So talk to me about Henry Kissinger

[Sheilbh]

The US and Khmer Rouge weren't against each other. That's certainly not how Cambodians remember it.

[Zoupa]

It was more a French thing.  Sartre was big on them.  Anti-colonialism and all.  Also they were against the Americans.

lolwut

[Razgovory]

The US and Khmer Rouge weren't against each other. That's certainly not how Cambodians remember it.

The Khmer Rouge and Vietnamese communists were allies in 1970.  The Vietnamese invaded Cambodia at the Khmer Rouge request.

[garbon]

There was at least one British Marxist academic who staunchly defended the Khmer Rouge, then went to Cambodia and mysteriously died.

Hate to break it to you but there's almost no crime in the 20th century you won't find at least some excusers of on the left as well as the right.

Slightly fascinating angle has been Kissinger's second career as a professional networker and profiteer from power (while posing and burnishing his own reputation as the inheritor of Metternich). There was never a boot he was disinclined to lick - whether it's the CCP (I note the only remaining western leader described in China as an "old friend" is now Merkel), or his views on Ukraine or the Baltics.

He committed crimes in his own time and later sold that cynicism as wisdom.

Sure. I mean the flat earth society is a thing. You'll always find someone who believes anything.
But the way Raz said it was like it was the  normal left wing position

Wiki entry for Sheilbh's dude had a wiki link on it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Caldwell

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial

[Tamas]

It was more a French thing.  Sartre was big on them.  Anti-colonialism and all.  Also they were against the Americans.

lolwut

Merde!

[Tamas]

I had a positive opinion on him uhtil his pro-Russian ramblings. Granted he was 99 already. But one of the dishonest or at least gravely mistaken pro-Russia stances is that a realpolitik view of the invasion is to let Russia win. At most, the correct realpolitik view is to do just enough to turn it into an eternal conflict.

[grumbler]

Kissinger does get a lot of blame for things that others did.  The idea that what the US did in Cambodia was wrong because "The US was not at war with Cambodia" is an incredibly naïve one; the US wasn't at war with North Vietnam, either.  Cambodia was not a neutral in the war; it was allowing (though more or less forced to allow) North Vietnamese and Viet Cong troops to use Cambodian territory for warfighting purposes.  A country cannot do that and claim neutrality.

That doesn't mean that expanding combat operations to Cambodia (and Laos) was a good idea, however.  Allowing Cambodia at least the pretense of neutrality gave Sihanouk's government some leverage to limit the use of Cambodia's territory by the North Vietnamese and VC.  That probably would have been more in the US interest than invading the country and destabilizing Sihanouk's government to the point that the Khmer Rouge could take over.

I think similarly about most of his other controversial actions.  He didn't allow "morality" to drive his policy recommendations, nor should he have (though he certainly should have considered popular reaction to his maneuvers).  But he also didn't accurately gauge where US interests really lay in a lot of the crises he tried to steer US foreign policy through.  In the end, his foreign policy in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Argentina, Chile, Pakistan, etc was "worse than immoral, it's a mistake."

TL;DR:  Kissinger was not as evil as his detractors say, but also not nearly as clever as his supporters say and, in the end, not nearly as important as either group says.

[crazy canuck]

https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2023/12/03/fareeds-take-henry-kissinger-vpx.cnn?cid=ios_app

I think this is a good analysis and context for what he did and the circumstances in the world at that time.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Kissinger is a complex figure, for a long time I think in serious IR circles, no one took the "war crime" claims all that seriously, that tended to be a leftist rant style thing.

One of the main reasons for that is the roles Kissinger had don't really have direct, operational control of U.S. military or intelligence assets. In that context it can be seen as a pretty big stretch to lay Cambodia, East Timor and Chile on Kissinger. Or at least, to single him out, as a high ranking official in the Nixon Administration, but not one who was in roles that typically give the orders for things like that.

However, a weird thing is Kissinger lived to be 100 years old. This means he lived so long that the very long declassification process ended up declassifying some of the Nixon Administration's private communications in the early 2000s. It gave us a clearer picture of exactly what Kissinger was up to.

One of the damning things is we developed a much clearer understanding of Kissinger's role as National Security Adviser, he was NSA from '69 to '75, holding the office (for a time) in conjunction with State from '75 to '77.

The National Security Adviser was a newish role at the time, and still finding its legs--it was envisioned like it sounds--an advisory role, which is how it functions today. But Nixon was a paranoid President who largely attempted to run all substantive policy out of the White House, or when he worked with the agencies, he tried to do so through hyper loyal partisan allies. For this reason a lot of the cabinet secretaries under Nixon had quasi-figurehead roles (this isn't an unheard of approach, a number of modern Presidents have emulated this, or some mixture of it.)

In the workings of the Nixon White House, it ends up the NSA was involved in an operational capacity far beyond what was normal, and he essentially was the head of a committee that was making some of these actual decisions. He also is documented being the major driver behind some of the bad U.S. actions in all of these matters.

Basically, the declassified documents paint a more direct, and more culpable role for Kissinger in these controversies.

At the same time, Kissinger was a man in an office in Washington. Nixon was the ultimate decider, none of these things happen without him. And the CIA and its leadership were involved in a lot of the planning and all of the execution, so putting it all on Henry isn't entirely logical.

It is also questionable to what degree some of these events were war crimes or not. There certainly were war crimes committed in East Timor for example, but by the Indonesians. I think it is debatable if agreeing to "not intervene" and to sell arms to Indonesia is the same as actually committing the war crimes--certainly not from a legal perspective. It does carry moral implications though.

And as others have mentioned, Cambodia was complicated--it wasn't a neutral party, and the worst war crimes that happened there were done by the Khmer Rouge--they may have been a result of U.S. policy, but they weren't a goal of it, and they certainly weren't taking marching orders from Kissinger or anyone else.

[Barrister]

The US and Khmer Rouge weren't against each other. That's certainly not how Cambodians remember it.

The Khmer Rouge and Vietnamese communists were allies in 1970.  The Vietnamese invaded Cambodia at the Khmer Rouge request.

Raz, I saw this at the time and thought maybe someone else would correct it.

The Vietnamese did not invade Cambodia at the request of the Khmer Rouge.  They in fact forcibly removed Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge from power.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-29106034

[Razgovory]

The US and Khmer Rouge weren't against each other. That's certainly not how Cambodians remember it.

The Khmer Rouge and Vietnamese communists were allies in 1970.  The Vietnamese invaded Cambodia at the Khmer Rouge request.

Raz, I saw this at the time and thought maybe someone else would correct it.

The Vietnamese did not invade Cambodia at the request of the Khmer Rouge.  They in fact forcibly removed Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge from power.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-29106034

Look at the date in my post and look at date in the article.

[Barrister]

The US and Khmer Rouge weren't against each other. That's certainly not how Cambodians remember it.

The Khmer Rouge and Vietnamese communists were allies in 1970.  The Vietnamese invaded Cambodia at the Khmer Rouge request.

Raz, I saw this at the time and thought maybe someone else would correct it.

The Vietnamese did not invade Cambodia at the request of the Khmer Rouge.  They in fact forcibly removed Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge from power.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-29106034

Look at the date in my post and look at date in the article.

OK understood where you're coming from.

[The Minsky Moment]

It comes down to the old debate about Machiavelli and Richlieu and whether one believes that raison d'etat is legitimate or whether states should be bound by conventional rules of morality in their international conduct.  E.g. Kissinger didn't support Pakistan in 71 because he was a sociopath rubbng his hands with glee over the genocidal slaughter; he supported Pakistan because they were a mostly sorta ally in the Cold War and the struggle against the Soviet Union took greater priority for him.  If you see that reasoning as illegitimate Kissinger is a villain.  If you see it a a regrettable but sometimes necessary part of statecraft, he isn't.

[FunkMonk]

In conclusion, Henry Kissing was a man of many contracts

[grumbler]

In conclusion, Henry Kissing was a man of many contracts

And a man of many contacts.