Kissinger was ruthless in trying to protect American interests and he didn't mind sacrificing non-Americans to do it.kalm wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2023 12:59 pmI agree with this from a political standpoint. It’s the establishment’s narrative…what we’ve all been trained to believe. I’m guilty as well.GannonFan wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2023 9:22 am
Indeed. Kissinger, and his legacy, are complicated. That in and of itself is difficult for politics of today to understand as we seem to only like simplistic, glossed-over political statements that work well in meme format. I generally dismiss any political commentary that includes comparisons to Hitler and declaring people to be burning in hell. Those tend not to be intellectually thought about enough.
You can see the issue with Kissinger and how he's viewed today just based on who doesn't like him - Reagan Republicans didn't like him because they thought arms control treaties with the Soviet Union was going soft on communism. Jimmy Carter Democrats (and Biden was this then) didn't like him because he worked with Nixon - no other reason needed. Bill Clinton Democrats, including Hillary, did like him because he was obviously extremely intellectual and a bit of a realist. However, since the Progressive Left has become the mainstream left today, being associated with Hillary Clinton is not a good thing and hence the current left didn't like him. And the current right is dominated by the Trump MAGA's and just knowing that Kissinger was part of opening up China just makes him persona non grata as well. So basically, there's a lot of hate from both the right and the left. And none of this even gets into the fact that Kissinger was Jewish and how his working at the highest levels of government and power play into those vile tropes of antisemitism that unfortunately plague both the left and the right.
Kissinger's legacy is complicated, like I said. You have to question the wanton bombing and loss of life in Cambodia that happened under his watch. He and Nixon didn't start the Vietnam quagmire, but they probably could've done better. As for turning a blind eye to the atrocities carried out by strongmen that the US either supported or didn't oppose, you need to look at each and every case and determine 1) if we could've really done anything different to deter those events and 2) also make a determination that if the Marxist-forces in those countries we were indirectly opposing would have been even worse. The Cold War was not a simple time, and even with our benefit of hindsight I'm not sure there were always better options. But it is interesting that other folks in administrations that came before and after the one Kissinger worked in aren't subject to the same wishes for eternal damnation in a hell they may or may not believe in. Again, don't discount the antisemitism angle to this.
Sometimes it’s better to listen to the poets, the artists, or in this case, the chefs to see it through the eyes of stripped down truth telling.
“Once you’ve been to Cambodia, you’ll never stop wanting to beat Henry Kissinger to death with your bare hands. You will never again be able to open a newspaper and read about that treacherous, prevaricating, murderous scumbag sitting down for a nice chat with Charlie Rose or attending some black-tie affair for a new glossy magazine without choking. Witness what Henry did in Cambodia – the fruits of his genius for statesmanship – and you will never understand why he’s not sitting in the dock at The Hague next to Milošević.”
Anthony Bourdain
(Similar can be said regarding Kissinger, the CIA, and Milton Friedman’s interference in Chile. This all makes me want to watch the Killing Fields)
Back to Ganny's point/question about what if the Marxist-forces in those countries we were indirectly opposing would have been even worse. Why did the US bomb Cambodia? What happened after the bombing stopped? Were more people killed by the bombing or by the regime that followed?
A lot of what Kissinger advocated for was despicable but I don't think you can look at it in a vacuum.
