The Canadian National Newspaper: Obama: America's "Second Chance" or is it its Last?

I was asked to write a follow up analysis to "The Clintons' Contributions to the Iraq War", which showed the continuity of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East spanning one Republican and two Democratic presidential administrations and how they paved the way for Bush II to invade Iraq.

This article will strictly deal with an Obama presidency and how Obama will fit within this continuity of US foreign policy.

By examining the Obama foreign policy team, during the primaries, and in its latest version, announced in June of 2008 after he became presumptive candidate; an assessment of the team's contributions to American foreign policy through the decades will help us accurately predict their future war plans.

At least this is how things started, but as I went deeper into the analysis, Brzezinski came to the forefront and Obama faded away. As I was finishing this follow-up, I stumbled upon Webster G. Tarpley's excellent work "The Postmodern Coup: Making of a Manchurian Candidate".

From the little that I have read, if my analysis has similarities with Mr. Tarpley's work, it should be looked at as an independent confirmation from a geopolitical perspective into how Obama, through Brzezinski, would operate on the international stage.

On my part, I could not complete this task without reading "Second Chance", a book written by Zbigniew Brzezinski, Obama's earliest advisor during the primaries that spanned the same period and the same administrations I had already reviewed in relation to the Iraq war.

We also need to keep in mind that Brzezinski had written "The Grand Chessboard - American Primacy and its Geopolitical Imperatives" an American foreign policy roadmap after the fall of the Soviet Union.

As a book, a "Second Chance" is the earliest sales pitch for the Obama presidency. First published in 2006, it talked to the ruling elite and not to the people of this country; it examined the performance of the three presidents since the fall of the Soviet Union, Bush I, Clinton, and then Bush II. Professor Brzezinski gave the first two mediocre grades and ended with an F for Jr., for lack of a lower grade. Finally, he went on to describe the ideal future president; namely, Obama.

If we first examine Brzezinski's other book, The Grand Chessboard, we quickly realize that the neocons hijacked Brzezinski's work of the 90's in order to develop their own plans for Central Asia and winging a plan for the Middle East through the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

The neocons, headed by Bush Jr., stole Brzezinski's well-thought vision and turned it into a global quagmire. No wonder Brzezinski wants a "Second Chance" to implement his plans, but can he turn back the clock and erase eight years of what he considers a dismal failure, and what are his odds for success?

In order to establish American hegemony, Brzezinski and the neocons are in agreement as to what is needed, a spectacular attack on the United States, without it, Brzezinski argues, there would be no internal support within the United States for the sacrifices needed to implement his plans for American supremacy. In his book "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives", Mr. Brzezinski writes:

"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat."

Similarly, The Project for a New American Century, a Washington think tank that took the reins, as embodied by the neocons, at the Pentagon and the Bush II White House, felt strongly about the need for a "Spectacular Attack" that they openly conveyed their wish in a September 2000 white paper, Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century.

Furthermore, the process of transformation [rebuilding America's Defenses], even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a "new Pearl Harbor."

These expansionist plans that would affect Central Asia, the Middle East, and Africa, and the military support they require, can only be accelerated and such acceleration acceptable to the American public if there were a new Pearl Harbor and the public felt a continuous outside threat of unpredictable catastrophic attacks; that was Brzezinski's theory that the neocons implemented by allowing the 9/11 attacks to take place and through their declaration of the "war on terror"; the failure was in the execution Brzezinski laments

Alas, the foreign policy that the president forged [after 9/11] became outspokenly unilateralist ("if you are not with us, you are against us"), demagogic, fear-driven as well as fear-inspiring, and politically exploitative of the slogan "we are a nation at war". It ultimately plunged America into a solitary war of choice in Iraq.

Brzezinski obviously favours a more consultative and coalition-building approach with the U.S. at the helm. Again I ask, can Brzezinski turn back the clock and erase eight years of unilateralism?

Brzezinski felt that the only way he could turn back the clock and restore some of the goodwill toward America that Bush II totally squandered, was to present the world with a fresh face - not any fresh face - but one that is an amalgam of JFK and Martin Luther King that bridges the cultural divide, is appealing to a Muslim audience, but most importantly, acceptable to the Europeans who are to be Brzezinski's cornerstone of a global alliance of advanced, moderate, and wealthy nations. In "Second Chance" he writes

In brief, by selectively drawing the more advanced and democratic non-European states into closer collaboration on global issues, a dominant core of moderation, wealth, and democracy can continue to project a constructive worldwide influence.

As a close observer of Washington's machinations, Brzezinski had a clear understanding of the competing currents at the highest levels of American politics; it is no longer a competition between Republicans and Democrats with corporate giants and the industrial military complex weighing in, it is a fight tooth and nail for the survival of the United States between its self-appointed protectors, the "old guard", Republican and Democrats allied on one side, and AIPAC and the neocons on the other.

The consensus among the "old guard" that the Bush II presidency was out of control came toward the end of his first term, they were probably all wishing he would not get re-elected.

Once re-elected, they fired a bi-partisan first shot across the bow in the form of The Iraq Study Group (ISG), formed to independently evaluate conditions in Iraq. The ISG, led by James Baker, a Bush family friend, and Lee Hamilton was critical of the conduct of the war in Iraq and favoured phased withdrawal and dialogue with Iran and Syria.

Shortly before the ISG released its report, a Republican member, Robert Gates, resigned due to his nomination for Secretary of Defense, and it is presumed that Robert Gates shares the ISG's recommendations and was most likely forced on Bush by the "old guard" as their ambassador in Bush II's court.

Other than Mr. Gates, Admiral Fallon was assigned to replace General Abizaid as head of Central Command whose area of operation includes Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. Admiral Fallon can be single handedly credited for delaying an attack on Iran, not just by publicly opposing it, but by bringing the issue to the forefront and into the public debate.

Also, shortly after that, Admiral Mullen ascended to the highest military position at the Pentagon as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

It is no coincidence that Admiralty was suddenly at the helm, no pun intended. The Pentagon needed a steady hand and Admirals tend to be more deliberative, have a better grasp of world affairs, and are the ones who could rein in the cowboy mentality pervasive in the other services.

One would think that by now the writing is on the wall: the neocons and their brand of governance was no longer welcome. However, the neocons know all too well that, once out of the White House, it is going to be very difficult for them to get back in.

The stakes are very high, the neocons and the "old guard" with their respective allies are engaged in the most vicious fight between two competing currents within government and is the reason why foreign policy positions seem disjointed until we divide them into two different categories.

The first one under the control of the "old guard" through Robert Gates at the Pentagon; setting the ground for the Obama presidency, while the other is under the control of the neocons, lead by Dick Cheney and company; Bush II is nothing but a stooge flailing in the wind and what he says and does is more like a weathervane indicating which faction has more control at that instant.

Leading those who are helping Obama deal with these issues is Brzezinski, who has chosen to work in the shadows like a true puppet master, and his foreign policy team that he announced in June of 2008, shortly after he became the presumptive nominee.

Brzenzinski's intellect can deal with any adversity and he probably welcomes them as challenging and fun. The rest of the Obama team is understandably tapped from the last democratic administration, Bill Clinton's, with extensive hands-on experience in foreign policy, nuclear proliferation, defence and weapons systems, etc.

The most puzzling were the latest additions shortly after he defeated Hillary Clinton; Hillary's heavy weight, Madeleine Albright, the one responsible for paving the way for Bush II to invade Iraq, jumped ship and joined the Obama team, so did Lee Hamilton, a leading member of the Iraq Study Group that was so critical of the Bush II Iraq policies, and, a leading member of the white-wash 9/11 commission whose report left so many questions unanswered and failed to address potential complicity of the White House.

This expanded advisory is quite large, too large to lead and may be even too large to reach a policy consensus. It is more like recycled gravitas that would help shore up Obama's perceived inexperience and to help calm down a jittery "old guard".

Still, the combined experience of the final condensed version, the executives of foreign policy in the Obama White house, would be coming entirely from the Clinton presidency, the presidency that picked up where Bush I left, paved the way for the Bush II's war in Iraq, and would have to pick up now where Bush II left and deal with his neo-realities strictly through the Brzezinski perspective. But could this "Brzezinski team" turn back the clock and what does turning back the clock mean?

A turning of the clock should be anchored in a watershed moment in American history, 9/11; it is the moment where the entire world was full of goodwill toward the US. A similar event or conditions would need to be created in order to provide the optimum conditions for Brzezinski's "Second Chance" for American hegemony.

Is it sufficient for Brzezinski to introduce a new face, a half-white, half-black, half-Christian, half-Muslim, to regain this worldwide goodwill that he needs? Or would a savvy world population see it for what it really is; a Sarah Palin like manoeuvre that is pandering to a specific crowd, albeit larger?

An Obama presidency, as I see it now, will not be a presidency of peace; it will be a presidency of wars sold as "just wars" of necessity in the Greater Middle East. After all, there is very little difference between Brzezinski's vision and that of the neocons, the only difference is in the execution.

Become a Member:

Would you like to see other similar articles and critical commentaries in The Canadian National Newspaper? Then, show your support. Make a member-pledge donation, in support of the Membership Drive of the Pro-Democracy Media Foundation.

The Canadian can only continue to publish investigative articles in such areas, with the donations from members of the public in Canada, the U.S., and abroad. Consider making a donation of $50.00, $75.00, $100.00, $200.00 or more. Donors are eligible to receive our first collector's print edition in mail. Alternatively, you can send us a note to be placed on our special email list of members. Member-donors can also suggest articles or commentaries to be published in The Canadian.

The Canadian is a socially progressive and not-for-profit national newspaper, with an international readership. We provide an alternative to the for-profit commercial focused media, which often censors vital information and perspective of potential interest to the diverse Canadian public, and other peoples internationally.

Server Error in '/' Application.

The resource cannot be found.