What Henry Kissinger thinks and who he's talking to.

[Higgly]

Mike Wallace interviewed Bob Woodward on 60 Minutes concerning his book "State of Denial". One thing that came out of the interview is that Bush and Cheney are now having regular chats with Henry Kissinger. Once a month or so, says Woodward, whenever he's in town, Henry rings up George and Dick and drops in for a visit. Kissinger has always believed that the big mistake America made during the Vietnam war was to lose heart and pull out before the job was done, He is now saying that the only exit strategy for Iraq is victory.

What Kissinger still doesn't seem to have figured out is that Vietnam, like Iraq, was a war started for all the wrong reasons. Guys like Kissinger believed in something called 'The Domino Theory'. They believed that the war in Vietnam was a war of conquest by the Communists and that if they were successful in Vietnam, the rest of Southeast Asia would fall like dominoes, one after the other... Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Malaysia.... and so this is why the US got involved - to stop the march of communism.

In fact, Vietnam was a civil war being fought by Nationalist northern forces trying to kick out a brutal and corrupt government in the south. Once that happened, the war stopped. Laos, Cambodia, and the rest continued their march through history on their own paths, for good or for bad. The American government was so out of touch with reality that it had no clue this was at the heart of matters.

Apparently, Kissinger has still not figured this out. And now he is telling Bush what to do in Iraq. Lord help us.

[August1991]

Guys like Kissinger believed in something called 'The Domino Theory'. They believed that the war in Vietnam was a war of conquest by the Communists and that if they were successful in Vietnam, the rest of Southeast Asia would fall like dominoes, one after the other... Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Malaysia.... and so this is why the US got involved - to stop the march of communism.

Well the Domino Theory was right, wasn't it? Cambodia and Laos did "go Communist". The Vietnam War saved Thailand and Malaysia. (And what of the Vietnamese boat people?)

It would be better to refer to the Battle of Vietnam rather than the Vietnam War because Viet Nam was a battle in the Cold War. The US ultimately (and thankfully) won the Cold War (in part because of Viet Nam). The Soviets were defeated. (Incidentally, I used to take the Moscow Metro at a station on Ho Chin Minh Square. It was one Metro stop away from Gagarin Square so don't tell me that Viet Nam was simply a war of "national liberation".)

Like many wars, the Cold War meant the West was forced to make allies with certain unsavoury people. The Cold War also inspired numerous queries about the validity of war. But the world changed in 1989 when the Berlin Wall fell just as it had changed in 1812 and then the failed Moscow coup in August 1991 turned the change into 1815's Waterloo.

-----

Kissinger brings a Cold War view to America's invasion of Iraq so he understandably views the invasion as part of a larger struggle. This war against the Islamofascists is different from the Cold War. I think it's too early to state what we should do. If Iraq turns into a Lebanese-style civil war, it would make a lot of noise for the next 15 years and be tragic for some Iraqis but it might be the best solution for the West.

[Riverwind]

Well the Domino Theory was right, wasn't it? Cambodia and Laos did "go Communist". The Vietnam War saved Thailand and Malaysia. (And what of the Vietnamese boat people?)

Why exactly should we care if Thailand or Mayalsia went Communist? The system is an economic deadend and the only people that would be hurt by it is themselves.

It would be better to refer to the Battle of Vietnam rather than the Vietnam War because Viet Nam was a battle in the Cold War. The US ultimately (and thankfully) won the Cold War (in part because of Viet Nam). The Soviets were defeated.

The Soviet system collapsed under its own weight. The only reason the US 'won' is because it happened to be still standing when the beast laid down and died. Viet Nam had absolutely nothing to do with that outcome.

This war against the Islamofascists is different from the Cold War. I think it's too early to state what we should do.

The Cold War turned out to be a bogus war. It is time we learned from history and realized the war against Islamofascists is also a bogus war.

[August1991]

Riverwind, I have one response: how wonderful hindsight is.

The fight against criminal oppression is not obvious at all. The Soviet regime enslaved millions for decades. The Nazis slaughtered millions. We now face religious fanatics who want to impose the will of Allah. Psychopaths reek havoc in families. For meek and civilized people, the only defense against such threats is the judicious use of collective force. This is hard to achieve. It takes time, and it's not guaranteed. Ask any Bulgarian.

Moreover, not all battles are the same. For example, at the moment there is an Internet petition circulating about the "Five Things Feminism Did For Me". Feminists refer to different waves and how these waves changed the world. They perceive feminism as a battle for freedom.

The feminists fail to consider that technology changed the value of labour and as a result, domestic work became less valuable. IOW, the "battle" to liberate women was really part of a broader change to offer better choices to individuals. The social changes -women's liberation- were a consequence not a cause of these changes. If suffragettes had never existed, women would still have gained the right to own property, buy houses and vote.

OTOH, if the soldiers who defeated Fascism had never existed, Europe would have been enslaved for decades if not centuries. (Once again, ask any Bulgarian.)

IOW, we should recognize and choose our battles. Some we will win because fate is on our side but others require our effort and sacrifice. The right of gays to marry is inevitable - if we defend individual freedom. Dhimmitude is a very real possibility if we don't stand up now.

In 1940, after the Fall of France, many Americans and Europeans concluded that Hitler's Reich was part of the modern world. Churchill alone at the time argued otherwise.

[Higgly]

Well the Domino Theory was right, wasn't it? Cambodia and Laos did "go Communist". The Vietnam War saved Thailand and Malaysia. (And what of the Vietnamese boat people?)

It is generally agreed that Cambodia was driven into the hands of the Khmer Rouge Communist insurgents by the extraordinarily violent bombing campaign waged against it by the US and by the behaviour of South Vietnamese troops who had gone across the border to chase the Viet Cong. The North Vietnamese troops would not have been there if they had not been driven across the border by the US and the S. Vietnamese. The end result was the Pol Pot regime which murdered somewhere between 1.5 and 3 million people. It was the communist Vietnamese who finally did something about it, by invading Cambopdia and driving Pol Pot from power. A humanitarian move IMHO and a damned sight better than the mess the Americans had made.

In any case, I wonder how you can say that the Vietname war saved Thailand but not Laos and Cambodia. As far as Malaysia goes, the Brits had pretty well quashed any communist insurgencies while the Vietnam war was still being fought between the French and the Vietnamese.

It would be better to refer to the Battle of Vietnam rather than the Vietnam War because Viet Nam was a battle in the Cold War. The US ultimately (and thankfully) won the Cold War (in part because of Viet Nam). The Soviets were defeated. (Incidentally, I used to take the Moscow Metro at a station on Ho Chin Minh Square. It was one Metro stop away from Gagarin Square so don't tell me that Viet Nam was simply a war of "national liberation".)

The Vietnamese refer to it as the 'American War'. What different does it make what you call it? The Russians lost the cold war because of Afghanistan and the cost of keeping up with the US in the arms race. They had swallowed the small cost of Vietnam long before - after all, they did not have any troops committed.

I am well aware of the Russian presence in Vietnam having run into a number of them when I was there myself. We have high schools named after Winston Churchill - doesn't mean England runs the show here.

It was indeed a nationalistic war. And it was brought about because the Geneva conference of 1954 called for the country to be temporarily split and then for general elections to be called. The South refused to call elections and that is why the North invaded. Once again we have the US intervening because it did not like the fact that a communist government had been democratically elected.

Kissinger brings a Cold War view to America's invasion of Iraq so he understandably views the invasion as part of a larger struggle. This war against the Islamofascists is different from the Cold War. I think it's too early to state what we should do. If Iraq turns into a Lebanese-style civil war, it would make a lot of noise for the next 15 years and be tragic for some Iraqis but it might be the best solution for the West.

If there is a civil war it will be a direct result of the invasion. There were no 'islamofascists' in Iraq until Bush blew in. Just as with Pol Pot, the US has made the situation much much worse. Bush had a just cause as far as 'islamo' whatchits when he invaded Afghanistan. He should have stuck to that. Kissinger is an American expansionist. His cold war perspective is bullshit.

[Higgly]

Riverwind, I have one response: how wonderful hindsight is.

The fight against criminal oppression is not obvious at all. The Soviet regime enslaved millions for decades. The Nazis slaughtered millions. We now face religious fanatics who want to impose the will of Allah. Psychopaths reek havoc in families. For meek and civilized people, the only defense against such threats is the judicious use of collective force. This is hard to achieve. It takes time, and it's not guaranteed. Ask any Bulgarian.

Moreover, not all battles are the same. For example, at the moment there is an Internet petition circulating about the "Five Things Feminism Did For Me". Feminists refer to different waves and how these waves changed the world. They perceive feminism as a battle for freedom.

The feminists fail to consider that technology changed the value of labour and as a result, domestic work became less valuable. IOW, the "battle" to liberate women was really part of a broader change to offer better choices to individuals. The social changes -women's liberation- were a consequence not a cause of these changes. If suffragettes had never existed, women would still have gained the right to own property, buy houses and vote.

OTOH, if the soldiers who defeated Fascism had never existed, Europe would have been enslaved for decades if not centuries. (Once again, ask any Bulgarian.)

IOW, we should recognize and choose our battles. Some we will win because fate is on our side but others require our effort and sacrifice. The right of gays to marry is inevitable - if we defend individual freedom. Dhimmitude is a very real possibility if we don't stand up now.

In 1940, after the Fall of France, many Americans and Europeans concluded that Hitler's Reich was part of the modern world. Churchill alone at the time argued otherwise.

Oh jeez, here we go. The whole Axis of evil crap all over again. This is that whole slippery slope Bush and Cheney keep pushing about the war on terror having something to do with Iraq. The only reason Islamic insurgents are active in Iraq is because the US created the kind of power vacuum in which these guys flourish. The U.S. has as much chance of winning in Iraq as it did in Vietnam.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

THe cause of wars are legion, or at least the blame game rules. The fact that Henry is consulting with George and Dick means that the Bush government is actively seeking solutions doesn't it? Forget what spin is put on the subject for a minute and consider that the impact of this military venture has on the US economy. This is expensive to say the least, and it is coming at a time where US economic interests are begining to conflict with Chinese interests. With Iran right next door who is the single largest supplier of oil to China, the entire question becomes far more complex that what is evident on the surface. Where does the Bush government go in terms of seking a solution to the problem with Iraq?

Iraq is a civil war at this point in all but name, and the US is involved. It is no wonder that there is a large flak barrage assaulting the US at the UN. International involvement in a civil war is a big no-no. Therefore nobody is using the word, if you know what I mean. America needs to consider its position very carefully with the China variable in mind. North Korea is a wildcard that China holds in its pocket, screw around with the strategic situation in terms of energy requirements of a nation and you get the picture very quickly. Isn't that how the Japanese stepped into military action in WWII, right after an oil embargo by the US? The only nation North Korea will listen to is China because as crazy as their leader is he just isn't stupid. If China lets this boy off the leash, both South Korea and Japan are threatened without them lifting a hand in Bejing.

So staying in Iraq means that they must win there in spite of the civil conflict that they have inadvertantly created, and it means that by extension they must protect their interests there even in the face of Iranian opposition or involement. The picture is far from fuzzy, in fact its very clear. We are at an international political nexus in which any wrong move could have very serious long term implications. Therefore calling in some outside help seems like a reasonable choice to make in my opinion.

[M.Dancer]

Guys like Kissinger believed in something called 'The Domino Theory'. They believed that the war in Vietnam was a war of conquest by the Communists and that if they were successful in Vietnam, the rest of Southeast Asia would fall like dominoes, one after the other... Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Malaysia.... and so this is why the US got involved - to stop the march of communism.

Well the Domino Theory was right, wasn't it? Cambodia and Laos did "go Communist". The Vietnam War saved Thailand and Malaysia. (And what of the Vietnamese boat people?)

Yes and no.....the theory stated that the collapse of one would spur on the collapse of the next one. What happened were the independant collapses that had more to do with nationaism than any feared internationalism.

[jdobbin]

Yes and no.....the theory stated that the collapse of one would spur on the collapse of the next one. What happened were the independant collapses that had more to do with nationaism than any feared internationalism.

Exactly. Even Vietnam started as a nationalistic attempt to overthrow colonialism. The Communist system became the central focus of that movement.

Laos and Cambodia were fully destabilized by the war and their own anti-colonial ambitions. Communism was again the rallying focus.

Thailand and Malaysia had well established nationalism and didn't have to go into armed conflict like Vietnam did to achieve independence. Communism could not take root there.

And the idea that Australia would be a domino was just plain nonsense.

[Higgly]

The fact that Henry is consulting with George and Dick means that the Bush government is actively seeking solutions doesn't it? Forget what spin is put on the subject for a minute and consider that the impact of this military venture has on the US economy. This is expensive to say the least, and it is coming at a time where US economic interests are begining to conflict with Chinese interests. With Iran right next door who is the single largest supplier of oil to China, the entire question becomes far more complex that what is evident on the surface. Where does the Bush government go in terms of seking a solution to the problem with Iraq?

Yes you are right. Seeking advice is prudent. But it is advice from guys who think like Kissinger that got them into this mess in the first place. I believe that China's real power will be economic rather than military.

So staying in Iraq means that they must win there in spite of the civil conflict that they have inadvertantly created, and it means that by extension they must protect their interests there even in the face of Iranian opposition or involement. The picture is far from fuzzy, in fact its very clear. We are at an international political nexus in which any wrong move could have very serious long term implications.

No argument there, but does the US really have any control in Iraq now outside of a few square miles inside Baghdad and some of the other cities? Everywhere else is pretty much chaos from what I have been able to tell. I think that the threat of Iran is being over-exaggerated, just like the threat of Saddam Hussein and Ho Chi Minh were over exaggerated. Same for the Dear Leader. This is a guy who refuses to fly anywhere - supposedly because he is afraid of flying, but more likely because he cannot field a decent squadron of fighters to protect him while he is in the air.

[August1991]

It is generally agreed that Cambodia was driven into the hands of the Khmer Rouge Communist insurgents by the extraordinarily violent bombing campaign waged against it by the US and by the behaviour of South Vietnamese troops who had gone across the border to chase the Viet Cong.

Blame America. America caused the Killing Fields. American bombing created Pol Pot.

If a psychopath kills his own family, is an honest but tough cop on the beat three streets away guilty? Americans didn't kill the Cambodians. Pol Pot's thugs did. Higgly, to chose Leftist vocabulary, don't rationalize or excuse such behaviour. Pol Pot was a rapist and an abusive husband. He's guilty. Don't blame the neighbour, or the wife.

In excusing Pol Pot, Leftist Americans make America the centre of the world. It's not. When will the remaining Western Left - the Jack Laytons, Noam Chomskys, Stephen Lewises, and too many university professors - ever admit that socialism, centralized power is dangerous. People who seek and get such power are pyschopaths: Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tong, Fidel Castro, Leonid Brezhnev, Lev Trotsky, Adolf Hitler, Ho Chi Minh, Nicolae Ceausescu. They were tyrants. America didn't create them any more than Canada created Paul Bernardo.

If the Left really wants to use government power to help ordinary people, it must understand how best to use such authoritarian power and how to prevent such power from falling into the hands of psychopaths. Until the Left does that, it will never help ordinary people. On the contrary, ordinary people will perceive Leftists not as defenders but as dangerous threats.

The Vietnamese refer to it as the 'American War'. What different does it make what you call it? The Russians lost the cold war because of Afghanistan and the cost of keeping up with the US in the arms race. They had swallowed the small cost of Vietnam long before - after all, they did not have any troops committed.

I am well aware of the Russian presence in Vietnam having run into a number of them when I was there myself. We have high schools named after Winston Churchill - doesn't mean England runs the show here.

It was indeed a nationalistic war.

American War, Nationalistic War. Who cares. Castro and Guevara presented their struggles as "national liberation". They weren't. There was a deadly, serious Cold War at the time. Castro and Ho Chi Minh knew exactly what they were doing. There was no compromise in the Cold War.

There were no 'islamofascists' in Iraq until Bush blew in. Just as with Pol Pot, the US has made the situation much much worse.

If you want to hate America, go ahead. But you are hating people who defend the principle of liberty. If defenders of liberty lose, as much as you hate them, what will you have won? Quibble over tactics but the perfect is the enemy of the good.

IOW, if the world didn't have America, what would we have? A world without America would be a lesser world. As John Howard said, don't wish for something because you may just get it.

In this latest war to defend an individual's freedom to choose, in this case against Medieval Islamism (rich with oil money), I think maybe a stupid, gratuitous, civil war in which the Islamic fanatics kill each other and sadly kill other innocent Muslims may be the best strategy for the rest of us.

Bush Jnr has created an Iraqi "quagmire" in which the fools kill each other. Let the sensible Muslims arrive at the same conclusion.

Oh jeez, here we go. The whole Axis of evil crap all over again. This is that whole slippery slope Bush and Cheney keep pushing about the war on terror having something to do with Iraq. The only reason Islamic insurgents are active in Iraq is because the US created the kind of power vacuum in which these guys flourish. The U.S. has as much chance of winning in Iraq as it did in Vietnam.

Uh, given a long term perspective, the Americans won in Vietnam. The Communists lost.

And that's my point.

[Technocrat]

In excusing Pol Pot, Leftist Americans make America the centre of the world. It's not. When will the remaining Western Left - the Jack Laytons, Noam Chomskys, Stephen Lewises, and too many university professors - ever admit that socialism, centralized power is dangerous.

Chomsky advocates for individual power and responsible and representative democracy... he merely points out that these things are lacking in many of the worlds powerful 'democracies'.

People who seek and get such power are pyschopaths: Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tong, Fidel Castro, Leonid Brezhnev, Lev Trotsky, Adolf Hitler, Ho Chi Minh, Nicolae Ceausescu. They were tyrants. America didn't create them any more than Canada created Paul Bernardo.

Missing from this list... Pinochet, Noriega, Torrijos, Velasco - this list of American backed dictators could go on and on. I don't understand why more Americans do not question the schizophrenic nature of American foreign policy. The United States has doen its fair share of bolstering and creating its own dictator regimes... which is all the more reason to be concerned. The United States made it official policy to be THE dominant world power under Bill Clinton.

[Higgly]

If you want to hate America, go ahead. But you are hating people who defend the principle of liberty. If defenders of liberty lose, as much as you hate them, what will you have won? Quibble over tactics but the perfect is the enemy of the good.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." Samuel Johnson.

[August1991]

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." Samuel Johnson.

For anyone who has read my posts, it is simply ironic to accuse me of patriotism. I'm certainly no American patriot. But I have an abiding desire to protect an individual's freedom to choose.

I notice that the North American Left has changed its name to "progressive" and rather than talk of socialism, it now defends the right of individuals to live their sexual orientation openly. I'm heartened. The essence of the United States is an individual's freedom to choose.

If patriotism to an individual's freedom to choose makes me a scoundrel, then that's a worthy refuge.

Chomsky advocates for individual power and responsible and representative democracy... he merely points out that these things are lacking in many of the worlds powerful 'democracies'.

I'm no expert on Chomsky. IMHO, the guy uses too many obfuscating words. But if I understand rightly, he is claiming that the US is not a representative democracy.

The Left has always compared its own ideal against the Right's real world: a Socialist Ideal against Free Trade sweat shops. That's a comparison the Right can never win. Heck, there are Leftists who still claim that a true socialist society has never existed.

The United States is democracy in the real world. If Chomsky wants to claim America is not a 'democracy', then let him stand in a large vacuum chamber and test Newton's law of gravity for its precision.

We live in a real world of friction. If, for over 200 years, a federal state with separation of powers and a respected written code stating private individual rights has functioned, survived a Civil War and yet changed, that's real enough for me. I won't quibble about grammar.

Missing from this list... Pinochet, Noriega, Torrijos, Velasco - this list of American backed dictators could go on and on. I don't understand why more Americans do not question the schizophrenic nature of American foreign policy. The United States has doen its fair share of bolstering and creating its own dictator regimes... which is all the more reason to be concerned. The United States made it official policy to be THE dominant world power under Bill Clinton.

Only under Clinton? Truman set up SEATO and NATO.

Let me start with Pinochet. The US was fighting a Cold War and there was no question of tolerating another Soviet proxy in South America. I'm surprised that they tolerated Allende for three years and under the circumstances, I thought the Americans were reasonable. The Soviets invaded Hungary and Prague with tanks.

If you mean though that the Americans created the right wing dictators in the world, you are sorely mistaken. Peron was an Argentinian affair. Countries in South and Central America have severe problems in their relations between indigenous (aboriginal) peoples and European immigrants. The USA is not at fault for this. America is not an empire and the best proof is that Canada is not a colony. America is a democracy in which ordinary people hold power and they simply want to get on with life.

----

If you guys want to have a debate about Henry Kissinger, Nixon, the US, the Soviets, the Cold War, Vietnam and so on, then let's have it. I'm willing to debate this in the context of Iraq.

I happen to think that the young men who fought in Vietnam did something good for the rest of us, just as those who are now in Afghanistan are also doing good. We can argue about how best to defend freedom but the principle of freedom should not be in question.

[Higgly]

Let me start with Pinochet. The US was fighting a Cold War and there was no question of tolerating another Soviet proxy in South America. I'm surprised that they tolerated Allende for three years and under the circumstances, I thought the Americans were reasonable. The Soviets invaded Hungary and Prague with tanks.

You are justifying Pinochet with the Soviet invasion of Hungary and Czechoslovakia? If I recall at the time, there was horror and abomination from the US for this. Allende was a democratically elected leader. Either you stand for democracy and accept it, or you prove your real colours by financing coups. If Allende's term had come to an end and he had refused to call an election or abide by an unfavourable result, then fine. But these things did not hapen. He was running a government that had actually increased its popular support in senatorial elections just prior to his coup and murder by Pinochet. Allende may have been a bad manager (which he was) and a rabid socialist (which he also was) but most importantly he was a democratically elected leader, and as far as I am concerned, that is written in stone, Soviet proxy be damned.

If you mean though that the Americans created the right wing dictators in the world, you are sorely mistaken. Peron was an Argentinian affair. Countries in South and Central America have severe problems in their relations between indigenous (aboriginal) peoples and European immigrants. The USA is not at fault for this. America is not an empire and the best proof is that Canada is not a colony. America is a democracy in which ordinary people hold power and they simply want to get on with life.

No the US didn't create all the right wing dictators of the world, just a few of them. And it sided with many others when they suited its purposes. There was a famous quote from Johnson: "He may be a sunofabitch, but he's our sunofabitch." America is indeed a democracy. So was Chile under Allende. And Iran under Mossadegh.... And as far as problems with indigenous peoples go, I would hardly call the US a model the rest of the world should follow.

I happen to think that the young men who fought in Vietnam did something good for the rest of us, just as those who are now in Afghanistan are also doing good. We can argue about how best to defend freedom but the principle of freedom should not be in question.

Personally I have no argument about the validity of Afghanistan. The US had every right to go in there and clean house. They were fighting a war of self-defense and the Taliban were given the opportunity to turn over Osama. They should have taken it. We'd all be much better off. My argument about Afghanistan is that 5 years later the same battle is still being fought because somebody took their eye off the ball. If Bush had stuck to his knitting they'd probably have clean water, electricity and shopping malls with food courts by now. But they didn't, and the reason for that is Kissinger-like thinking. The whole idea of using war as a strategic tool like a gardener uses a hoe. Vietnam was a waste of human capital, and so is Iraq.