If you thought Carter was bad...

It's not bad enough that Dhimmi Carter refuses to stay put wherever it is that they billet past presidents when they begin to embarrass themselves and their country.  But now the man who was Carter's mentor - the architect of some of his worst policies - has reappeared and is vying for the ear of yet another inexperienced president. [Note:  I am using the word 'inexperienced' objectively and without prejudice]

This past Sunday, Carter's former national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, announced in an interview that he feels President Barak Obama should order U.S. forces to shoot down Israeli jets in the event that they try to over-fly Iraqi airspace on their way to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities.

Here is his exact statement:

"They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch? ... We have to be serious about denying them that right. That means a denial where you aren't just saying it. If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a 'Liberty' in reverse."

Just take a moment to re-read that quote.  This is an angry man talking.  If you didn't know the context you could be forgiven for assuming he was talking about an enemy.  Not only is he speaking about an ally in a completely belligerent tone, but he seems to have an axe to grind over the USS Liberty.

Not incidentally, it was under the watchful eyes of Carter and Brzezinski that Iraq was allowed to develop the Osirak nuclear facility.  So it isn't a reach to figure that both men are still stung by the prevailing school of thought which holds that Israel was forced to 'fix' a mistake that was allowed to happen on their watch.   

Yes, I know that technically Israel bombed Osirak after Carter left office.  But hanging Iraq's nuclear program around Ronald Reagan's neck would be about as silly as giving Jimmy Carter credit for the release of the US hostages from Iran.  The mistakes were made on Carter's and Brzezinski's watch.  The problems were 'solved' by others who came after.

Getting back to Mr. Brzezinski, it wasn't that he simply announced that the US should shoot down Israeli planes.   He actually went so far as to suggest that if such a military show-down came to pass, that it would be a payback for the 'Liberty Affair'.

Now, for those not in the know about the fate of the USS Liberty, I suggest reading what's found at this link. But if you are tight on time, the short version is that in June of 1967 during the Six Day War, a US Intel Gathering (i.e.spy) ship entered an area that Israel had declared a closed military zone and was mistakenly identified as an Egyptian warship.  In a tragic case of mistaken identify, the Liberty was bombed and strafed by Israeli planes resulting in the loss of the ship and the death of 34 men (171 others were wounded). 

Israel apologized, took full responsibility for the accident, and paid compensation to the families of the dead, to the wounded and to the U.S. government for the loss of the ship.  After two decades of independent US and Israeli governmental investigations (and countless conspiracy theories that still abound) the Israeli and US government's officially closed the books on the incident with an exchange of diplomatic notes on December 17, 1987. 

Apparently Mr. Brzezinski didn't get the memo... or is still carrying a grudge.

I say this because threatening deliberate US military aggression against Israel in the same breath as one mentions a tragic friendly fire accident makes absolutely no sense.  Unless, of course, the speaker doesn't think of it as an accident. 

The only way you can find logic in his juxtaposition of these two events - one in the past and one in the future - is if Israel's attack on the Liberty was as premeditated as, say, the theoretical downing of Israeli fighters by US forces in Iraq.

I mean, think about it for a moment... he isn't suggesting that the US accidentally [wink wink] mis-identify and kill Israeli pilots, is he? No, of course not.  He clearly sees the Liberty incident as a score that requires settling... and is among a dangerous breed of US diplomats and political scientists/advisers who view Israel exclusively through the lens of whatever preconception(s) and/or grudge(s) they may hold. 

Aside from the fact that the outcome of a hostile encounter between Israeli and US warplanes over Iraq would be far from a turkey shoot for the American aviators... the idea of rattling a sabre in the face of the US's only stable ally in the region is just plain wrong-headed.  Unless, of course, the sabre-rattler doesn't consider Israel an ally in the first place.

Fortunately, much of the world views Jimmy Carter as little more than a failed president taking un-earned curtain calls on the world stage in order to salvage some sort of legacy.  But what few people remember is that Brzezinski was essentially calling the shots for Carter even before he declared his intention to run for president.  He placed Jimmy Carter on the world stage by inviting him to join his newly formed 'Trilateral Commission' while he was a relatively unknown governor of a state most foreigners couldn't find on a map.  And from that point on, Carter acknowledged that he was "an eager student" of Brzezinski; making him his primary foreign policy adviser during and after the presidential election.

My greatest fear is that another neophyte president with limited experience in the international arena will turn his attention to the architect of Carter's failed presidency.  Seriously, it could happen!  If you thought Carter was bad... try to imagine how bad things might get if someone like Brzezinski were to gain Obama's ear.

Update:  A reader sent me the following cartoon that fits nicely wit the theme: