Skip to main content

The Long Shadow


I was intrigued when I came across a review of a forthcoming book that sought to reconcile the seemingly contradictory legacies of former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. A few months later, I borrowed a copy and was enthralled by what the author had to say. Greg Grandin, author of well-received books like Fordlandia and Empire of Necessity, tackles the thorny issue of one of the United States' most notorious diplomats in Kissinger's Shadow: The Long Reach of America's Most Controversial Statesman

Drawing on newly declassified documents, Grandin's portrayal of Kissinger is far from complimentary. While giving him credit for his role in helping to normalize relations with China, and in brokering an arms-reduction treaty with the Soviet Union, the majority of the work zeroes in on acts that were an outgrowth of Kissinger's own philosophy of history, as outlined in his undergraduate thesis. Decline, Kissinger wrote, is not inevitable in a great power, so long as it acted decisively to maintain that power. This is the theoretical underpinning that drove acts as varied as the illegal bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam War to Kissinger's tacit support of right-wing death squads in Latin America during the 1970's. The consequences of the action were not important, and it was irrelevant whether the act itself had been right or wrong. What was important was that a great power act quickly, often merely for the sake of displaying its power. Kissinger would never second-guess himself, and has steadfastly stood by the rightness of his decisions. When Vietnam-era Defense Secretary Robert McNamara publicly apologized for his role in the conflict, Kissinger mocked him for his contrition. From Kissinger, there would be no apology, not then and not ever. 

In spite of the disastrous consequences of his decisions, in the post-Vietnam War era of his service in the Nixon and Ford Administrations, Kissinger doubled down. He helped facilitate the flow of weapons to the Shah of Iran, who was himself helping Islamic terrorists destabilize Afghanistan. He supported the murderous actions of governments in the Philippines and Indonesia, and he quietly allied with the apartheid regimes of Rhodesia and South Africa in proxy wars across the continent. In the name of "decisive action," he even suggested military seizure of Saudi Arabian oil fields, just to show that the U.S. could. 

Beyond his own foreign policy decisions, Grandin argues, Kissinger's greatest legacy was his rebuilding of the national security state, his justification of endless war for the sake of appearing strong, and his idea that governments could bend reality to their will, if only they worked hard enough. In spite of his foreign policy blunders, Kissinger has shown himself to be amazingly adaptable. Initially disparaging of Ronald Reagan, and a hated figure on the Right in 1980, Kissinger reinvented himself for the ascendant conservatives on the Right. While his reputation has waxed and waned in later decades, Kissinger positioned himself as an elder statesman, his opinions sought on both sides of the aisle. There were few conflicts he didn't like, so long as America appeared strong, and he served as a cheerleader for the invasion of Panama, and both Iraq Wars. Many actions that were controversial in 1970 became commonplace, Kissinger having paved the way. Grandin's accounting of Kissinger is by no means balanced, but it never pretends to be. The author's deft handling of the sources, and engrossing writing style, combine to result in a fascinating portrayal of the statesman. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Today I Am Ashamed of My Alma Mater

Over a week ago, my alma mater, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, released what it touted as a "bold" and "ambitious" workforce plan for the next several years. The backlash was both strong and immediate, forcing the University Administration, currently headed by President Karen Whitney, to release a " Frequently Asked Questions " for its plan. The outrage on social media, as well as a MoveOn.org petition with several thousand signatures, doubtless have already channeled the displeasure of the community, alumni, and students with the plan. The University is accepting public feedback, but this seems to be only a political window-dressing for a plan that Whitney herself was  quoted  as saying "...is 95-98% a done deal." For over a week I debated over what form a blog on the topic would take, and while I realize that what I have to say here is little different from what I and others have already stated elsewhere, I feel the need to address thi...

How I Left Creationism

There is a discussion going on right now in the science community about whether or not we should debate creationists: it is a debate within a debate, if you will. There are good arguments on both sides, but I have to think that we should debate creationists, and we should do it as often as we can stand it. Why do I think this? Last week, I saw that Michael Shermer posted a link to a story of a woman who argued this very point. As a former creationist, it was going to debates between Shermer and Kent Hovind that began to convince her of the legitimacy of evolution and of science. I too was once a creationist. Without ever having read anything about it, without it ever having been mentioned in class (I never heard a word about evolution in high school), I was ready to pounce at the merest mention of the topic as false and godless, two of the favorite creationist talking-points. I look back at this self in amazement, at how ignorant and proud of that ignorance I was, how I failed to ...

The Hovinds...Still Poking at Straw Men

Kent Hovind, the false "Dr. Dino", and his ilk are at it again. In a new article on his website, Hovind (or whoever authored the piece, perhaps his son) claims that while creationists have no problems using miracles to explain events (a habit that perpetually makes them unfit to do real science), evolutionists criticize them for it, even though, in Hovind's mind, they rely on miracles just as much to explain their "religion" of descent through natural selection. This is, at its core, demonstrably nonsense. He claims that a "miracle" is needed to make stars and planets form out of gas, a supposed violation of Boyle's Law because there was no "outside force" acting on the gas and dust. How about gravity, Dr. Dino? That would certainly explain it, no miracles needed here. This attack is a non-sequitur. The objection has everything to do with astronomy and cosmology and nothing to do with evolution, which is the development of new species o...