![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Not In Our Name -- But Maybe In Our CB Handle
Posted by Stephen Green · 25 October 2002
As decades go, the 1970s were the ugliest time in America. Leisure suits. Bell bottoms. Gloria Gaynor. Jimmy Carter ineffectualism (but I repeat myself). The commercialization of hippie “culture.” Baby Boomer crassness and generational self-absorption becoming social norms. Garret Morris having to wear a dress to get on TV. Henry Kissinger. What’s this? The so-called rightie lumping Hank K in with untamed sideburns and avocado green kitchen appliances? You bet your Cambodia-bombing ass, I am. Last year, Christopher Hitchens – the liberal even a warmonger can love – tossed a book-size grenade at Kissinger, accusing him of nothing less than crimes against humanity. OK, it wasn’t a book-sized grenade, it was an actual book, but no less explosive for being so. I like Hitch and always have, but then again, I’m a Falwell-tweaking, gay-marriage supporting, drug legalizing, pro-abortion, pro-immigration, anti-trade barrier, wary-of-organized-religion kind of conservative. Hardly a conservative at all, but I digress. We were talking about why Henry Kissinger is such a foul human being. The whole subject came up yesterday, when NZ Bear (a favorite blogger of mine, and another “conservative”) launched a no-invective-barred barrage against our least favorite tubby former Secretary of State not named Madeleine. While I think NZ overstates the case, it’s still a good one. I won’t bother going into all the particulars, since NZ and Hitch have already done so, and done a much better job of it than I’m willing to do this late at night and after my third cocktail. But here's the short version. Kissinger kissed up to China, spearheaded a duplicitous policy in Vietnam, blazed the trail to selling out Taiwan, negotiated bad-faith nuclear arms deals (on their side, not ours, but he knew it) with the Soviets, excused illegal bombings in Cambodia, and personally sabotaged the 1968 peace talks. We might disagree over whether these actions were good or bad, but there’s no denying them. There’s also no denying that Secretary of State Henry Kissinger is a very, very bad man. And I’m awfully glad we had him on our side when we needed him most. Do I have you righties back with me now? Good. Here’s where it gets interesting. The political victories of 1989 came so fast and so unexpectedly, and the military victories of the 1990s were all so lopsided in our favor, that it’s easy to forget just how dire things were for us from (all eras approximate) 1968-1983. Militarily, Politically, diplomatically, and culturally, the United States – and thus the entire Western world – was in retreat. And let's not even talk about the economy. Militarily? While the Soviets deployed the latest tanks and planes to East Germany, American heavy forces missed an entire generation of new equipment, to pay for the war in Vietnam. We wonder today at the lethality and survivability of the M1, but in 1974 it wasn’t even on the drawing board. F-4s, developed in the early ’60s, remained the mainstay of our Air Force and Naval Aviation well into the ’80s. There were enlisted men’s barracks in front line units in front line countries where officers dared not tread, for fear of their lives. Meantime, our armed forces struggled for years to shift from a large, draftee force to a smaller, all-volunteer deterrent. The new weapons were worth waiting for. Ending the draft was a political and moral necessity. But that doesn’t change the fact that for several years there, we were very, very vulnerable. Politically? We lurched from Johnson to Nixon, with assassinations, riots, and scandal as bookends and the books. Those messes were followed by the caretaker administration of Ford, and the dithering, holed-up-in-the-White House presidency of Carter. Love him, hate him, or whatever, (my thoughts are mixed) it’s hard to argue that Reagan wasn’t a huge improvement over the leadership we suffered from ’63 to ’81. Diplomatically? Soviet diplomats, never very effective beyond “the near abroad,” were making gains in godforsaken Mozambique, for God’s sake. From the Caribbean, to South America, to Africa, to South and South-East Asia, you could count our successes on the fingers of one blooded hand. And I do mean blooded – our few successes tended to be of the sort we had in Chile. Nothing to be proud of, to say the least. Culturally? Every bad idea from the ’60s became a profitable business venture, a hip fashion trend, or a primetime television hit. ‘Nuff said. That’s fifteen very, very bad years. But they could have been worse. Our military – embarrassed, shrunken, and addled by drugs – couldn’t be counted on to preserve our allies. So Nixon, with help from Kissinger, found a new counterweight to Soviet might – in Communist China. We needed to bloody the NVA badly enough to get our POWs home – and so Kissinger told lies about bombing Cambodia. Peace talks alone weren’t going to get our all our captured airmen home – and so we needed a way out of them. I don’t mean to gloss over Kissinger’s crimes. He’s a liar, a killer, and a cheat. But at least he was our liar, killer, and cheat. Comments
From Jerry Pournelle's site: "It is easy to forget just how much despair there was in the 60's and early 70's. No less a figure than Henry Kissinger thought his mission was to negotiate successful terms of surrender for the West letting us last as long as possible". If he really thought like that he certainly wasn't liable to play nice. I got the quote from here: PS: On the matter of nasty people: I recently ended up defending Senator McCarthy and HUAC on a messageboard Posted by: Ralf Goergens at October 25, 2002 02:05 AMYou forgot economically. The 1973 oil crisis, double-digit inflation, a couple of nasty recessions, etc...the period 1968-1983 was certainly not a happy one on the economic front. Posted by: Mat at October 25, 2002 03:35 AM"I’m a Falwell-tweaking, gay-marriage supporting, drug legalizing, pro-abortion, pro-immigration, anti-trade barrier, wary-of-organized-religion kind of conservative" The thing is bud, so are most "conservatives". The terms conservative and liberal have completely lost their meanings. The other problem with these teerms is taht it all depends on where your standing at the time, when I lived in Dallas people conisdered me to be an arch-liberal, when I lived in SF, I was an arch conservative, but I was the same old guy and my views hadnt changed at all. For me its a simple question of "what method or process ensures the best application of human liberty". I also have a strong distaste for anything involving the concept of "utopia". If that makes me a conservative, so be it.
Dittos to Frank above. Listen, if there's a country "we" can be proud of in the Western Hemisphere outside of ourselves, its Chile. I can still recall when some of the first liberal scales started to fall from my eyes. Though I was all of 14 years old and there for less than a month 1 1/2 years after the Allende coup, the only negative about Chile that I can recall was the border guards insisting on dismantling our well packed tarp of supplies at 8000 feet in the Andes with 4 cold hungry kids in tow. As observed by us and stated to us by every single person we met, Pinochet's Chile was paradise on earth compared to Allende's. Quite a contrast to the scary cover story in TIME, uncensored and freely available by the way. And this was before Friedman's "Chicago Boys" really kicked things into gear and before Pinochet voluntarily stepped down for his democratically elected successor. I hope Henry the K is just being modest for declining to take due credit for this turn of events. Besides, whether Allende committed suicide or not, I very much doubt he was killed as a result of Henry's order. If you want examples of countries more to Hitch's taste, check out Cuba, Venezuela and soon, Brazil. Scary. The only thing not to be proud of is our refusal to extend NAFTA to them. Great piece though. How soon we forget. Posted by: Lloyd at October 25, 2002 10:24 AMKissinger's adpoted Metternich as his principle role model for diplomatic strategy. You may be certain that during the interval from 1968 through 1976, that "realpolitik" methodology presented a much more effective model for utilizing our very constrained national resources in defense of America's vital interests. He and his family were German refugees that fled just in time to avoid being liquidated during the Holocaust that followed on their heels. I believe that his tenure as an Army Lieutenant in Germany conducting intelligence interviews after WWII had been won was decisive in formulating his adult character. It's my belief that it was then that he decided that so far as American interests were concerned he took Khruschev's perspective in Stalingrad, "Not one step back." Thank God that during the 1970s, an era of pervasive pessimism, our nation had an immigrant so devoted to its virutes when we were consumed with self doubt. Posted by: Ray Clutts at October 25, 2002 10:52 AMDesparte times require desparate measures. Posted by: Ray Clutts at October 25, 2002 10:54 AMMaybe it's because I've spent too long watching the Chinese, but kissing up to them, in the context of the time was probably the right thing to do. Until the late 1960s, the extent of the Sino-Soviet split was not recognized. For much of the early 1960s, the American perception was that there was a single, monolithic Communist entity ruling Eurasia, combining the might of the Soviet Union and the inexhaustible human resources of China. But Henry (and Tricky Dick) came to recognize (along w/ the intel agencies, etc.) that this wasn't the case. And when Dick landed in China in 1972, in one stroke, the strategic balance was changed. China went from "a pox on both your houses", to a lukewarm, and subsequently warm, anti-Soviet ally. And with it came a thousands-mile long border of the USSR which was suddenly vulnerable. A multi-million man army which, while poorly equipped, was enough to force Moscow to look over its shoulder. And, ultimately, a huge market to help fuel the American, Japanese, and European export markets. Dealing with the Devil? Yup. But one that helped hasten the downfall of the closer Threat. Posted by: Dean at October 25, 2002 12:29 PMExcellent post. Good, thoughtful, original stuff. I've linked to it on my site. Posted by: Conrad at October 29, 2002 12:22 AM"I’m a Falwell-tweaking, gay-marriage supporting, drug legalizing, pro-abortion, pro-immigration, anti-trade barrier, wary-of-organized-religion kind of conservative." Dude, I believe all those things - except gay marriage, because I don't think government should have anything to do with preventing or allowing marriage, gay or otherwise - and have called myself a conservative since I was thirteen. I don't know what your hang up is. (You and Matt Welch both.) If you read Barry Goldwater's book "Conscience of a Conservative" I guarantee you'll agree with 95% of it. BTW, every Chilean I've ever met has praised Pinochet in almost messianic terms. Posted by: Brian at October 29, 2002 07:53 PMI suppose you never met the ones thrown, alive, out of helicoptors over the ocean. Posted by: Jim at October 29, 2002 08:39 PMi call myself a conservative too..in just the terms described above, to wit :" I’m a Falwell-tweaking, gay-marriage supporting, drug legalizing, pro-abortion, pro-immigration, anti-trade barrier, wary-of-organized-religion kind of conservative." And i STILL don't understand the "love affair" many conservatives have with Pinochet ! You guys can just ignore the people who vanished in the night ? the ones taken away by the security services and never seen again? and this is ok, because the chilean ECONOMY got better ? I think that we need new names for political ideologies. I consider myself a liberal in the classical sense, but there are many others like me who call themselves conservative. On the other hand, there are many authoritarians out there who call themselves liberal. Go figure! As for Chile -- let's look at this in perspective. Yes it was bad, but it was a drop in the bucket compared to the tens of millions of lives wasted behind the Iron Curtain. Why is there no outrage on the (authoritarian) Left about that? Why is every argument from the "right" hinged on asking why the "left" isn't upset about the injustices suffered under communism? Just because one criticizes the actions of Kissinger, Nixon, etc.. and calls for them to be held accountable for the murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians, does NOT mean that the same person is not also outraged at the crimes perpetrated against humanity by Castro, Kruschev, Mao, and the rest. Why can't we focus on Kissinger when we're talking about Kissinger? Very curious. Posted by: presto at January 14, 2003 10:06 PM |
MDS - Give Until It Hurts Terror War Scorecard Watching America 50 Things American Cancer Ablation Center Buy VodkaPundit Stuff
"If Janeane Garofalo had ever met VodkaPundit, she'd be Anne Coulter by now."
Ann Althouse
Across the Atlantic
American Realpolitik
Albion's Seedlings
Justene Adamec
The Argument Clinic
Todd A
Moe Freedman
Allah Is In the House
Body in Mind
Ben Domenech
Duck Season
Banana Counting Monkey
Ted Barlow
Eric Alterman
American Times
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |