Kissinger the Pacifist (Split from a game forum)

[mariogreymist]

I know well about the history... the Nixon/Ford administration then ENDED US involvement in the war. Right?

Its like blaming Obama for Iraq, or Afghanistan... he was handed a situation, but it was clearly created by his predecessor. I'm sure you blame Bush for both of those wars, right? If I am assuming incorrectly, go on the record, and I will back off...
However, many people who blame Nixon don't blame Obama... despite it being the same situation pretty much. Personally, I blame those who got their countries involved in the war. People trying to then end it are doing the right thing.
Nixon, who I despise as a president, actually did the right thing in this case and got US troops out of Vietnam, despite an initial "surge" such as we are seeing today in Afghanistan (which I disagree with doing, partially based on the Vietnam example) and Iraq, both of which aim at then removing a US presence.

Even LBJ blamed himself, its funny that despite this fact, you don't.

@ INCP, I figured it was an Obama reference, and an exaggeration. Its funny that mariogreymist apparently had the flash that you were referring to Kissinger, because Kissinger, call me crazy, was never the Commander in Chief, and therefore didn't have the authority to send soldiers anywhere. It is rather crazy that Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize, pretty much removing any and all credibility of the committee...

Hold the phone. I am not saying LBJ doesn't deserve the lion's share of the credit for Vietnam. What I am saying is that Henry Kissinger, as the chief foreign policy and military advisor to Nixon, bears significant responsibility for the intensification and expansion of the war from 1969-1972. The fact that he was given the Nobel Peace prize in the midst of the war turned the award into a joke no more significant than winning a Golden Globe. (Apart from the money, which I am sure Al Gore used to charter some private jets when he won*)

And the CiC comment? Are you honestly suggesting that a man who was simultaneously National Security Advisor AND Secretary of State wasn't in a position to significantly influence American policy in Vietnam? Moreover, Kissinger got the award, not Nixon. While neither is to blame for the war's conception, both share the blame for its prosecution under their leadership. To give either a "peace" prize is to sink into Orwellian depravity.

And just for the record: I am not a democrat who just likes to blame republicans for everything. In fact, I haven't voted for a democrat in almost 2 decades. (or a republican, for that matter) Obama deserved prize more than Kissinger did, but that can be said for almost everyone alive today except George W Bush, his PNAC buddies, and a handful of tyrants around the world. With standards like that, who cares who wins that award?

*that was a joke. I know it's not true. (though Al Gore didn't deserve it any more than did Obama)

 

[JohnRM]

The war was more or less lost by the time President Nixon came into the White House. The opportunity to go after the hearts and minds of the people of South Viet Nam and to instill pride in their nation was lost early in the war. Another big part of that was the time period between the withdrawal of French forces and the arrival of American influence. The Communist forces used this time to win support among the rural peoples in both the north and south, and by the time the Americans arrived, it may have already been too late.

Furthermore, the United States insisted on fighting a conventional war instead of a counter-insurgency war. Our forces encountered great success against the North Vietnamese Army and the more organized Viet Cong elements, but that doesn't matter in an insurgency. The ability of insurgent forces to penetrate deep into friendly territory and strike at our more vulnerable points, recruit new soldiers, and make us look bad on camera was almost a crucifixion of the American war effort. Combined with waning support at home, that is.

The one remaining object of criticism that I have was for keeping the war in the south. I am of the sole opinion that when you go to war, you build up your armies and you drive the capital of your enemies. We should have invaded the north, captured Hanoi, and then proceeded to commit to a full counter-insurgency war. This would have permitted our aircraft to operate throughout the theatre with impunity. But, the allies feared armed intervention by the Communist Chinese, so this never happened, which takes us back to another war that we blundered in.

 

[mariogreymist]

The war was lost when Johnson and McNamara concluded it was a pure element of the Cold War rather than a civil war with communist influences. It had long since been lost when Nixon took office. That didn't stop Kissinger and Nixon from making matters worse. NSC 68 was the blueprint of our humiliation in SE Asia, and Nixon and Kissinger clung to it like a security blanket no matter how much the situation on the ground belied the polemic conclusions of that document. It's simply not possible to defeat an enemy on their own land if you have no idea what their true intentions are. It's plenty difficult even when you do know. (Ask Russian leaders about Afghanistan if you doubt this)

The fact that Kissinger was given the Nobel Peace prize two years before troops were actually leaving, and while the war was still expanding no less, forever blighted the prize, imo. While there have been deserving recipients since, it's more like the academy awards for politicians at this point. Sometimes they pick well, but sometimes they just go with what popular opinion dictates. (Barack Obama: Titanic as Nobel Peace Prize: Academy Best Picture)

 

[kochman]

The war was more or less lost by the time President Nixon came into the White House. The opportunity to go after the hearts and minds of the people of South Viet Nam and to instill pride in their nation was lost early in the war. Another big part of that was the time period between the withdrawal of French forces and the arrival of American influence. The Communist forces used this time to win support among the rural peoples in both the north and south, and by the time the Americans arrived, it may have already been too late.

Furthermore, the United States insisted on fighting a conventional war instead of a counter-insurgency war. Our forces encountered great success against the North Vietnamese Army and the more organized Viet Cong elements, but that doesn't matter in an insurgency. The ability of insurgent forces to penetrate deep into friendly territory and strike at our more vulnerable points, recruit new soldiers, and make us look bad on camera was almost a crucifixion of the American war effort. Combined with waning support at home, that is.

The one remaining object of criticism that I have was for keeping the war in the south. I am of the sole opinion that when you go to war, you build up your armies and you drive the capital of your enemies. We should have invaded the north, captured Hanoi, and then proceeded to commit to a full counter-insurgency war. This would have permitted our aircraft to operate throughout the theatre with impunity. But, the allies feared armed intervention by the Communist Chinese, so this never happened, which takes us back to another war that we blundered in.

Everything you just said, its right on the money. Good post.
We still have someone saying its was Kissinger's war, amazingly...
Once again mariogreymist... Even LBJ himself knew it was his war. Why don't you?

 

[mariogreymist]

Did I call it Kissinger's war? Holy strawmen, Batman!

As National Security Advisor and Sec of State, he does have some responsibility for the military and foreign policy of the Nixon Administration, which hardly promoted "peace" in SE Asia. To suggest that the deaths which occurred under Nixon's watch are entirely on the head of Johnson is myopic partisanship at best and revisionist history at worst.

 

[kochman]

How the hell is it partisanship when I can't stand Nixon, and think he was one of the worst presidents the country has ever had?

 

[mariogreymist]

There was another option. You still misrepresented my position. If you look at my posts in this thread, you'll see I place the primary blame for the debacle in Vietnam on Johnson and McNamara, where it certainly belongs. That doesn't absolve Nixon or Kissinger of the responsibility they hold for how they handled the war once they took over in 1969. Just as the fact that Aghanistan is Bush's war won't absolve Obama of his handling of it. I seriously hope he's right...but about 2500 years of history say that sending troops to Afghanistan is one of the worst ideas a leader can have.

 

[Glassfan]

I'd just like to point out that Johnson/McNamara makes sense, but Nixon/Kissinger doesn't. McNamara was President Johnson's Secretary of Defense and was responsible for warfare, but Kissinger was National Security Adviser and Secretary of State, and negotiated the Paris Peace Accords.

Melvin Laird was President Nixon's Secretary of Defense, and was largely the author of the Cambodian excursions and the "Linebacker" bombing campaigns.

Please go on with your very interesting argument.

 

[mariogreymist]

I think you underestimate the influence Kissinger had over the Vietnam policies of the Nixon administration. As Sec of State and NSA, he was in a position to wield huge influence over the military policy by framing the intelligence and diplomatic situations in such a way as to suggest broadening the war; something which almost certainly wouldn't have occurred had he been against it. Given his generally aggressive foreign policy stances, and the close confidence he held with nixon, it is hard to believe operations like Linebacker went on without his blessing.

And the point where this discussion started: Kissinger received the Nobel Peace Prize for the Paris accords, which were signed two years before hostilities ended. He accepted the award when he already knew there wasn't going to be peace so long as American troops were on the ground (or should have known). To suggest that Kissinger did not share in the moral culpability of the war during the Nixon administration is to underestimate his influence significantly. That's the point I am trying to make.

 

[kochman]

Mario, if your point is Kissinger shouldn't have received the Nobel Peace Prize, I agree... its really not an interesting point. No one in any administration that was involved in a war should have won it. This really is obvious.
Where you are erring is saying Kissinger was responsible for so much death. They tried a "surge", it didn't work in this case. It could have potentially worked, but by that point, really, by the Tet Offensive of 68, public opinion was solidly opposed to the war by then and had all but abandoned the troops.

Obama shouldn't have won it either, for the same reasons and more (as CiC, he is in fact, the final decision maker).

Its a moot point...
The Nobel Peace Prize committee is made up of morons, "evidence is clear". Giving peace prizes to those who are actively waging war(s) is stupid.

 

[mariogreymist]

I am saying he shared in the moral culpability, not that he was personally responsible. Nixon and Johnson were both more responsible than Kissinger, Laird, Clifford or McNamara. That doesn't suggest that the other men don't hold some responsibility for their actions any more than Hitler's power would absolve Adolf Eichman. Individuals hold the power to not participate in an immoral war, and a failure to do so, particularly by a civilian, is not a morally neutral act, imo.

Other than that, we seem to agree.