Charlie Rose

jason  01/10/2013 02:07 AM Report

majority of those who want to go "harsh" on China, Russia, Iran, N Korea..... forgot one thing, war is not an option. we tried that in Iraq, Afghanistan the blow back is so harsh that we spend $0.6 trillion per year for 9 years ($5.4 trillion and counting), all by borrowing fighting a unilaterally (with UK) declared war where no other country support. you blame Obama for bankrupting our country? it stated with Bush since 2003. and you want another war? where is the $$$

Sparkle26  10/24/2012 01:16 PM Report

After eons and generations of fighting and killing, I believe educating the children there is the only way to stop the violence. If we must be there, it should be to protect the innocent and educate the children. Teaching them right and wrong, respect and love could go a very long way. Peace keeping ONLY should be our mission.

winter  10/24/2012 10:28 AM Report

"You can't dissociate yourself from providing arms" Zig you can't be serious. Maybe not entirely from the people who pay attention but from a critical mass of the mob, happens all the time, probably even right now.

Arapaport  02/01/2012 09:36 AM Report

Regarding Brzezinski comment comparing other nuclear countries like North Korea, China and Russia to Iran. None of these countries believed in Islam/extreme Islam. None of these countries promoted what Iran promotes and supports, Terror and justification of terror (Hamas, Hezbollah, other Shia military groups). and None of these countries promise to eliminate the people of another nation who are strong US allies.

blank  01/28/2012 01:57 AM Report

http://video.server.dhamma.org/video/intro/Sngintroeng.mp4

EthicalHumanist  01/28/2012 12:56 AM Report

It was Brzezinski and Jimmy Carter who paved the way for the Islamofascists in Iran, Afghanistan, Lebanon...etc. They heavily critized the late Shah of Iran for his lack of respect for "human rights", but mysteriously both Brzezinski and Carter have been very silent about the total disrespect for "human rights" in Iran under the bloody and corrupt Islamic/mullah mafia.

jeffreymathew  01/27/2012 09:10 PM Report

Charlie, loved the perspective from Brzezinski, thanks!

Please consider upgrading to a HD video stream for charlierose.com similar to your Hulu stream.

Richard_DeBiase  01/27/2012 10:12 AM Report

At ShalomFreedman 01/27/2012 01:44 AM

Don't worry about the typing mistake. It is an inherent part of this type of communication.

I think you made your point clearly and concisely.

ShalomFreedman  01/27/2012 01:44 AM Report

I apologize for a mistake in my previous comment. I wrote that the U.S. demonizes Israel when I intended to write that Iran demonizes and hates Israel even more than it hates and demonizes the U.S.

ShalomFreedman  01/27/2012 01:42 AM Report

Zbig speaks about Iran while speaking about his own shameful role in the U.S. 'loss' of Iran and humiliation by Iran. He believes that the U.S. has the power to deter Iran at the very time that Iran is acting against the U.S. in Afghanistan, Iraq and a host of other areas. He also errs in claiming that the U.S. would be the major victim of any war with Iran. Israel is on the front line , much closer to Iran, and even more hated and demonized by the U.S. than Iran is. He also makes a totally false accusation against Israel that it would attack Iran to involve the U.S. in the war. This is idiotic as the first target of the Iranians is Israel and the missiles of all of Iran's surrogates are directed at Israel.

One more point. I distrust people who are always right and always knows better than everyone else what is going on, and what is to be done. Zbig is always right even though as National Security Advisor under Carter he managed a disastrous turn against U.S. interests.

tabs  01/26/2012 08:45 PM Report

Point of Clarification Ellen. One does not think that the Chinese are thinking or planning on taking over the role of Global Security. They are however looking to the day when they will have to take over their own security interests to protect themselves, as the US umbrella will have folded. One sees a multi polar world developing as the US fades in power. The US has been the glue with its economy and policy of Free Trade and Globalization. If one recalls it was the Marshall Plan of rebuilding the European and Japanese economies as a counter to the spread of Communism that eventually morphed into an American Empire of Globalization.

chawlydollylama  01/26/2012 07:56 PM Report

His credentials also include, former KGB agent-spy. It all makes sense now, of course, who would expect a Russian of being a spy.?! Obviously, Jimmy Carter didn't think so. ..or did he?.

Learn all about, read my book.

After I write it.

Ellen_Dibble  01/26/2012 06:08 PM Report

The idea of declaring peace rather than declaring war makes more sense in a mutually dependent international economy. Sometimes it is very obviously more advantageous, even in survival terms, to think like that. I haven't thought Brzezinski was suggesting we disarm ourselves, either by retiring all our Navy Seals and translators or by disabling all our nuclear arsenal. However, I am encouraged by tabs' point that the Chinese may be preparing to take over global security if and when the USA has to step back. I like that idea. I'm wondering if anyone knows how they are going about that planning. Would they be trying to use the United Nations, other international bodies? Would they start out with "trade wars," starving us of the rare minerals, for instance, or... The future of competition, both friendly and hostile, may be hard to envision. What will Donilon say... Maybe just the points aimed at getting Obama re-elected.

tabs  01/26/2012 05:52 PM Report

Now comes Part 2:

The rational for the Western thinking that the Chinese are concerned about US trying to contain them comes out of the Chinese build up of their military forces. This is specious in the following. The US since the Spanish American War has had a Pacific if not east Asia policy and presence. The Chinese have been sanguine about letting the US provide Global Security while they tended to developing their domestic economy. The Chinese method of counter balancing US power is as stated to intertwine themselves economically with the US. Thus what possible rational could the Chinese have for their recent build up of their military? While some credence can be given to having enough military force to match its presence on the world stage, the Chinese predilection of looking at a long view of history is far more persuasive in that they are looking forward to the day when the US will no longer be able to afford the role of providing Global security.

tabs  01/26/2012 05:02 PM Report

Long, long ago on a dark, rainy, fall morning at a University on the western edge of the continent a man came to lecture a small group of undergraduate students on Soviet foreign policy. One of the students was startled at the vehemence that the man had for the Soviets, thinking of them as no better than thugs in suits. The student realized that the man had good cause to hold such negative feelings in that he was Polish. That man of course was Mr Zbig before he became a NS advisor.

If one has something to convey to Mr Zbig it is the following thought process. In 1945 the Pope condemned Stalin for his treatment and takeover of Eastern Europe. To which Stalin replied, "How many divisions does the Pope have?" In 1989 the Pope could have asked Comrade Stalin, "What good are all those divisions doing you now?" For the nature of true power is the latter rather than the former.

However one digresses. Mr Zbig articulated with clarity and astuteness the situation confronting the US today with regards to the world. One could not have expressed it better oneself. Even Dr K would be in agreement perhaps only correcting on nuance rather than substance as DR K is fully familiar with the issues presented.

The one thing that Mr Zbig failed to discuss either because he does not realize it or is an omission on his part. Mr Zbig does not realize or is omitting that a US Sovereign Debt Crisis can have the same affect on the world economy and security as a nuclear war. One will reiterate the pertinent reasons. The US is the largest economy in the world (US financial services), the USD is the reserve currency, US debt instruments are held worldwide, and the US guarantees Global Security. If the US SD Bubble should deflate rapidly an economic tsunami and failure of Global Security will sweep over the world leaving chaos and fragmentation in its wake. Thus we are faced with a potential end of the American Empire of a Globalized economy and the rise of an era of darkness where many regional powers will be vying for power. As power abhors a vacuum.

As stated before Mr Zbigs thinking is parochial in that he thinks in the Power Politic terms of a Middle European. For example Mr Zbig contends that the Chinese are concerned that the US is trying to contain them with the US military presence and a series of agreements with the nations in SE Asia. Yet in another breath he contends that the Chinese have intertwined themselves with the US economically. Thus why would the Chinese be concerned about containment when they can exert political influence on the US process by the means of their economic intertwining? The Chinese have been more than sanguine to let the US provide Global Security for decades so that they would not have to bear that expense nor responsibility. They would rather have implemented the philosophy of keeping their friends close and their enemies even closer as a means of counterbalancing US political, military and economic power.

mariedolan  01/26/2012 04:57 PM Report

Yesterday's interview from Mr. Brzezinski coverd so many areas of international affairs and I am looking forward to tonight's interview with the National security Advisor. He spanned three generations in his perspective on our strategic role. First, seemed to portray us as the big dumb kid who always gets left holding the bag by some "sly boots'-my Grandmother's era. He is probably right. Then he seems to say that Israel will intentionally provoke Iran to set us up, even at her own peril. This view was held by many in my parents' generation-a view that I do not share. We do not know what Mr. Brzezinski is NOT saying and that is most important to consider. However, I recoil at the suggestion that we should allow Iran to continue on its current course, (essentially, go ahead let them have their weapons, all our enemies do) or that Israel should surrender ANY of her defensive or deterrent capability.

He cautions us about sabre rattling at China just after Leon Panetta has said that we need to determine whether China has committed an act of war regarding the planting of a virus on our power grid.

I think most Americans agree that our resources our being thinned by domestic security and our endless involvements abroad. I was surprised to hear him say this though. We are spending more than any country in the world on defense and more than the next ten countries combined and yet we find ourselves always involved in some area. Mr. Brzezinski did not comment on current plans to streamline and modernize our military. I hope that tonight's guest will do so.

I am surprised by the number of comments that I read that say simply why don't we just all be friends. World peace is a beautiful dream but it is just that, a dream. The realities of power, leverage and concrete evil do exist and repeat and do not yield to wishful thinking. Secretary of State Clinton said recently: "We do not have the luxury of making peace with our friends." Sometimes in world affairs we are walking through a mean neighborhood; not a good time to rely on optimism, goodwill, and mankind's better nature. Thank you for your time.

OBSERVER  01/26/2012 04:15 PM Report

Mr. Charlie,

Your best program; it deserves 10 STARS.

EVERY WORD, EVERY SENTENCE HAS PROFOUND MEANING AND APPLICATION FOR THOSE WHO HAVE VISIONS ,NOT BLINDED BY

SELF- SEVING EMOTIONS.

THIS IS WHAT THE UNITED STATES USED TO BE; HAVING ADVISORS

WHO FORMULATED RATIONAL AND PRACTICAL POLICIES FOR THE GOOD

OF THE WORLD, REFLECTING THE US AS THE CIVILIZED SUPERPOWER.

WISHED THE UNITED STATES ADMINISTRATIONS WERE ALWAYS SURROUNDED BY BRAINS, WISDOM AND EXPERIENCES LIKE Dr. Brzezinski.

God bless you.

Richard_DeBiase  01/26/2012 04:13 PM Report

For you Charlie Rose viewers who don't know already, I am very opposed to the Drug War. Zbigniew Brzezinski's interview brings up one of the reasons why.

The reason the Drug War is so popular, is because it serves the purposes of so many different groups. One of the reasons the Reagan Republicans love the Drug War, is because it helps keep liberals out of the national security agencies. How many liberals can get a security clearance when one of the questions is, have you ever used marijuana?

Was the fact that Ronald Reagan changed the Drug War from a war on heroin, to a war on marijuana, purely cynical? I don't know. But I'll bet that there were at least a few cynical people in the Reagan Administration.

Ellen_Dibble  01/26/2012 01:07 PM Report

There was some cognitive dissonance in listening to this calm personable individual holding forth. Oh, he says, to say that I have been asked to advise the president is not at all the same as being part of within-administration day-to-day exchanging of inputs and opinions. Got it. Got it. But there are slippery slopes and there are actual cliffs. He is not the lemming to stand in front of the administration and yell, "CLIFF!" Nor am I.

I agree with mutex below that Iran could certainly be an ally. It seems to me they owe us something for having rid them of Saddam Hussein, and maybe for extirpating, to the best of our ability, the extremists to their east. I sometimes wonder why Iran seems to like to keep us as an enemy. Maybe there is some triangulation (if that is the word), and maybe some of it involves China and Russia, China with an eye to maximum (competitive) commercial privilege, Russia with a Cold War stance somewhat entrenched (or I don't know why). But everything could change so fast, Russia with elections, Egypt with a new Constitution, Israel less sheltered by having American "puppets" throughout the region.

Brzezinski's take on Palestine/Israel, that they can't negotiate properly because they aren't sufficiently equal, is interesting. He seems to see us as playing a role there, but America gets in hot water every time we try to help Israel, it seems; let someone else, without our "baggage," do that. And Israel, he says, is too hungry for land/territory to move ahead now.

And he asks why doesn't Israel think of giving up its nuclear "deterrent," since they admit that they would never get to use it, after being wiped out by a first strike. Israel could deter attack better in this case by being unarmed (nuclearly); Iran would have far less excuse for preparing an equal and opposite strength.

Again, the political realities are changing so fast in the region that I think Brzesinski might start outlining yet another book. I might wait for it. Long life to him.

mutex  01/26/2012 12:42 PM Report

It was refreshing to see a former national security adviser who is willing to talk about the world in objective terms without pandering to some group or attempting to support some predetermined agenda. The only thing I don't understand is why he believes it is possible to pull Russia and Turkey into an alliance with the West but not Iran. Wouldn't making Iran an ally solve a great many of our problems? Why can we have all sorts of cooperation with nations like Saudi Arabia and Egypt but not Iran. It can't be this Sunni / Shiite nonsense can it? If we were to drop our sanctions, HELP them build up their nuclear technology and negotiate strategic alliances based on respect, honest communication and aid it would seem to me this would greatly improve our much vaunted 'national security interests' in the area. As Mr. Brzezinski implied, we need to put on our pragmatic glasses and see that a war with Iran doesn't lead us anywhere we want to go. If politicians really need an enemy to focus on in order to enhance their favorite tools of fear and hatred they should stick to nations like Granada, Somalia, or Liberia where they don't have the potential to throw the world into chaos. Sooner or later these excursions will beat the hunger for war out of us. Why not change course while we still have the opportunity to negotiate from a position of strength instead of waiting until China puts us into the position of having to negotiate from a position of weakness? Even the most jingoistic of war hawks should be able to understand that.

REMant  01/26/2012 12:30 PM Report

India and perhaps China intend to end-run the sanctions by paying for Iranian oil with gold. With any luck everyone will pay for oil in gold. We'd certainly deserve that.

Brzezinski is surely tho right about the dangers in the Iranian situation and to question our motives. I'm afraid the latter are entirely domestic and political. As with Vietnam, the problem isn't in the Middle East, but right here at home.

But I disagree with the presumption that weapons per se create instability. I'm surprised a "balance-of-power guy" would make such an argument. I'm quite sure that nuclear weapons in the present case would greatly enhance stability, not diminish it. As with finance, this govt seems to think top-down control is more efficacious than competition. I think it is dangerous. It manipulates envious relationships instead of removing them. The idea that Israel may feel free, as he suggests, because of the huge liberal and fundamentalist pro-Zionist sentiment here, to engage in the kind of provocations it has should be proof of that. While I think he is right to point to people getting upset with us for upsetting power balances, the current economic situation should instead offer us a great deal more opportunity, not less. You can only come to his conclusion if you assume foreign policy is a matter of patronization and extortion. That makes no sense in a "balance-of-power guy." The president himself has refuted this view, and seems bent on attempting to take advantage of others' weakness with little regard for our own. It certainly is at odds with the belief that the uprisings seen in so many parts of the world are concerned with human dignity. Is equality really achieved by affirmative action or welfare? Fairness should be the stock-in-trade of a "balance-of-power guy," and I certainly have no quarrel with it, but the president will never achieve it coming at it from the direction he has. If he really wants peace in the world, he's going to have become a lot more diffident.

You generally expect cabinet officers to become representatives of their constituents, and Congressional committees of their agencies), and thus diplomatic-types to see things through the eyes foreign powers. This is what they are paid to do and part of the balance of power in govt. But the latter seem ever more isolated by the "national security" apparatus, and the press of domestic politics, and frankly not only do I doubt presidents listen to them anymore, I think the state department has stopped listening, too.

Richard_DeBiase  01/26/2012 12:25 PM Report

Dear Dr. Brzezinski,

I'd be interested in hearing discussion and debate about the following hypothesis from as many sources as possible. Please evaluate it and discuss it with your colleagues at your convenience, and maybe I'll hear you talk about it in the media at some point in the future.

The hypothesis is: the Mexican government is going to lose the Drug War, and Mexico is going to become a failed state like Somalia.

Thank you for your attention.

Best regards,