Henry A. Kissinger
Good God. I've been dreading this nonsense for a long time. Kissinger, Kissinger, Kissinger...this business has been stealing my time since late August. It is time to put an end to it. This post is my desperate attempt to do just that.

Henry Kissinger as most of you already know was responsible for some atrocious actions while he was Nixon's National Security Advisor and later as Nixon and Ford's secretary of state (for a more detailed look at his record go to the trialofhenrykissinger.org). Recently he came to speak at my school, which I objected to. I'd like to make clear at this point it wasn't the fact that Henry Kissinger is a conservative that motivated me or that I was trying to "shut down debate" or "silence ideas I disagreed with". I have had a lot of that psuedo-libertarian gibberish heaved at me and I don't appreciate it. The issue is that Kissinger was invited for any educational purpose, but rather for a promotional one. The school was having a convocation for the anniversary of its founding and he was picked as the guest speaker largely because of his big name. What difference does this make? All the difference. By selecting Kissinger the school is give him a kind of implicit endorsement, by inviting him they said that he is a "role model", a "respectable member of society" or at the very least that he is "within the pale". My issue is not with Kissinger's politics; I have no objection to having other conservatives coming to campus, but rather a moral issue (and the school does have moral standards for guests, for example they would not ask OJ Simpson to urge students to "Be Aggressive; On and Off the Field"). By inviting Kissinger as an "honored guest", they were saying that what Kissinger did was morally acceptable.

Which brings us to the question of Dr. Kissinger's guilt. Whenever I brought this up in arguments, people administration apologists would try as artfully as they could to dodge the issue by saying something along the lines of, "Well he's respected by a lot of people, considered an elder statesmen and is an honored figure within the mainstream..." This is really beside the point entirely. Its not whether or not a lot of people think Kissinger is all right it is whether or not he really is all right. At which point I'm told that I need to remember "context" and that public officials have to make a lot of hard decisions. Which is true, but they can also make criminal or at the very least gravely immoral decisions. If Kissinger's record is given a few minutes of serious thought, it is impossible to deny that there were at least a few US policies that were appalling and that Kissinger was in partially responsible. The bombing of Cambodia was probably the most serious offense that Kissinger is responsible for. The bombing was never approved of by congress, even though it ought to have been given that it was a tremendous escalation of the war expanding very violent military operations into previously neutral countries, furthermore the presence of the North Vietnamese in Cambodia was no justification for attacking Cambodia, just as the presence of Al Qeada cells is no justification for attacking Germany. Not only was the growth of the war not sanctioned by congress, the Nixon administration aimed to keep it a secret. The Bombing was also responsible for incredible slaughter, eventually killing roughly 600,000 Cambodians. This kind of butchery could only be expected; the B-52 was known to be extremely destructive and indiscriminate and Kissinger was aware that there were civilians in target areas. If this isn't depraved, then I'm not sure what is.
The truth about the bombing of Cambodia is hardly disputed and no one has ever disagreed with me over the facts of the matter. However, the Kissinger apologists I have argued with have groped desperately for excuses for the good doctor. They include

"You are ignoring the historical context (yes that old standby again). We needed to stop the communist infiltration of South Vietnam through Cambodia."

The effectiveness of a bombing campaign was doubtful from the start. Even General Westmoreland said that it was likely to fail.

"What about the broader historical context (again!)? We were in a cold war and our civilization was being threatened by the communists…"

This defense is particularly aggravating, because you'd have to be Joe McCarthy's soul mate to honestly believe this. While I'm hardly an appeaser with regards to the Soviets (I think that Reagan's placement of Pershing missiles in Europe was a good idea), what was done in Cambodia (and Vietnam as well) was just insane. I'm hesitant to make a blanket statement opposing terror bombing (bombing that is aimed at civilian populations), I think its use in World War II is probably defensible; the survival of civilization (at least any civilization worth preserving) was in directly threatened by the most serious war the world has ever known, the loss of which would have resulted in a state resembling slavery (or worse) for much of the human race. However, claim that such desperate and brutal measures were necessary in the conflict in South East Asia borders on the absurd. The survival of civilization was not being determined in Vietnam and to tie the fate of the world to the fate of a 3rd world mud hole like Vietnam is absurd. Such a defense is even more ridiculous with Kissinger's case, because he orchestrated our attempts to cozy up to China (which was and still is 1000x more dangerous than North Vietnam). It is really hard to imagine that a man as intelligent, educated and informed as Kissinger would actually think that a few goons armed with AK-47's hiding out in rice paddies were somehow more dangerous than an openly hostile nuclear power which also happened to be the world's most populous nation.

"Public officials are exempt from the usual constraints of morality and law because the state sanctifies their actions."

Oh really? In that case the Nuremberg Trials (and the ongoing trial of Slobodan Milosevic) are awful travesties of justice. I really don't see why officials can't or shouldn't be held responsible for their actions. Soldiers are held accountable for what they do; Lt. William Calley was rightfully prosecuted and convicted of murder for the Mai Lai massacre. Why shouldn't the same standards apply to political leaders? In reality, Kissinger is even liable for his decisions than the fighting men in the field are for theirs. The foot soldier has no hand it making his order, faces punishments for not carrying them out, is sometimes kept in the dark by higher-ups and faces the confusion and danger of combat. In contrast decision maker like Kissinger play an enormous part in shaping policy (Kissinger was a bombing proponent in the administration) and in their air conditioned offices are far removed from the disorder, peril and ignorance of the battlefield, enjoying access to the best information available to anyone, if anyone is responsible it is the political leaders.

"Well, Richard Nixon was President, so isn't he ultimately responsible for all of this"

I'm in no way trying let Nixon of the hook, anyone who knows me would never accuse me of missing an opportunity to give Tricky Dick a few more good kicks (I don't care if he's down!), he does deserve the most blame and if he were alive I'd been even more opposed to a visit by him then by Kissinger's. However, Kissinger's part can't be ignored. As National Security advisor and Secretary of State he played a crucial role in shaping foreign policy decisions made by the White House. Kissinger stood by Nixon and his policies during the preparations for the US raids in Cambodia, while more principled members of his own staff resigned in protest, it is impossible for Kissinger to plead ignorance or that he had no choice, he's therefore shares a good deal of the guilt with Nixon.

I've received other arguments against to my opposition to Kissinger, but they are too ridiculous to even bother with. One of such objection is that to oppose certain policies or certain people in the government means hostility towards the entire nation. This position, that dissent equals disloyalty is borderline fascist and is at its heart un-American. From there the counterarguments became even less rational.

In addition I'd like it make to clear that I'm not arguing for Kissinger to be tried before some kind of international war crimes tribunal. First of all, that is not really in the realm of possibility and I'm not even sure it's a good idea. I don't know what should happen to Kissinger, but I do know that the first step in the right direction is recognizing the things he did were wrong, that it is not all right for public servant who desecrates the constitution, hides the truth from the people, breaking international and moral law.