Misinterpreting Kissinger’s comment

An awful lot of hay is being made all over the blogosphere about Henry Kissinger’s recent comment on Iraq without reading it particularly closely so I may as well join in. Here’s the snippet that everyone seems to be latching onto:

“If you mean, by ‘military victory,’ an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don’t believe that is possible,” Mr. Kissinger told BBC News.

First, this is an observation with which I agree and which is a primary reason I opposed the invasion of Iraq to begin with.

This doesn’t represent a new state of affairs. Saddam’s “writ” didn’t run across the whole country. To the best of my knowledge no Iraqi government to date has accomplished that.

But, more importantly in my view, this statement isn’t really about Iraq. It’s about American politics, Bush, and the Bush Administration. This is the more significant portion: “in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support”. I take that as an acknowledgement that our patience is thin and Bush has done an awful job of rallying support for what any reasonable person should know would be a very lengthy process—longer than any single presidential administration.

I’ve lost track of the entire text of Mr. Kissinger’s statement in an interview with the BBC (perhaps someone can point me to it) but he goes on to suggest that the U. S. should have installed another “strong man” dictatorship in Iraq (something Tom Friedman pointed out was a likely alternative back in 2002). Does anyone think that would have been acceptable to the American people as a reason for invading Iraq to start out with?

Time for my standard kvetch against the foreign policy realists. I believe that the antipathy to American foreign policy in the region on the part of the people in the region is fostered (not necessarily caused, mind you, but fostered) by our actions in the region. The realists continue to advocate that we support oppressive regimes and, implicitly, occupy Muslim lands. That’s the formula that contributed to 9/11 and I see no reason to believe that a return to those policies will cause the people in the region to love us any more.

5 comments… add one
  • Its a catch-22:

    Support for and creation of strong-man regimes does cause resentment in the region. However, if one looks at the evolution of democracy, especially in those states with a) lack of democratic experience and b) lack of organic, democratic movements, its hard to find one where NOT having an authoritarian state to stabilize the country while it moves towards greater freedom worked and worked well. This does mean that you place the fate of the outcome in the hands of powerful actors who may or may not decide to move the state towards democracy. But that, unfortunately, seems to be the way the game works.

    I agree with you Dave–this is one of the many reasons why I disagreed with the Iraq operation from its inception.

  • My view, Bill, is that, if you genuinely want to foster democracy, you must support the local institutions that push the country in that direction and not support the ones that push it in some other direction. Tyrants in the Arab Middle East have not tended to push their countries towards democracy.

    It can’t be done on the quick or on the cheap. Which, in today’s political climate, means we can’t do it at all.

  • fiskhus jim Link

    Whenever anyone speaks of Kissinger, it is vitally important to note that Henry is a criminal.

    And not of the common or garden variety, either. No, Kissinger is a monstrous abuser of all humanity for personal gain. The most venal thuig to ever manipulate America, Americans and American deaths to gain personal power and prestige.

    Kissinger knowingly obstructed peace talks when he was with the Johnson administration for the single-minded purpose of promoting Henry KJissinger, knowing he would switch administrations and political sides from D to R. When peace was finally achieved it was with terms that were substantially identical to terms offered years before. For that reason, Henry Kissinger is single-handedly responsible for all deaths that occurred between the breakdown of early talks and the final peace for which he was so handsomely rewarded.

    Kissinger is a traitor to the United States, her service personnel and all her citizens. He should be stripped of his citizenship and deported to one of the many countries where he is already under indictment for his crimes.

  • It might surprise you to know, Dave, that my position on Kissinger is not markedly removed from fiskhus jim’s: I think that Kissinger is one of the most vile and monstrous human beings to cross the planet in the post-WWII era.

  • I suspect that’s thereason general public want to read blog….Internet visitors generally create blogs to declare themselves or their secret views. Blog grant them same matter on the monitor screen what they specifically needed,so as the above stuffs declared it.

Leave a Comment