Skeptic Project

Here is a little post I made over at the Facebook group. Enjoy:

Introduction

A 1997 book by Zbigniew Brzezinski entitled "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geopolitical Imperative" has been touted as a work proving an elitist plot for a New World Order. Several quotations have been taken from the book and listed on a website called takeovertheworld.info. True to its name-sake, the website argues that the book champions a US domination of the world as well as the destruction of democratic values at home. However, this interpretation of the book rests on a very flawed reading of Brzezinski's work, and further extends the interpretation under a false understanding about what the book actually influences. The aim here is to but the context back around some of the quotes taken by takeovertheworld, and to reorient readers towards Brzezinski's actually argument. While not exhaustive, this entry does take some of the more controversial and fundamental quotes and puts to rest the incorrect interpretations of them.

Below I include both book page numbers as well as PDF page numbers. Readers are encouraged to open the pdf file (located here: http://www.hollings.org/Content/Zbigniew.Brzezinski_Grand.Chess.Board.pdf) to follow along.

Europe-Asia, Not the Middle East

Perhaps the first critical step that the webmasters of Take Over the World make is the assumption that Brzezinski's Eurasia refers to the Middle East. While the definition of the Middle East itself is very difficult to completely identify, the more crucial problem is that Brzezinski is not refering to the Middle East at all. Indeed, the webmasters of the website make this step because it would seem to make sense in a conspiracy aimed at taking over pipelines and oil wells in the Middle East and thus explain why there are two wars being fought there[1].

Looking at the way the quote appears on Take Over the World we see the authors through in a caveat at the end:

"Ever since the continents started interacting politically, some five hundred years ago, Eurasia has been the center of world power."- (p. xiii) (Eurasia means "the Middle East")

However, when one returns to the text and reads the full context we see that Bzezinski means something much different. He writes on the same page:

"In different ways, at different times, the peoples inhabiting Eurasia -- though mostly those from its Western European periphery -- penetrated and dominated the world's other regions as individual Eurasian states attained the special status and enjoyed the privileges of being the world's premier powers."(book xiii; PDF4)

and

"Eurasia, however, retains its geopolitical importance. Not only is its western periphery -- Europe -- still the location of much of the world's political and economic power, but its eastern region -Asia -- has lately become a vital center of economic growth and rising political influence. Hence, the issue of how a globally engaged" (book xiii; PDF4)

We see here that the geographical definition in Bzezinski's book is the combination of the European and Asian continents. In fact, the rest of his book deals with European and Asian actors and their relationships with the United States [2]. So to assume that Bzezinski's book defines Eurasia as The Middle East is to deliberately ignore not only his own geographical definition, but to also ignore the rest of the book's content.

Plans to Take Over the World, or Prudent Geostrategy?

At the heart of it, the webmasters of Take Over the World suggest that Bzezinski's book advocates the take over of the world and placing it under American lead, one-world government. The webmasters quote

"... But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book.” (p. xiv)"

The quote before the ellipse, however, reveals Bzezinski's true intention

"The ultimate objective of American policy should be benign and
visionary: to shape a truly cooperative global community, in keeping
with long-range trends and with the fundamental interests of
humankind." (book xiv; PDF5)

Note that Brzezinski is careful to say that US involvement should be peaceful, not aggressive, and that international cooperation, not take over, is critical. By stating that a "truly cooperative global community" needs to be shaped, he is not using a euphemism for global conquest and one world government. Rather, he is supporting what is typically called International Institutionalism or Liberal Instituitonalsim [3]. The argument here is that if another superpower emerges that can dominate Eurasia, a large-scale conflict is likely. And the integrated Eurasian policy he argues for does not mean integrating the continents politically, but rather integrating our foreign policy in Asian and Europe together. He argues that if we are to have effect relations and avoid further Cold-War era tensions [4] then we must have a cohesive foreign policy in the region. This is evident throughout the book.

A Superpower Extinct- Not Immortal

This next quote would appear to be very damning for a casual reader of Take Over the World. It reads

"In the long run, global politics are bound to become increasingly uncongenial to the concentration of hegemonic power in the hands of a single state. Hence, America is not only the first, as well as the only, truly global superpower, but it is also likely to be the very last." (p.209)

The argument Take Over the World is making about Brzezinski's book is that American is heralded as being the last, and perpetual, world power. Implied in this is the idea that the US is in a seat of power and will not lose that power. Brzezinski's actual argument, to me, is far more interesting. He says

"That is so not only because nation-states are gradually becoming increasingly permeable but also because knowledge as power is becoming more diffuse, more shared, and less constrained by national boundaries. Economic power is also likely to become more dispersed. In the years to come, no single power is likely to reach the level of 30 percent or so of the world's GDP that America sustained throughout much of this century, not to speak of the 50 percent at which it crested in 1945. Some estimates suggest that by the end of this decade, America will still account for about 20 percent of global GDP, declining perhaps to about 10-15 percent by 2020 as other powers-- Europe, China, Japan-- increase their relative share to more or less the American level." (Book pp 209-210; PDF 183)

We can see that he argues that US power will actually wane, but that no one single state will ever dominate the globe again. He rests this argument on economic and soft-power issues, and those are points debateable in a IR context. But what is clear is that he is not arguing that the US will stay in power forever, but rather that there will be a decline in power and that primacy, or superpower status- will not be achieved by another state again.

Proof of False Flag or Historical Accuracy?

But what about the charges that Brzezinski supports a false flag plot in order to overcome the inimical relationship between democracy and empire? Well, first we have shown that Brzezinski is not arguing that the US should take over the world, but rather that it should try and keep global affairs stable. Take Over the World quotes:

"America's withdrawal from the world or because of the sudden emergence of a successful rival - would produce massive international instability. It would prompt global anarchy." (p. 30)"

But this quote does not argue for domination. Rather, it makes perfect sense within Brzezinski's IR theory. It works like this:

If there is only one superpower we have what is called a Unipolar world. No one feels the need to challenge that one pole, and so there is a forced peace (often called Pax Britanica or Pax Americana depending on the time period in question). So if that one pole leaves the scene, we suddenly have a slew of nations relatively near each other in power who will then be allowed to fight one another for power because they do not feel a threat from a far stronger power.

This theory is NOT universally accepted [4] but it is a logical theory. So Brzezinski is arguing that stability and the reduction of war is the primary concern here. We have already shown that Brzezinski forsees a point at which the US power will wane, and so his book is a project to help ameliorate the theoretical outcomes. His foreign policy is meant to overcome the eventual effects of this multipolar world[5]. We then see that the goal is to overcome a very plausible problem in the future of International Relations and not to "dominate the world in the least.

As for the charge of a false flag, Take Over the World quotes:

"The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America's engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.” (pp 24-5)

but Brzezinski goes on to write:

"After the Cold War had ended, the emergence of the United States as the single global power did not evoke much public gloating but rather elicited an inclination toward a more limited definition of American responsibilities abroad. Public opinion polls conducted in 1995 and 1996 indicated a general public preference for "sharing" global power with others, rather than for its monopolistic exercise. Because of these domestic factors, the American global system emphasizes the technique of co-optation (as in the case of defeated rivals -- Germany, Japan, and lately even Russia) to a much greater extent than the earlier imperial systems did." (book 25; pdf 21)

You will note that Brzezinksi does not argue that this should happen again, but is rather saying that because the US is a democracy, global dominance cannot look the way it did. Instead, he argues that the US can continue to be a big actor because its cultural influences abroad, and should do so in order to have a cooperative relationship with other rising powers. In doing so, they can avert sharp conflict with new actors on the international stage. All he is doing is actually pointing out the truths behind democratic states ability to act abroad, not supporting the creation of external threats. In fact, his entire book is about ameliorating such threats!

Also note that Brzezinski is in no way arguing that our democratic system should be abolished so that we can overcome this issue, as is implied when Take over the World quotes:

"It is also a fact that America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America's power, especially its capacity for military intimidation" (pg 35) [6]

However, we see that Bzezinski actually argues for the proliferation of democracy when he writes

"Democratic ideals, associated with the American political tradition, further reinforce what some perceive as America's "cultural
imperialism."" (Book 26; pdf22).

in order to maintain some power in the international environment, in Brzenzinski's view, the US must capitalize on the fact that constitutionalism and democratic values are seen as chiefly American. It would make no sense for him to argue that we get rid of these values at home in order to take over the world. Our "cultural imperialism" is partly made up by the spread of democracy, and as new powers rise, our influence on this front will help ensure that the US continues to play an important role. So there is no evidence here of a plan to lead the US into tyranny. Rather the opposite is true in this book.

A Note on "The New World Order"

In his book, Brzezinski does use the term "new world order" but does so in a very particular context. The quote is:

"That lack of confidence has been intensified by widespread disappointment with the consequences of the end of the Cold War.
Instead of a "new world order" based on consensus and harmony, "things which seemed to belong to the past" have all of a sudden
become the future. Although ethnic-national conflicts may no longer pose the risk of a central war, they do threaten the peace in significant parts of the globe. Thus, war is not likely to become obsolete for some time to come" (book 213; pdf186)

This new world order was a vision that the post-cold war world would be a more peaceful one. However, Brzezinski notes that such a world has not come to pass. Instead, conflict and violence have persisted, thus evaporating such hopes for a peaceful world. This new world order is not the New World Order of conspiracies, and it was never used in the reference of a one world government. Speeches that use the term "new world order" referred to a hoped for era of stability in international relations, and an avoidance of the horrors incurred by World Wars I and II as well as the anxiety caused by the Cold War. Again, Brzezinski notes that such an order does not appear imminent.

Conclusions:

I am unable to deal with all the quotes on Take Over the World due to time constraints. However, by now it should be clear that these quotes were used in a very flawed reading of Brzezinski's work. There are no calls for a US take over of other states, but rather a careful suggestion that the US should hold onto some of the power it currently has (namely cultural power) in order to remain internationally salient. He further calls for a policy that meets rising international actors and looks to incorporate them into a more cooperative relationship. There is no suggestions that the US should become a dictatorship, that a one world government should be established (nor even an indication that it is possible). Brzezinski's actual arguments are much more rational than that. Thus it is clear that people supporting Conspiracy Theories with this book as evidence need to reevaluate their position. The book simply doesn't say what they think it says [7].

[1] However, it is important to note that geographically the Middle East is not a well defined area. The term is disputed and often changes based on who is actually using the term. The wikipedia article on The Middle East presents this tension very well.
[2] No sections of the book deal with the "Middle East" at all. The primary concerns are Japan, China, and the void left by the collapse of the Soviet Union.
[3] A full definition of this International Relations theory can be found in Joseph Nye's book Understanding International Conflicts. 6th Edition. Harvard University Press
[4] Robert Jervis' book "International Relations" lays out some of the great debates and viewpoints surrounding this issue.
[5] A world where no single state has a dominant share of power.
[6] for the sake of space, i used the partial quote.
[7] I invite readers to contact me on the facebook group if they have questions regarding this post. I will not, however, engage in discussions outside the scope of this work and do ask that people contacting me come with particular citations to discuss.

>>""Ever since the continents started interacting politically, some five hundred years ago, Eurasia has been the center of world power."- (p. xiii) (Eurasia means "the Middle East")"

Oh my. How people will just take this guy's word that Eurasia = the middle east is infuriating and disheartening at the same time. Good write-up Falkner.

Let me know if you want any sections expanded. The portions on the pipeline in the caucus is also really kind of misunderstood and I thought about throwing in a section about that as well.

Second Edition right here, complete with a new working title and expanded sections on Democracy and Natural Resources:

A1997 book by Zbigniew Brzezinski entitled "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geopolitical Imperative" has been touted as a work proving an elitist plot for a New World Order. Several quotations have been taken from the book and listed on a website called www.takeovertheworld.info. True to its name-sake, the website argues that the book champions a US domination of the world as well as the destruction of democratic values at home. However, this interpretation of the book rests on a very flawed reading of Brzezinski's work, and further extends the interpretation under a false understanding about what the book actually influences. The aim here is to but the context back around some of the quotes taken by takeovertheworld, and to reorient readers towards Brzezinski's actually argument. While not exhaustive, this entry does take some of the more controversial and fundamental quotes and puts to rest the incorrect interpretations of them.

Below I include both book page numbers as well as PDF page numbers. Readers are encouraged to open the pdf file (located here: http://www.hollings.org/Content/Zbigniew.Brzezinski_Grand.Chess.Board.pdf) to follow along.

Europe-Asia, Not the Middle East

Perhaps the first critical step that the webmasters of Take Over the World make is the assumption that Brzezinski's Eurasia refers to the Middle East. While the definition of the Middle East itself is very difficult to completely identify, the more crucial problem is that Brzezinski is not refering to the Middle East at all. Indeed, the webmasters of the website make this step because it would seem to make sense in a conspiracy aimed at taking over pipelines and oil wells in the Middle East and thus explain why there are two wars being fought there[1].

Looking at the way the quote appears on Take Over the World we see the authors through in a caveat at the end:

"Ever since the continents started interacting politically, some five hundred years ago, Eurasia has been the center of world power."- (p. xiii) (Eurasia means "the Middle East")

However, when one returns to the text and reads the full context we see that Bzezinski means something much different. He writes on the same page:

"In different ways, at different times, the peoples inhabiting Eurasia -- though mostly those from its Western European periphery -- penetrated and dominated the world's other regions as individual Eurasian states attained the special status and enjoyed the privileges
of being the world's premier powers."(book xiii; PDF4)

and

"Eurasia, however, retains its geopolitical importance. Not only is its western periphery -- Europe -- still the location of much of the world's political and economic power, but its eastern region -Asia -- has lately become a vital center of economic growth and rising political influence. Hence, the issue of how a globally engaged" (book xiii; PDF4)

We see here that the geographical definition in Bzezinski's book is the combination of the European and Asian continents. In fact, the rest of his book deals with European and Asian actors and their relationships with the United States [2]. So to assume that Bzezinski's book defines Eurasia as The Middle East is to deliberately ignore not only his own geographical definition, but to also ignore the rest of the book's content.
Readers show here consider what it means that the term “Eurasia” is not the Middle East, but rather a combination of the European and Asian continents. For one, the idea that “Eurasia has been the center of world power” is best understood in a historical context. Five hundred years ago colonization was forwarded from the European continent with England, Spain, and the Netherlands literally connecting continents politically (and even by force). Furthermore, in the last part of the 20th century, it has been Russia, Japan, and China that have continued to have lasting impacts on International affairs. Consider that Brzezinski is writing after the Cold War where a communist China and the Soviet Union had tremendous influence over the globe. Indeed, it was only after 1945 that the US really became a dominant power on the International stage, and becoming the first non-Eurasian country to do so.
Again, Brzezinski’s definition of Eurasia is not “The Middle East” and indeed his book does not even deal with this region in any significant way. This then deflates any notion that perhaps the book is supporting invading or dominating the Middle East. Had this notion been preserved it would have looked very suspicious that US involvement in the Middle East was so intense [3]. However, as can be seen by actually reading the full context of the above quotes, this is in no way the case.

Plans to Take Over the World, or Prudent Geostrategy?

At the heart of it, the webmasters of Take Over the World suggest that Bzezinski's book advocates the take-over of the world and placing it under American lead, one-world government. The webmasters quote

"... But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book.” (p. xiv)"

The quote before the ellipse, however, reveals Bzezinski's true intention

"The ultimate objective of American policy should be benign and visionary: to shape a truly cooperative global community, in keeping with long-range trends and with the fundamental interests of humankind." (book xiv; PDF5)

Note that Brzezinski is careful to say that US involvement should be peaceful, not aggressive, and that international cooperation, not take over, is critical. By stating that a "truly cooperative global community" needs to be shaped, he is not using a euphemism for global conquest and one world government. Rather, he is supporting what is typically called International Institutionalism or Liberal Instituitonalsim [4]. The argument here is that if another superpower emerges that can dominate Eurasia, a large-scale conflict is likely. And the integrated Eurasian policy he argues for does not mean integrating the continents politically, but rather integrating our foreign policy in Asian and Europe together. He argues that if we are to have effect relations and avoid further Cold-War era tensions [5] then we must have a cohesive foreign policy in the region. This is evident throughout the book.
Some may ask question about why Brzezinski says the following:
"In that context, how America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania (Australia) geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources." (p.31)
But again, this is misread as representing a US lead domination. What Brzezinski is saying here is that if a country were allowed to take over Eurasia, it would mean that power would be able to become a superpower and cast the US aside. Remember, Brzezinski’s entire goal is to set out foreign policy that will lead to stability with the US continuing to play an important role. So Brzezinski is cautioning policy makers not to allow anyone to take full control of Eurasia. The amount of resources and people would lead to a great power imbalance globally, and thus this is undesirable to Brzezinski. If readers also return to page 31 of the book (PDF 26) they will notice there is no mention that the US should even consider conquering this region.

A Superpower Extinct- Not Immortal

This next quote would appear to be very damning for a casual reader of Take Over the World. It reads

"In the long run, global politics are bound to become increasingly uncongenial to the concentration of hegemonic power in the hands of a single state. Hence, America is not only the first, as well as the only, truly global superpower, but it is also likely to be the very last." (p.209)

The argument Take Over the World is making about Brzezinski's book is that American is heralded as being the last, and perpetual, world power. Implied in this is the idea that the US is in a seat of power and will not lose that power. Brzezinski's actual argument, to me, is far more interesting. He says

"That is so not only because nation-states are gradually becoming increasingly permeable but also because knowledge as power is becoming more diffuse, more shared, and less constrained by national boundaries. Economic power is also likely to become more dispersed. In the years to come, no single power is likely to reach the level of 30 percent or so of the world's GDP that America sustained throughout much of this century, not to speak of the 50 percent at which it crested in 1945. Some estimates suggest that by the end of this decade, America will still account for about 20 percent of global GDP, declining perhaps to about 10-15 percent by 2020 as other powers-- Europe, China, Japan-- increase their relative share to
more or less the American level." (Book pp 209-210; PDF 183)

We can see that he argues that US power will actually wane, but that no one single state will ever dominate the globe again. He rests this argument on economic and soft-power issues, and those are points debateble in a IR context. But what is clear is that he is not arguing that the US will stay in power forever, but rather that there will be a decline in power and that primacy, or superpower status- will not be achieved by another state again.
Just to bring this point home, on the same page Brzezinski writes:
“Accordingly, once American leadership begins to fade, America's current global predominance is unlikely to be replicated by any single state. Thus, the key question for the future is "What will America bequeath to the world as the enduring legacy of its primacy?" (book page 210; PDF183)

America, in Brzezinski’s view, will lose its absolute dominance in terms of power. Thus his main concern is how the US will relate to the world after its decline- not its conquest. Brzezinski is further expecting individual states to continue to exist as individual entities. Not only does he note that “no single state” will gain predominance (thus implying that many states will share power) but he orients his book around forming policy with each of the major states in Eurasia. Reading this as some plot to dominate the world is thus based on ignoring these very clear passages.

Proof of False Flag or Historical Accuracy?

But what about the charges that Brzezinski supports a false flag plot in order to overcome the inimical relationship between democracy and empire? Well, first we have shown that Brzezinski is not arguing that the US should take over the world, but rather that it should try and keep global affairs stable. Take Over the World quotes:

"America's withdrawal from the world or because of the sudden emergence of a successful rival - would produce massive international instability. It would prompt global anarchy." (p. 30)"

But this quote does not argue for domination. Rather, it makes perfect sense within Brzezinski's IR theory. It works like this:

If there is only one superpower we have what is called a Unipolar world. No one feels the need to challenge that one pole, and so there is a forced peace (often called Pax Britanica or Pax Americana depending on the time period in question). So if that one pole leaves the scene, we suddenly have a slew of nations relatively near each other in power who will then be allowed to fight one another for power because they do not feel a threat from a far stronger power.

This theory is NOT universally accepted [6] but it is a logical theory. So Brzezinski is arguing that stability and the reduction of war is the primary concern here. We have already shown that Brzezinski forsees a point at which the US power will wane, and so his book is a project to help ameliorate the theoretical outcomes. His foreign policy is meant to overcome the eventual effects of this multipolar world. We then see that the goal is to overcome a very plausible problem in the future of International Relations and not to "dominate the world in the least.

As for the charge of a false flag, Take Over the World quotes:

"The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America's engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.” (pp 24-5)

but Brzezinski goes on to write:

"After the Cold War had ended, the emergence of the United States as the single global power did not evoke much public gloating but rather elicited an inclination toward a more limited
definition of American responsibilities abroad. Public opinion polls conducted in 1995 and 1996 indicated a general public preference for "sharing" global power with others, rather than for its monopolistic exercise. Because of these domestic factors, the American global system emphasizes the technique of co-optation (as in the case of defeated rivals -- Germany, Japan, and lately even Russia) to a much greater extent than the earlier imperial systems did." (book 25; pdf 21)

You will note that Brzezinksi does not argue that this should happen again, but is rather saying that because the US is a democracy, global dominance cannot look the way it did. Instead, he argues that the US can continue to be a major actor because of it’s cultural influences abroad, and should do so in order to have a cooperative relationship with other rising powers. In doing so, they can avert sharp conflict with new actors on the international stage. All he is doing is actually pointing out the truths behind democratic states ability to act abroad, not supporting the creation of external threats. In fact, his entire book is about ameliorating such threats!

Also note that Brzezinski is in no way arguing that our democratic system should be abolished so that we can overcome this issue, as is implied when Take over the World quotes:

"It is also a fact that America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America's power, especially its capacity for military intimidation" (pg 35) [7]

However, we see that Bzezinski actually argues for the proliferation of democracy when he writes

"Democratic ideals, associated with the American political tradition, further reinforce what some perceive as America's "cultural imperialism."" (Book 26; pdf22).
And further
“A world without U.S. primacy will be a world with more violence and
disorder and less democracy and economic growth than a world where
the United States continues to have more influence than any other
country in shaping global affairs. The sustained international primacy
of the United States is central to the welfare and security of Americans
and to the future of freedom, democracy, open economies, and
international order in the world.” (book 31; PDF26)

Reevaluating NWO and False Flag Claims in Brzezinski:

It is then clear that Brzezinski wants to preserve democracy at home and abroad, not destroy it. What he is noticing is that it is hard for the United States to continue to play a major role in the International environment and convey that message to the people. However, he never once argues that democracy needs to be dismantled- in fact he is arguing that because the US is democratic it SHOULD NOT be autocratic abroad. The US should instead foster international cooperation rather than dominance. Brzezinski appears to very much fall into the camp that believes democracy everywhere is good.

Also, in order to maintain some power in the international environment, in Brzezinski's view, the US must capitalize on the fact that constitutionalism and democratic values are seen as chiefly American. It would make no sense for him to argue that we get rid of these values at home in order to take over the world. Our "cultural imperialism" is partly made up by the spread of democracy, and as new powers rise, our influence on this front will help ensure that the US continues to play an important role. So there is no evidence here of a plan to lead the US into tyranny. Rather the opposite is true in this book. And thus Brzezinski’s book actually does not support the caveat added by the webmaster of Take over the World when they write:
(Therefore, it is also critical -- not optional -- for America to overcome these limitations imposed by democracy. That's what he's saying, right? Right?? If imperial geostrategy is critical, the "permit" known as Sept 11 was also a critical component and precursor. With or without Bush. But the "cowboys" and neocons were much better "geared" in the public mind to exploit Sept 11. "conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being" ~gg)

Resources, Resources, Resources?
I now want to return to the misstep that the webmasters at Take Over the World made at the very beginning. Invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan have been met with sharp criticism, and in my opinion, rightly so, but too often it has been false criticism. There have been charges that the invasions were set up to capture oil and to build a pipeline through Afghanistan. Many argue that this scenario is supported in Brzezinski’s book because he writes:
"Turkmenistan... has been actively exploring the construction of a new pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Arabian Sea..." (p.145)
But this is a very poorly chosen quote, and we need not even return to the text to put this in the right context (though I encourage you to). Brzezinski is here describing how the former Soviet territories in the Caucuses and central Asia are actually beginning to cooperate with one another. This quote never indicates that the US is a key actor is this push for a pipeline, or does it suggest they should become one. What he is pointing out is that many former Soviet territories are actually trying to regain some of their power, and secure a stable economic situation by tapping into their natural resources. So any idea that the US invaded Afghanistan to build such a pipeline overlooks the fact that it is Turkmenistan, not the US, most interested in this.
Perhaps now the challenge should be to supporters of Take over the World to locate a passage where Brzezinski argues the US should take oil from the region. The best possible argument is only that he alludes to the fact that demand will increase, and that the Caucuses have more gas and oil reserves than anywhere else in the world (Brzezinski 125; PDF 106). But in reality he is cautioning his readers when he says:
Access to that resource and sharing in its potential wealth represent
objectives that stir national ambitions, motivate corporate interests, rekindle historical claims, revive imperial aspirations, and fuel international rivalries. The situation is made all the more volatile by the fact that the region is not only a power vacuum but is also internally unstable. Every one of its countries suffers from serious internal difficulties, all of them have frontiers that are either the object of claims by neighbors or are zones of ethnic resentment, few are nationally homogeneous, and some are already embroiled in territorial, ethnic, or religious violence. (Ibid)

Note that Brzezinski is worried that violence will break out as states in that very region try to gain control of the resources and benefit from an impending increase in demand for Caucus oil. The very next section of his book goes into this in great detail. But nowhere is there a call to take this oil and build a pipeline for the US to control it. He continues to assume states will exist, and it is states in the region that will be fighting for control- not the US.

A Note on "The New World Order"

In his book, Brzezinski does use the term "new world order" but does so in a very particular context. The quote is:

"That lack of confidence has been intensified by widespread disappointment with the consequences of the end of the Cold War. Instead of a "new world order" based on consensus and harmony, "things which seemed to belong to the past" have all of a sudden become the future. Although ethnic-national conflicts may no longer pose the risk of a central war, they do threaten the peace in significant parts of the globe. Thus, war is not likely to become obsolete for some time to come" (book 213; pdf186)

This new world order was a vision that the post-cold war world would be a more peaceful one. However, Brzezinski notes that such a world has not come to pass. Instead, conflict and violence have persisted, thus evaporating such hopes for a peaceful world. This new world order is not the New World Order of conspiracies, and it was never used in the reference of a one world government. Speeches that use the term "new world order" referred to a hoped for era of stability in international relations, and an avoidance of the horrors incurred by World Wars I and II as well as the anxiety caused by the Cold War. Again, Brzezinski notes that such an order does not appear imminent.

Conclusions:

I am unable to deal with all the quotes on Take Over the World due to time constraints. However, by now it should be clear that these quotes were used in a very flawed reading of Brzezinski's work. There are no calls for a US take over of other states, but rather a careful suggestion that the US should hold onto some of the power it currently has (namely cultural power) in order to remain internationally salient. He further calls for a policy that meets rising international actors and looks to incorporate them into a more cooperative relationship. There is no suggestions that the US should become a dictatorship, that a one world government should be established (nor even an indication that it is possible). Brzezinski's actual arguments are much more rational than that. Thus it is clear that people supporting Conspiracy Theories with this book as evidence need to reevaluate their position. The book simply doesn't say what they think it says [8]. Throughout his work, Brzezinski assumes that the state will continue to exist as it is. There is no notion of a one world government, a US lead take-over, or a New World Order in the nefarious sense. Instead, this book represents another view point of how the US should behave abroad and does so in a remarkably pragmatic way [9]

[1] However, it is important to note that geographically the Middle East is not a well defined area. The term is disputed and often changes based on who is actually using the term. The wikipedia article on The Middle East presents this tension very well.
[2] No sections of the book deal with the "Middle East" at all. The primary concerns are Japan, China, and the void left by the collapse of the Soviet Union.
[3] These views rely on the charge that the US is only involved in Iraq and Afghanistan because of oil reserves. These views have not been proven, and I reserve this discussion for later works.
[4] A full definition of this International Relations theory can be found in Joseph Nye's book Understanding International Conflicts. 6th Edition. Harvard University Press
[5] Robert Jervis' book "International Relations" lays out some of the great debates and viewpoints surrounding this issue.
[6] A world where no single state has a dominant share of power.
[7] for the sake of space, i used the partial quote.
[8] I invite readers to contact me on the facebook group if they have questions regarding this post. I will not, however, engage in discussions outside the scope of this work and do ask that people contacting me come with particular citations to discuss.
[9] I also wish to make clear that I do not necessarily agree with all of Brzezinski’s points. To form a more complete opinion on his approach it is necessary to continue to monitor international situations and formulate a comprehensive theoretical approach to this matter. There are competing visions out there, and all I wished to do here was to put a stop to the misconceptions that exist about this book.