Whether this is something the US can be part of a constructive political solution, whether it really is a military issue. When I look at the evidently corrupt government - and, and a goverment of a limited reach of Hamid Karzai - and I look at the government in Pakistan which is only one year old and is bankrupt. It's hard for me to believe that we're, we've got enough- there's enough governance there to really solve this big problem.
Brzezinski: I can't help smiling because you used two words which we like to use when we become uncomfortable with those who are dependent on us - or who are, who are to some extent our allies. If we are uncomfortable with them we begin to say they are corrupt. Or now we're say that the Pakistanis are bankrupt. What about us? We're close to being bankrupt, and you know Washington and I know Washington. What we have in this city is well-organized, legalized corruption.
Brzezinski was not done - he went on to point out that 160,000 Soviet troops lost in Afghanistan, and that (at first) the US won rapidly using 300 troops because the Afghanis were with us. He was less sanguine about our future prospects:
Brzezinski: We have wasted seven years, pursuing policies which were ill-defined - not seeing any realistic objective - and now we have to re-think this whole engagement very seriously and taking into account Pakistani and European views.
Good stuff.
No comments:
Post a Comment