For the second time in his life, America finds itself in a protracted conflict of a highly difficult nature and we can be thankful that in Kissinger we've got something as constant as the North Star: when the going gets tough, Kissenger is on hand to work out the details of America's surrender.
It is no surprise that someone as cynical as Kissinger is listened to with respect on the left. After all, without Kissinger we might have wound up honoring our commitments to South Vietnam and that would have really blown the leftwing plan there. And even if there was no way to come out of Vietnam with victory, then without Kissinger we might have at least ensured that we got all of our people - including all those Vietnamese who worked closely with us - out of Vietnam before the collapse (did you know that our Embassy guards - simple peasant lads - were left behind and wound up shot by the communists? Couldn't make even one more helicopter trip for them...Kissinger didn't want to). The main thing to remember about Kissinger is that he's never met a tyrant he didn't think worthy of America bending the knee to. Normally, that wouldn't matter, but Kissinger provides cover for all sorts of people who probably wouldn't go out on a limb if they didn't have an alleged elder statesman to point to.
A clear example of this is Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Vichy), who wrote this in the Washington Post:
There will be no victory or defeat for the United States in Iraq. These terms do not reflect the reality of what is going to happen there. The future of Iraq was always going to be determined by the Iraqis -- not the Americans. Iraq is not a prize to be won or lost. It is part of the ongoing global struggle against instability, brutality, intolerance, extremism and terrorism. There will be no military victory or military solution for Iraq. Former secretary of state Henry Kissinger made this point last weekend.
Uh, Senator, in a war there is either victory, or defeat - there is no middle ground which is neither victory nor defeat. We either leave Iraq with a functioning democracy capable of defending itself, or we are defeated...crushingly defeated by enemies who will rejoice in our weakness and redouble their efforts to destroy us. Has it occured to you, Senator, that if we leave with less than our minimum goals then it will be a result of the military measure our enemies took against us? Is there any realisation that our leaving Iraq short of victory will be a military solution to the issue? It will just be a military solution where we come up the losers.
But of course Hagel understands none of this - and thus he takes the increased interest of Iran and Syria in Iraqi affairs as a positive development, something we can use as a means of withdrawing...perhaps Hagel's ultimate plan would be for a Iran/Syria stablization force? You know, stability is what people like Hagel live for...that it works out as the stability of the grave doesn't concern people like Hagel. After all, we've got more important things to worry about...like, for Hagel, how to get the GOP nomination when you're weak on national security issues (answer: make certain by 2008 there are no pressing national security issues...surrender gets rid of the issues by the swiftest means).
Just another couple bloody albastros' around our necks as we fight for civilization against Islamo-fascist barbarism. I really feel for President Bush at times like these - this is the sort of thing he not only has to put up with, but he also has to pretend that Hagel isn't the biggest dunce the world has ever seen.