Henry Kissinger, the towering American diplomat, dies at age 100

Kissinger was dead wrong about the continuation of the Vietnam War, but he was wise and extremely important voice on almost all other foreign policy issues. There are those who might condemn his China policy, but, in the context of the times, it was correct.

 

Sorry, I have disagree with you. He was fascinating speaker who had a voice with such authority that it was not easy contradict him on the fly. He was one of those people whose intellect could command attention among people in power.

 

I get it, just not my cup of tea..

https://www.history.com/speeches/kissinger-on-importance-of-strong-foreign-policy

 

Lol.

 

I do, I heard him once while I was at college. He was a distinguished visitor and spoke on international affairs of the 1980s and how our world is changing. If you had $100, you could get to see him, have an autograph and photo, etc, but the event was free to students, and $15 for nonstudents. The auditorium, which seats about 700 was packed. The reason why I went was for an extracurricular activity because I was taking US Government at the time. So, it was an interesting talk, learned a lot. This was in the mid-1980s at a private, religious institution. A year later, I heard Mrs. Anwar Sedat speak and there were about 500 there. The series that my alma mater did was to bring in well-known people to speak about international affairs and international affairs from around the world, one per semester with major figures like Mrs. Anwar Sedat and Kissinger, but they had four a year. the other three tend to be authors or lesser-known people at that time such as professors from other universities or researchers/speakers. A couple of times it was ambassadors from smaller countries such as Thailand or Columbia.

 

There is much to learn from this man, his epoch and the context in which he reasoned and acted. As with so many other 'great' persons of whatever times, one of the things we learn upon examining them is that they have some seriously deep defects. Some's status remains and even intensifies with time. Some's do not.

 

Ironies abound - a snip from one of the world’s most over-inflated egos on one of the world’s most over-inflated egos....and I can't think of a single thing that Obama's feckless and failed foreign policy strategy of appeasing America's enemies did to promote our interests.

 

"ALL," is a pretty tall order. MOST, like George Washington-- but a few hold against him, that he was a slave owner.

Here's one: even though a lot of his biggest fans, won't trumpet the job he had done, as President-- there's no one, at least AFAIK, who doesn't like Jimmy Carter.

 

I can't think of a single thing Obama got right in the Middle East....unless, of course, you think strengthening Tehran, walking back red lines in Syria, turning Libya into Afghanistan-on-the-Med and allowing a genocidal jihadist death cult to set up a caliphate the size of Great Britain in the heart of the ME were good things....

 

Please feel free to go beyond mere name calling, directed at Obama, to actually address his point, with a counter argument. Again, President O. noted that a lot of the work on his foreign relations plate, had to do with repairing the world, left by Kissinger's methods.

Specifically, he mentions our bombing of Cambodian & Laos (in violation of int'l law), on which we'd dropped more ordnance than in all of WW2-- which is pretty amazing. Yet, all we had to show for it, was providing a recruiting tool for the Khmer Rouge, who went on to commit one of the worst genocides of the century. Was there a "bright side," here?

One could add, from another angle, that Kissinger could have years earlier signed the same deal as he'd ultimately taken, to extricate us from Nam-- which we'd known was an unwinnable morass-- except that we would have not lost an additional 28 thousand of our troops (58 K, versus 30 K). Hard to see the "brilliance," here.

Obama had briefly sketched out, in the quoted comments, the idea that from all the chaos we'd fomented, in toppling elected governments (which were too left-leaning, for our tastes-- my addition), came authoritarian governments, which ultimately did not "promote our interests," either. He asks how it had been a wise move of the U.S., to leave bombs scattered around-- the clean up of which, continues to this day-- "that are still blowing off the legs of little kids?" I am curious to hear your response, to that question.


Speaking of ironies, though, it is somewhat amusing that Obama gets so much hate, from the Right-- since he had self-assessed his political disposition to fit that of a moderate Republican, back in the 1980s-- which I think is reasonably accurate; he was certainly not, on balance, a "progressive."

Personally, I fault Obama for a lot of things, and would not call myself a fan. But I am probably being harder on him than he deserves-- if one compares him to other 21st century Presidents. He did help us crawl out of the Great Recession (and what had slowed that progress, had been his failure to recognize the disingenuous nature of Republican counter offers-- in an over-willingness to bend, towards finding any bipartisan compromise). As I had expected, from the first I heard him proposed as a candidate-- he was too naively inexperienced; especially for the remarkable degree of personal animosity he would encounter, which could not have been so easily forecast.



P.S.-- This calls to mind our disagreement, in your Millei thread, about abortion. In the 1980s & 90s, a Republican could personally be against it, nevertheless feel that it was not the government's place to enforce his own moral values, on others. George H. W. Bush would be one of numerous examples of this. It's next to impossible, today though, to get very far in national Republican politics, if one is, even grudgingly, Pro-Choice (or not, Pro-Life/Anti-Choice).

This, then, is a counter argument to your depicting of the political Left, as having been the one to've become more radical. Wanting a 12, or a 15 week ban, like Lindsey Graham, now defines a Republican "moderate." Wanting to ban it completely, qualifies a person as being on the far Right, on that issue-- but which does not remove one, from mainstream Republican politics.

 

@Talon , @JohnHamilton , @Jack Hays
Here is an interesting article that is not about Kissinger, but is applicable. Not that Kissinger was the first, or the last, to operate in this manner. The article is about at least 15 African soldiers, trained by the U.S., who have been involved in at least a dozen coups or attempted coups in Africa, since 2008. A pretty short read-- here are the parts that stood out, as having applicability to the Kissinger philosophy:

<Snip
Shackleford and her colleagues say that the U.S. penchant for pouring money into abusive African militaries instead of making long-term investments in bolstering democratic institutions, good governance, and the rule of law, has undermined wider American aims...

“U.S. policy in Africa has for too long prioritized short-term security to the detriment of long-term stability by prioritizing the provision of military and security assistance,” Shackelford writes in the new Chicago Council report. “Partnerships and military assistance with illiberal, undemocratic countries have delivered little, if any, sustainable security improvements, and in many cases have prompted further instability and violence by building the capacity of abusive security forces.”
<End Snip>

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2023/08/23/the-us-hand-in-africas-coups/

 

He destroyed White Rhodesia and South Africa/Suid Africa.

 

Kissinger was a war criminal responsible for mass murder in Asia, Africa and Latin America. After leaving the State Department, he continued to steer US foreign policy as an advisor on how to overthrow foreign democratically elected governments around the world. Kissinger epitomized the term "deep state." When you get to a certain age, even Adrenochrome doesn't help anymore.

“The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.” ― Henry Kissinger

 

The article offers a dilettante's perspective. I dealt with these sorts of regimes across Africa for decades. There is nothing the US can do to or for these officers that comes close to the incentives and disincentives created by their own societies.

 

The person who was quoted in my snip, is a senior fellow at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. With all due respect-- that doesn't sound like a position one gets, just by being friends with the right people.

<Snip>
“If we are training individuals who are executing undemocratic coups, we need to be asking more questions about how and why that happens,” said Elizabeth Shackelford, a senior fellow at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and lead author of the newly-released report, “Less is More: A New Strategy for U.S. Security Assistance to Africa.” “If we aren’t even trying to get to the bottom of that, we are part of the problem. This shouldn’t just be on our radar — it should be something we intentionally track.”
<End Snip>


My point, about Kissinger, however, can be easily shown to be true, by subsequent developments, in many of those nations. For example, he illegally allowed the transfer of our military jets to Pakistan, since leaders there, were his conduit to China. Well, China didn't isolate Russia (they are now teaming up against us), and Pakistan shelters our enemies, like Al Qaida, and had been where the Taliban leader Osama bin Laden, had been hiding out. They had used those jets, btw, in a genocide, which drove millions of refugees into India-- hardly a stabilizing influence.

I think it says it all, that you would consider a "great American," someone who breaks U.S. law (not to mention International law).

 

Never say anything bad about the dead, only good.

Henry Kissinger is dead, good!

Finally; cheese and rice!

 

1. The author is an experienced journalist, but has no identifiable experience sorting through Africa's tribal/regional/patronage networks to understand the behavior of military political figures. Sorry, but the world is full of people who opine about Africa without acquiring the tools to understand it.
2. The US opening to China established a three-cornered dynamic that was critical to detente, a generation of stability and the fall of the USSR.
3. The complexities of Pakistan were well known then and now. Part of the price of doing business.
4. Kissinger bears zero responsibility for the ineptitude of some of his successors.

 

His policies supported the massacres who combined are getting to be close to the 6 million Jews who died in the holocaust.

 

He was the father of realpolitik, I'd ask anyone to state how he could have done better?

 

Please feel free to apply your reading and reading comprehension skills to my posts. In light of Obama abject cluelessness when it came to foreign affairs (something he admitted while still a candidate for president) and his feckless and failed foreign policy strategy of appeasing America's enemies that did nothing to promote our interests, one can only laugh at the irony of that megalomaniac's questioning of the competence of anyone in the arena of world affairs and how their policies promoted our interests. These are questions that are best left to people who have a proven track record of success and the promotion of U.S. interests in foreign affairs, not people who have an appalling record of failure and the promotion of our nation's enemies' interests in foreign affairs. Yet this is part and parcel of the arrogance and lack of introspection and self-awareness that we've come to expect from one of the world's most over-inflated egos.

Which is laughable.

LOL - and the hits just keep coming. The political disposition of the acolytes of Saul Alinsky fit that of a moderate Republican?



Newsflash: They don't. The political disposition of the original community organizer (Alinsky) and his ideological progeny are Far Left, or what some would euphemistically refer to as "progressive". Obama's political disposition wouldn't have passed as that of a Reagan Democrat, much less a moderate Republican.

And it was from there that the young up and coming Alinskyite went on to launch his political career, c. 1995, in the living room of unrepentant communist Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers



I'm originally from Chicago, and I can tell you that the political disposition of one William C. Ayers was well known in the Windy City.

Do you honestly expect me to believe that Obamunist hogwash?

Obama's own "progressive" policies were what was responsible for the worst economic recovery America ever had, and his unwillingness to even work with Republicans ("I won!"), much less compromise with them, is what led to his Presidency by Executive Fiat, i.e., Phone and Pen.

C'mon, man...

 

Much like the Obama and Biden Administratons' policy towards Iran which has failed to deliver security improvements and prompted further instability and violence by building the capacity of the IRGC and Quds Force. Not only has this policy failed to promote our own interest, it has failed to promote the interest of the freedom-loving people of Iran, e.g., the Green Movement, who got thrown under the bus by President Obama in order to obtain his counter-productive "deal" with the illiberal and undemocratic regime in Tehran.

Getting back to your article and US policy in Africa, there's a reason why we have had trouble making long-term investments in bolstering democratic institutions, good governance, and the rule of law, and that is because of the widespread corruption that has been an obstacle to making those investments. In recent years, when we've seen what, 7-8 coups in West and Central Africa since 2021, additional preconditions have been added to combatting corruption, and this is turning more countries away from the U.S. and the West and into the arms of China and Russia:

There's another problem that African leaders face and that is the existential problem concerning large numbers of unemployed young men and the threat of political instability that could lead to the government being overthrown in a coup or revolution. This has been a problem throughout the world and history for centuries, and African leaders recognize this. If they don't bring economic growth, jobs and prosperity to their countries, they are highly likely to fall, as countless governments have fallen before them. Being authoritarian regimes themselves, the Chinese and Russian government recognize this, so they don't make cultural and environmental issues an obstacle to investment and development like Western nations do, and this is marginalizing our influence in Africa.

 

"Despite the misogyny that drips from nearly every conversation recorded in the Nixon White House tapes, a whole generation of women diplomats–HRC, Condi Rice, Samantha Power–were drawn by Kissinger’s blood stench like the vampire wives to Dracula"

…Roaming Charges: The Dr. Caligari of the American Empire - CounterPunch.org

 

He's the only means I have to break up Thanksgiving political arguments. Everyone starts yelling at each other, but I can just bring up Carter and everyone kind of mumbles and starts getting along again.

 

Which is why much of the article-- the opinion part-- is quoted from someone who is a person with an understanding of African politics. At least there is far more reason to assume that a senior fellow, on the Chicago Council of Global Affairs would have extensive knowledge of her topic, than would an anonymous internet poster, claiming or implying his own expertise.

So you say. Can you provide an actual argument, as to why your statement is true? How about some authoritative sources, supporting your theory?

Well that is the whole problem, right there, summed up in your Kissingeresque attitude. Three hundred thousand slaughtered, and 10 million refugees displaced to another country, is too high a cost, just to get an introduction from Pakistani officials, to China. There must have been a cheaper way, to start a dialog.


Again, this weapons transfer to Pakistan, was a violation of U.S. law. So you are lauding someone whose professional "ethics," permitted his ignoring the legal authority of Congress. Do you not think that our laws are applicable to all (and of course, this particular law was intended to specifically include the Executive branch of our government)? Are even "good" Americans, in your appraisal, not law abiding?

You will need to give specific examples; Kissinger does bear responsibility for creating problematic situations, with which his successors have needed to deal.

 

She's a dilettante. For comparison try six full tours of duty in Africa over three decades, plus dozens of TDY visits, plus a tour with responsibility for the entire continent.
Elizabeth Shackelford

Chicago Council on Global Affairs
https://globalaffairs.org › about › staff › elizabeth-sha...


Elizabeth Shackelford, a former career diplomat who served the US Mission to Somalia and the US Embassy in South Sudan, focuses on building awareness and ...