Does History Vindicate Kissinger?




Fortuna appears, sadly, to favor aging statesman and unindicted war criminal Henry Kissinger. The formal end of "cowboy diplomacy" -- which, arguably began in January with the photo-op with ther former Secretaries of State and Defense -- has largely become a media vindication of the disgusting excesses of Henry Kissinger. Why is this man allowed to roam the earth, stroll Park Avenue, garden in Litchfield, Connecticut unfettered by legirons? How one makes the gymnastic leap from The President's realization of the importance of multilateral relations to the blanket forgiveness of Kissinger's satanic foreign policy escapes The Corsair entirely. (Exaggerated cough suggesting feigned detachment)

Over and over in press stories of late -- especially in Time Magazine -- we are treated to gushing passages that describe Bush eschewing "idealism" and coming around to the position of "Kissinger." Kissinger, apparently, was right. Rubbish. Charmed, I'm sure. First of all, Kissinger is not the physical embodiment of the school of Political Realism, as those pumpkinheads at Time appear to believe. Hans Morgenthau, more than Kissinger, deserves to be considered thusly. Or even Kissinger's Dark Lord from remote history, Niccolo Machiavelli.

Second, let's briefly review what Kissinger is indeed capable of. Henry all but greenlighted the East Timor massacre ( �the use of US-made arms could create problems� ... �It depends on how we construe it; whether it is in self defense or is a foreign operation.�). His role in the 1973 Chilean coup is dubious at best. And there are legions more where that came from.

We know it is fashionable and even sexy in certain circles to worship Kissinger. The dark croaking voice, the liver-spotted face, the reptile eyes and the aura of unlimited power notwithstanding, don't be fooled: History should not vindicate Kissinger.