[tw]

Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft were National Security Advisors for Presidents Ford, Carter, and Bush Sr. They recently defined what to prepare for in Iraq. Gen Scowcroft's comments are especially interesting since he is also a closest friend and trusted advisor to Bush Sr.

What will it take to end the problems of Iraq?

Gen. Brent Scowcroft:
With Iraq, we clearly have a tiger by the tail. And the elections are turning out to be less about a promising transformation, and it has great potential for deepening the conflict. Indeed we may be seeing an incipient civil war at the present time.

What kind of Iraq are we after? We're after an Iraq that fundamentally is stable, that has a cooperative outlook towards its neighbors in the region. And with a government that is concerned about minority rights in such a way that these minorities come to support that government. And a military that is both disciplined, and effective, and that owes its allegiance to that government.

Now that's a tall order and if we put a time limit on it of anything less, of say a decade, we are not likely to get there in much shorter time. We need to think about where we're going to go from here. Getting in, getting out -- are fundamental issues and they're issues that portend deeply for the region itself.

Zbigniew Brzezinski:
A great deal of what is happening thus far in American Foreign Policy has been influenced by the ongoing conflict in Iraq. Now I would like to say very briefly that in my view, that war which was a war of choice is already a serious moral set back to the United States. A moral set back both in how we start, how it was justified, and because of some of the egregious incidents that have accompanied this proceeding. The moral costs to the United States are high. It's a political setback, The United States has never been involved in an intervention in its entire history like it is today. It is also a military set back. "Mission Accomplished" are words that many in this administration want to forget.

While our ultimate objectives are very ambitious we will never achieve democracy and stability without being willing to commit 500,000 troops, spend $200 billion a year, probably have a draft, and have some form of war compensation. As a society, we are not prepared to do that. It does tell you something. The Soviet Union could have won the war in Afghanistan too had it been prepared to do its equivalent of what I just mentioned. But even the Soviet Union was not prepared to do that because there comes a point in the life of a nation when such sacrifices are not justified.

Dr Brzezinski has probably defined the best we can hope for.

And therefore in my own judgment, the best we can obtain is probably some Iraqi state that is not a really integral state but haven fallen apart into three different sections and is dominated by a Shiite theocracy. Now this is not the same as the Iranian theocracy but it is certainly not going to be what we would normally call a democracy.

That would get America out of Iraq. A resulting Civil War could then could be blamed on Iraqis. Like Vietnam, it is how to get out and claim what follows is not America's fault.

Even if Sunni's do not vote, then Shi'ites can write the Constitution, Shi'ites can dominate the government, and Americans can leave. It is probably the best that America can hope for considering how badly the war is currently being fought and how much worse it will get. To hope for anything more would only turn more Iraqis into insurgents and make it only harder for America to leave. The alternative is demonstrated by how troops are now fighting this war.