Why Does Anyone Still Listen to Zbigniew Brzezinski?

The Huff Po reports that former National Security Advisor to Jimmy Carter Zbigniew Brzezinski is at it again:

All of a sudden, everyone seems to be in favor of sending more troops to Afghanistan. As Barack Obama encourages Europeans to dispatch more NATO forces and John McCain says that U.S. troops could be sent in greater numbers, the idea that a bigger military footprint is needed has become something of a consensus in the political mainstream.

But Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski is not on board -- though it's not the first time President Jimmy Carter's national security adviser has cast a skeptic's eye on the usefulness of dispatching great numbers of troops to the country.

Brzezinski has been spectacularly wrong on so many counts that his counsel should be eschewed as soon as it leaves his mouth. As head of the NSA for Carter, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan because he aided the Mujahideen, scores of hostages were taken by radical students in Iran during his tenure, the Soviet sphere of interest in South America mushroomed and our military readiness plummeted yet we are supposed to heed this mans words?

In recent years, Brzezinski has been wrong on every major issue with the most glaring being his opposition to the "surge" in Iraq when he wrote in January 2007:

· The commitment of 21,500 more troops is a political gimmick of limited tactical significance and of no strategic benefit. It is insufficient to win the war militarily. It will engage U.S. forces in bloody street fighting that will not resolve with finality the ongoing turmoil and the sectarian and ethnic strife, not to mention the anti-American insurgency.

· The decision to escalate the level of the U.S. military involvement while imposing "benchmarks" on the "sovereign" Iraqi regime, and to emphasize the external threat posed by Syria and Iran, leaves the administration with two options once it becomes clear -- as it almost certainly will -- that the benchmarks are not being met. One option is to adopt the policy of "blame and run": i.e., to withdraw because the Iraqi government failed to deliver. That would not provide a remedy for the dubious "falling dominoes" scenario, which the president so often has outlined as the inevitable, horrific consequence of U.S. withdrawal. The other alternative, perhaps already lurking in the back of Bush's mind, is to widen the conflict by taking military action against Syria or Iran. It is a safe bet that some of the neocons around the president and outside the White House will be pushing for that. Others, such as Sen. Joseph Lieberman, may also favor it.

Read those two bullet points and tell me how he could have been any more wrong. His main points being that additional troops were a "gimmick" was wrong. Writing the "surge" would not end "sectarian and ethnic strife" was wrong. Positing that the benchmarks would not be met was wrong. A widened conflict involving military action against Syria and Iran was wrong. In total, the entire piece full of tragic predictions has been shown to be completely wrong yet we are supposed to heed the words of Brzezinski now?

The Carter years were the worst this nation saw in the second half of the 20th Century and many of his policies were the policies of Brzezinski. We have turned a definite loss in Iraq into a stunning win and now must set our sites on acomplishing the same in Afghanistan. It's surprising to no one that we again are reading the meaningless words of naysayers and pessimists like Brzezinski who have shown time and again that they lack complete faith in out military to gain strategic victories. Perhaps it's well past time for Mr. Brzezinski to just go away and contemplate his stance quietly rather than face embarrassment on an epic scale once again.