On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 8:22:47 AM UTC-4, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 10:23:57 PM UTC-5, Phl Maestro wrote:
> > You guys can dump all over Kaplan all you like. None of you can touch his understanding of international affairs, let alone Kissinger's. And neither can Isaac Chotiner for that matter.
> I can't help but notice that's no argument, just a way of saying "you are wrong."
> > Some of your comments reveal you to be exactly the type of armchair quarterbacks who don't have any responsibility for making decisions that are going to cost lives with you being blamed no matter what you decide.
> At this level, we are all armchair quarterbacks. But "blamed if you do, blamed if you don't" is just a dodge. Go ahead, Phil, tell us that you endorse the Chilean dictatorship and the Suharto genocide that Kissinger at minimum tacitly approved.
> > Kaplan does not think in retrospect that American involvement in Vietnam was a good idea. That needs to be separated from the manner in which the Nixon administration withdrew troops in accordance with the situation they inherited.
> Frankly, that's part of the problem. "We made a mistake, and being wounded by that mistake is the paramount risk, so whatever I do to defend my power at this point must be forgiven" is just an on-ramp to evil.

I'm well aware that individual policies Kissinger formed or carried out at Nixon's behest can be slammed as immoral or worse when viewed without context. And I certainly don't begrudge anyone who is from a family or country that was personally impacted by those policies and the actions in furtherance of them for hating Kissinger and thinking he's evil.

But one of the things I've learned from reading Kaplan's books over the years is that there is always a ton of context and there are always other considerations at hand when such policies are formulated - considerations that impact the lives of a lot of people and will often mean life and death for many regardless of where the policy-maker comes down. As Kaplan pointed out in his piece, someone has to make those decisions. Has there ever been a country that became and remained a great power without pissing a lot of people off in the process? Yet would the post WWII world have been better off without the U.S. being a great power? And could they have been and stayed one long enough without being willing to carry out policies that were tragic in many respects? I would argue not in the world in which we live.

We could go back and forth with you saying this policy or that policy is evil, yet it's basically meaningless without getting into all of the factors that had to be considered in making those policies. And neither of us know what they were.

On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 12:39:46 AM UTC-4, Dan Koren wrote:
>
> Say what you may, there is no reasonable way
> to justify killing hundreds of thousands of
> innocent civilians who were not involved
> in the conflict in order for the US to "save
> face". At that point in time there was no
> "face" left to be saved.
>
> Henry Kissmyassinger is a war criminal.
>
> dk

"Saving face" is another way of saying maintaining their credibility and power of deterrence.

Would Putin have ordered the invasion of Ukraine had he not thought he had a weak opponent for an American president following the disastrous withdraw from Afghanistan?
We obviously will never know for sure. But it's worthy of contemplation.

Would the Soviets have invaded Afghanistan if Reagan were president instead of Carter? Again, we'll never know. But the point is that "saving face" isn't just a matter of looking good. Lives are often lost in large quantity when a great power's credibility is damaged.

The North Vietnamese had created a massive supply chain that partially went through Cambodia and Laos and that was causing massive problems for the U.S. Nixon and Kissinger desperately wanted to get NV back to the negotiating table to end the war, but while maintaining American credibility in the process. In order to do that, they had to cripple that supply chain.

On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 12:39:46 AM UTC-4, Dan Koren wrote:
> On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 8:23:57 PM UTC-7, Phl Maestro wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 10:24:14 PM UTC-4, Dan Koren wrote:
> > > On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 5:48:57 PM UTC-7, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I wish this was five times as long:
> > > >
> > > > https://newrepublic.com/article/113029/robert-kaplans-terrible-incoherent-defense-henry-kissinger
> > > Can anyone spell A-S-S-H-O-L-E ?!?
> >
> > You guys can dump all over Kaplan all you like.
> That reference was about Kissmyassinger,
> not about Kaplan.
> > None of you can touch his understanding of
> > international affairs, let alone Kissinger's.
> Of course not, and I never claimed otherwise.
> > And neither can Isaac Chotiner for that matter.
> >
> > https://robertdkaplan.com/robert_d_kaplan_bio.htm
> >
> > Some of your comments reveal you to be exactly the
> > type of armchair quarterbacks who don't have any
> > responsibility for making decisions that are going
> > to cost lives with you being blamed no matter what
> > you decide.
> It goes without saying we all are amrchair generals.
> At the same time this does not imply no one other
> than the actual generals has a right to evaluate
> their decisions or count the bodies.
> > Kaplan does not think in retrospect that American
> > involvement in Vietnam was a good idea. That
> > needs to be separated from the manner in which
> > the Nixon administration withdrew troops in
> > accordance with the situation they inherited.
> Say what you may, there is no reasonable way
> to justify killing hundreds of thousands of
> innocent civilians who were not involved
> in the conflict in order for the US to "save
> face". At that point in time there was no
> "face" left to be saved.
>
> Henry Kissmyassinger is a war criminal.
>
> dk

"Saving face" is another way of saying maintaining their credibility and power of deterrence.

Would Putin have ordered the invasion of Ukraine had he not thought he had a weak opponent for an American president following the disastrous withdraw from Afghanistan?
We obviously will never know for sure. But it's worthy of contemplation.

Would the Soviets have invaded Afghanistan if Reagan were president instead of Carter? Again, we'll never know. But the point is that "saving face" isn't just a matter of looking good. Lives are often lost in large quantity when a great power's credibility is damaged.

The North Vietnamese had created a massive supply chain that partially went through Cambodia and Laos and that was causing massive problems for the U.S. Nixon and Kissinger desperately wanted to get NV back to the negotiating table to end the war, but while maintaining American credibility and without throwing their South Vietnamese allies to the wolves in the process (that's another part of maintaining credibility). In order to do that, they had to cripple that supply chain.

On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 9:39:38 AM UTC-5, Phl Maestro wrote:
> We could go back and forth with you saying this policy or that policy is evil, yet it's basically meaningless without getting into all of the factors that had to be considered in making those policies. And neither of us know what they were.

I wonder, Phil, do you have any personal sense of a single instance when the US abused its power or made company with evil to further its own (perceived) benefit? Empires are only too happy to have members of the educated class believe they can't possibly judge, and you don't sound very motivated to find fault. Choosing to believe that your country's leaders are always non-malignant and just doing their best (in a relatable way) is a form of faith I am not comfortable with.

On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 10:00:21 AM UTC-5, Phl Maestro wrote:
> Lives are often lost in large quantity when a great power's credibility is damaged.

Frankly, Phil. I can't see what you might not countenance if this is really what you believe.

On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 11:05:35 AM UTC-4, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 9:39:38 AM UTC-5, Phl Maestro wrote:
> > We could go back and forth with you saying this policy or that policy is evil, yet it's basically meaningless without getting into all of the factors that had to be considered in making those policies. And neither of us know what they were.
> I wonder, Phil, do you have any personal sense of a single instance when the US abused its power or made company with evil to further its own (perceived) benefit? Empires are only too happy to have members of the educated class believe they can't possibly judge, and you don't sound very motivated to find fault. Choosing to believe that your country's leaders are always non-malignant and just doing their best (in a relatable way) is a form of faith I am not comfortable with.

We obviously made company with Stalin for our benefit, not to mention Mao - and while the Cultural Revolution was still ongoing. It's tough to get much worse than those two.

There are obviously many other actions they took that had terrible consequences. And were I to sit and examine all of the considerations that went into them, I would likely find one or more to have been totally unjustified even from the standpoint of those in the era in which it happened. Obviously, the second Iran invasion was both disastrous from a policy standpoint and a humanitarian catastrophe for a ton of people. And the W. Bush administration didn't have the context of the Cold War to think of. They were essentially trying to spread democracy by force. So I think that falls into that category.

But in further response, yes, I'm more likely to look for shades of gray than to see a foreign policy action in black or white terms. I see that as the nature of the world in which we live. One of the reasons I've become such a big fan of Robert Kaplan's writings over the years is that there is nobody better at putting today's issues in historical context. He seems to have encyclopedic-like knowledge of all the local factors - both history and geography based - that play a role in any matter he writes about. And he's probably written in more detail about more parts of the globe than any other commentator alive today.

On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 11:34:09 AM UTC-4, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 10:00:21 AM UTC-5, Phl Maestro wrote:
> > Lives are often lost in large quantity when a great power's credibility is damaged.
> Frankly, Phil. I can't see what you might not countenance if this is really what you believe.

You'd have to have blinders or be completely ignorant of history to not believe it - frankly.

I pointed out in a post to Dan that while we'll never know for sure, it's entirely possible that Biden's inept and weak handling of the Afghanistan withdraw influenced Putin's decision to go forward with the Ukraine invasion.

We'll also never know if Carter's lack of credibility due to his obvious unwillingness to use force influenced the Soviet decision to invade Afghanistan.

While JFK handled the Cuban Missile Crisis beautifully, it came about in the first place after he had damaged American credibility with the Bay of Pigs and his very weak showing at the Vienna summit with Kruschev.

Those are three of countless examples throughout history, most of which have nothing to do with the United States. When a great power shows weakness, it inspires others to act in often destructive ways.

On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 11:34:09 AM UTC-4, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 10:00:21 AM UTC-5, Phl Maestro wrote:
> > Lives are often lost in large quantity when a great power's credibility is damaged.
> Frankly, Phil. I can't see what you might not countenance if this is really what you believe.

You'd have to have blinders or be completely ignorant of history to not believe it - frankly.

I pointed out in a post to Dan that while we'll never know for sure, it's entirely possible that Biden's inept and weak handling of the Afghanistan withdraw influenced Putin's decision to go forward with the Ukraine invasion.

We'll also never know if Carter's lack of credibility due to his obvious unwillingness to use force influenced the Soviet decision to invade Afghanistan.

While JFK handled the Cuban Missile Crisis beautifully, it came about in the first place after he had damaged American credibility with the Bay of Pigs and his very weak showing at the Vienna summit with Kruschev.

Those are three of countless examples throughout history, most of which have nothing to do with the United States. When a great power's credibility is weakened, it inspires others to act in often destructive ways.

On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 11:05:35 AM UTC-4, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
> Empires are only too happy to have members of the educated class believe they can't possibly judge ...

That's an unbelievably ironic statement given the nature of our current elite class in the U.S. and how they view the country's history.

On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 11:05:35 AM UTC-4, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 9:39:38 AM UTC-5, Phl Maestro wrote:
> > We could go back and forth with you saying this policy or that policy is evil, yet it's basically meaningless without getting into all of the factors that had to be considered in making those policies. And neither of us know what they were.
> I wonder, Phil, do you have any personal sense of a single instance when the US abused its power or made company with evil to further its own (perceived) benefit? Empires are only too happy to have members of the educated class believe they can't possibly judge, and you don't sound very motivated to find fault. Choosing to believe that your country's leaders are always non-malignant and just doing their best (in a relatable way) is a form of faith I am not comfortable with.

We obviously made company with Stalin for our benefit, not to mention Mao - and while the Cultural Revolution was still ongoing. It's tough to get much worse than those two.

There are obviously many other actions they took that had terrible consequences. And were I to sit and examine all of the considerations that went into them, I would likely find one or more to have been totally unjustified even from the standpoint of those in the era in which it happened. Obviously, the second Iran invasion was both disastrous from a policy standpoint and a humanitarian catastrophe for a ton of people. And the W. Bush administration didn't have the context of the Cold War to think of. They were essentially trying to spread democracy by force. So I think that falls into that category.

But in further response, yes, I'm more likely to look for shades of gray than to see a foreign policy action in black or white terms. I see that as the nature of the world in which we live. One of the reasons I've become such a big fan of Robert Kaplan's writings over the years is that there is nobody better at putting today's issues in historical context. He seems to have encyclopedic-like knowledge of all the local factors - both history and geography based - that play a role in any matter he writes about. And he's probably written in more detail about more parts of the globe than any other commentator alive today.

A good example of the kind of stuff he highlights was the focus of one of his early books. It dealt with African famine during the 70s and 80s and the extent to which it was caused by non-natural factors. It's been a long time since I read it, so I'm going to have to be very general: Kissinger and Ford were willing to deal with the Ethiopian dictator for Cold War purposes (they didn't want them fall into the Soviet sphere). Of course, the dictator was not the greatest guy. In fact, he's the type of guy that you were probably thinking of when you asked me the above question. But at least Ford and Kissinger pressured him to ease up on the worst of his human rights violations in exchange for the economic and military support we were giving him.

Then Carter came into office and his human rights based approach to foreign affairs dictated that we break off relations with or at least cut back on support for the Ethiopian dictator - as I'm sure you'd approve of.

Unfortunately, the Soviets then threw a lot of military support to a competitor for the Ethiopian dictatorship, who then took power and turned out to be even worse than the previous guy. It was his actions that then made the famine much worse for his people, resulting in a massive number of people starving to death.

So who was moral in that case? Ford/Kissinger or Carter/Vance? What matters more? Carter's good intentions or the number of dead?

On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 11:05:35 AM UTC-4, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 9:39:38 AM UTC-5, Phl Maestro wrote:
> > We could go back and forth with you saying this policy or that policy is evil, yet it's basically meaningless without getting into all of the factors that had to be considered in making those policies. And neither of us know what they were.
> I wonder, Phil, do you have any personal sense of a single instance when the US abused its power or made company with evil to further its own (perceived) benefit? Empires are only too happy to have members of ?>the educated class believe they can't possibly judge, and you don't sound very motivated to find fault. Choosing to believe that your country's leaders are always non-malignant and just doing their best (in a relatable > way) is a form of faith I am not comfortable with.

We obviously made company with Stalin for our benefit, not to mention Mao - and while the Cultural Revolution was still ongoing. It's tough to get much worse than those two.

There are many other actions we took during the Cold War that had terrible consequences. And were I to sit and examine all of the considerations that went into them, I would likely find one or more to have been totally unjustified even from the standpoint of those in the era in which it happened.

Obviously, the second Iraq invasion was both disastrous from a policy standpoint and a humanitarian catastrophe for a ton of people. And the W. Bush administration didn't have the context of the Cold War to think of. They were essentially trying to spread democracy by force. So I think that falls into that category.

But in further response, yes, I'm more likely to look for shades of gray than to see a foreign policy action in black or white terms. I see that as the nature of the world in which we live. One of the reasons I've become such a big fan of Robert Kaplan's writings over the years is that there is nobody better at putting today's issues in historical context. He seems to have encyclopedic-like knowledge of all the local factors - both history and geography based - that play a role in any matter he writes about. And he's probably written in more detail about more parts of the globe than any other commentator alive today.

A good example of the kind of stuff he highlights was the focus of one of his early books. It dealt with African famine during the 70s and 80s and the extent to which it was caused by non-natural factors. It's been a long time since I read it, so I'm going to have to be very general: Kissinger and Ford were willing to deal with the Ethiopian dictator for Cold War purposes (they didn't want them fall into the Soviet sphere). Of course, the dictator was not the greatest guy. In fact, he's the type of guy that you were probably thinking of when you asked me the above question. But at least Ford and Kissinger pressured him to ease up on the worst of his human rights violations in exchange for the economic and military support we were giving him..

Then Carter came into office and his human rights based approach to foreign affairs dictated that we break off relations with or at least cut back on support for the Ethiopian dictator - as I'm sure you'd approve of.

Unfortunately, the Soviets then threw a lot of military support to a competitor for the Ethiopian dictatorship, who then took power and turned out to be even worse than the previous guy. It was his actions that then made the famine much worse for his people, resulting in a massive number of people starving to death.

So who was moral in that case? Ford/Kissinger or Carter/Vance? What matters more? Carter's good intentions or the number of dead?

I probably didn't read all Kaplan's books, but those I read offered a clear and rational view of their subject. Geography as a fundamental factor in politics is an intriguing perspective. Kaplan shows that it is a convenient starting point to explain political decisions and historical events. He reminds me of those ancient historians of Egyptian culture who referred to the opposition of Kemet (dark, fertile land) en Desheret (light land, desert). Geography as a starting point isn't incorrect, but the question remains if, in the end, it doesn't lead one away from what is essential.

BTW, in your example (you read Kaplan's book clearly a long time ago) the Marxist regime in Ethiopia preferred ties with Marxists regimes like Russia and China. This had, in my opinion, little to do with geography and more with the feudal system that still existed in the days of Haile Selassie and his patron, president Ford.

Henk

On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 1:46:46 PM UTC-4, HT wrote:
> I probably didn't read all Kaplan's books, but those I read offered a clear and rational view of their subject. Geography as a fundamental factor in politics is an intriguing perspective. Kaplan shows that it is a convenient starting point to explain political decisions and historical events. He reminds me of those ancient historians of Egyptian culture who referred to the opposition of Kemet (dark, fertile land) en Desheret (light land, desert). Geography as a starting point isn't incorrect, but the question remains if, in the end, it doesn't lead one away from what is essential.
>
> BTW, in your example (you read Kaplan's book clearly a long time ago) the Marxist regime in Ethiopia preferred ties with Marxists regimes like Russia and China. This had, in my opinion, little to do with geography and more with the feudal system that still existed in the days of Haile Selassie and his patron, president Ford.
>
> Henk

My single favorite Kaplan book is "Revenge of Geography," in which he basically goes over the major geopolitical theories and how they relate to the map.
But he's also always very careful to point out that no single factor - be it geography or the influence of local history - is absolutely determinative.. Individual leaders can always go against the grain.

It looks like the Socialist regime that replaced Emperor Selassie continued doing arms business with the U.S. until Carter replaced Ford. They may have wound up allied with the Soviets anyway, but Carter's insistence on cutting off the arms support over human rights concerns likely sealed the deal.

Op zondag 28 mei 2023 om 20:35:05 UTC+2 schreef Phl Maestro:

> My single favorite Kaplan book is "Revenge of Geography," in which he basically goes over the major geopolitical theories and how they relate to the map.
> But he's also always very careful to point out that no single factor - be it geography or the influence of local history - is absolutely determinative. Individual leaders can always go against the grain.

I gave "Revenge" to my son, a decade or so ago. A great book, to be read with caution (like all non-fiction).

Henk