‘I call Dr. Kissinger’

More than any other candidate in the Republican presidential field, John McCain argues that his foreign policy “expertise” makes him qualified for the Oval Office. But when it comes to getting policy advice on international affairs, who does the senator turn to? None other than Henry Kissinger.

The Associated Press reports that McCain let the secret slip at a recent fundraiser at which the guest of honor was the former Secretary of State. “When I have a question about something that’s going on in the world, I call Dr. Kissinger and he is able to connect the dots for me,” McCain said, according to the AP. “It is easy to be an expert on one aspect of some international situation. He’s one of the only people I’ve ever known who can connect the entire scenario for you in a way that you understand the completeness of the challenge.”

I found this interesting for two reasons. First, during his 2000 presidential run, McCain had a far different perspective — he didn’t want Kissinger to have anything to do with his campaign. McCain’s fear, apparently, was that Kissinger “would taint the image of the ‘Straight Talk Express.'” As is usually the case with McCain, he’s apparently changed his mind.

And second, if McCain is getting advice from Kissinger about foreign policy, the senator is almost certainly getting some misguided lessons.

In Bob Woodward’s State of Denial, we learned that Kissinger had become an important advisor to the Bush White House on the war in Iraq. Kissinger perceived “wobbliness” within the administration on Iraq, and told the president that the overriding lesson of Vietnam is to “stick it out.”

In his writing, speeches and private comments, Kissinger claimed that the United States had essentially won the war in 1972, only to lose it because of the weakened resolve of the public and Congress.

In a column in The Washington Post on Aug. 12, 2005, titled “Lessons for an Exit Strategy,” Kissinger wrote, “Victory over the insurgency is the only meaningful exit strategy.” He delivered the same message directly to Bush, Cheney and Hadley at the White House. Victory had to be the goal, he told all. Don’t let it happen again. Don’t give an inch, or else the media, the Congress and the American culture of avoiding hardship will walk you back.

Yes, Kissinger believes the United States should look at the war in Iraq and make it more like Vietnam.

For what it’s worth, Rick Perlstein set the historical record straight and explained just how wrong why Kissinger is.

To begin unraveling the true meaning of Kissinger’s advice to the White House, we have to go back to August 3, 1972. On that date, President Nixon repeated to the good doctor, his national security adviser, what he’d been saying in private since 1966: America’s war aim (standing up a pro-American and anti-Communist South Vietnamese government in Saigon) was a fantasy. “South Vietnam probably can never even survive anyway,” the president sighed. But a presidential election was coming up. He had long before promised he was removing the U.S. presence, more-or-less victoriously (though “victory” was a word Nixon, by then, wisely avoided; instead, he called it “peace with honor”).

It was Kissinger, who had been shuttling back and forth to Paris for peace negotiations with the enemy, who named the dilemma: “We’ve got to find some formula that holds the thing together a year or two, after which–after a year, Mr. President, Vietnam will be a backwater. If we settle it, say, this October, by January ’74, no one will give a damn.” Thus was confirmed what historians would come to call the “decent interval” strategy. Having pledged to Saigon–and American conservatives–that Communist troops would not be allowed in South Vietnam after a peace deal was signed, Kissinger negotiated the opposite. “Peace is at hand,” he announced on the eve of the 1972 presidential election, in one of his rare appearances before the TV cameras. The United States left the following spring; the Communists moved in; Saigon fell.

That’s not how Nixon and Kissinger told the story, of course. They blamed the defeat on a combination of the liberal congressmen who refused to vote for continued aid to South Vietnam in 1974 and Saigon’s own unfortunate lack of will.

And now, Kissinger has McCain’s ear and is “connecting the dots” for the Republican frontrunner.

If you like Bush’s approach to foreign policy, you’ll love President McCain.

If you are so detached from reality to think that supporting Bush’s failures is the best way to win the White House, you might as well call on Kissinger. He was dead wrong 35 years ago, and has been wrong ever since. He’s a perfect fit McCain and the doubletalk express.

  • Kissinger may be amoral or even wrong about many things, but his analysis of the power politics involved is often correct. Listen to what he says and then make up your own mind.

    In my opinion it is a lot like Dick Morris. You don’t have to agree with him to realize that his analysis of political forces is accurate. (With the exception of anything he says about Hillary who he seems to hate with a venom that is sad.)

    That ought to piss people off. I’ve said ‘nice’ things about two a**holes.

  • Neil (@2),

    The analysis may be correct but, if you draw wrong (practical) conclusions from it you’re still up the creek.

  • I think the easy way to sum this up is to say that it’s one thing to know what people want, but it sometimes takes more than a thorough knowledge of what people want to add up to a house of cards that will actually keep standing.

    Practical conditions may put objective limits on subjective will. Sometimes those conditions are just the subjective wills of individuals, as well as the practical powers they hold, that a political strategist refuses to adequately account for. Just wanting to believe in the wills of some is a flawed method to predict events and understand conditions.

  • Kissinger was wrong about Viet Nam because he was one of the folks demagoguing about how the entire future of the free world rested upon the outcome of the Viet Nam war. A huge price in blood was paid in southeast Asia for the meddling of China, Russia, France and the US, but the free world failed to collapse as Kissinger had envisioned. Marauding communists never took away our rights or our capitalism and the US still stands after the fall of the Soviet Union.

    Henry’s Iraq stance merely reflects his bitterness at not winding up in the superior position at war’s end. He’s bitter that the populace of the US couldn’t stomach more dead and dismembered for the triumph of his ego, just like Rummy, just like W and just like Cheney.

    For McCain to listen to Kissinger is to listen to Mr. Henry Tinfoil Hat himself make more out of Islamofascism that really ever existed. A land relatively powerless to alter the future of all mankind will all of a sudden hold the key to saving the future of the world as we know it. BS. We will continue to fight wars against evils embellished by the imaginations of folks with major league egos (like Kissinger and McCain) by taking the advice of guys who consider humanity an impediment to their grand desire of conquest and victory. If you don’t hate McCain yet, this is plenty of reason to hate, and fear, his coming to power now.

  • Comments are closed.