Much discussion of my Kissinger post in the comments section, almost universally negative, to my surprise. As I noted there, where are all the lefties who generally bother me in my comments when I need 'em? (I actually think I figured it out: they all took U.N. Day off).

And now Stephen Green has weighed in, with what he described to me in e-mail as "a backhanded defense" of my post. And indeed it is that.

So, time for a few responses that are too long to stuff in a comment.

First, many folks have called for a recap of the U.S. laws Kissinger is accused of breaking. In a nutshell, the Logan Act, which prohibits private diplomacy, is probably the biggest and clearest example: Kissinger's collaboration with Nixon in sabotaging the 1968 Paris peace talks almost certainly meets the standard. Another key example is the prohibitions against allowing U.S.-supplied weaponry to be used for wars of aggression, which was clearly violated by Kissinger's active role in supporting Indonesia's invasion of East Timor. In addition, Kissinger is implicated by Hitchens as a co-conspirator or at least a complicit party in the murder of several individuals, the most prominent of which being General Renee Schneider of Chile. And while I don't believe Hitchens mentions it directly, I'm fairly sure the secret bombing campaign against Cambodia was a violation of U.S. law, if only in the sense that it involved the executive branch deliberately lying to Congress.

If you're looking for a concise recap of the legal aspects of Hitchens case (in both U.S. law and international law), then jump right to the conclusion of his Harper's piece.

Next, Stephen's comments. They can be summed up in his key paragraph:

Kissinger kissed up to China, spearheaded a duplicitous policy in Vietnam, blazed the trail for selling out Taiwan, negotiated bad-faith nuclear arms deals (on their side, not ours, but he knew it) with the Soviets, excused illegal bombings in Cambodia, and personally sabotaged the 1968 peace talks. We might disagree over whether these actions were good or bad, but there’s no denying them. There’s also no denying that Secretary of State Henry Kissinger is a very, very bad man. And I’m awfully glad we had him on our side when we needed him most.

If I grok Stephen's argument fully, he's in agreement that Kissinger was a very bad fellow, and I'll take the liberty of also assuming he doesn't disagree with the bulk of the charges that Hitchens lays at the good doctor's doorstep. But in Stephen's view, the nastiness of the world we faced during Kissinger's tenure required just such a person to get us through to the other side.

I will be honest: I don't disagree vehemently with this viewpoint, as I frankly am not a dilligent enough student of cold war history to claim a truly educated opinion. But that said, it strikes me as overly broad.

Broad, in the sense that while I accept the premise that sometimes, unpleasant things must be done to preserve the safety and freedoms of this nation and the world, I insist that any such waiver to our traditional moralities be granted on a specific and case-by-case basis. You can't simply say that the cold war was a dreadful time when we faced a dreadful enemy and therefore that justifies any dreadful action we happened to take. And I don't mean to say that this is what Stephen is arguing.

But it is not terribly far from it, either. What I would love to see is a point-by-point discussion of each of the allegations Hitchens (or anybody else) has made against Kissinger. Hitchens, I feel, has made a compelling case for why, in isolation, they were evil acts. Those who disagree with him have made the general case that those acts are meaningless when viewed outside of their historical context: but I've yet to see a focused rebuttal which provides the individual context to each individual action. (For the record, reader Zathras made a good start at this in the comments section, but it was only a start.)

I truly believe this is a vitally important discussion to have, not simply for historical justice, but to inform our thinking on the current war.

But that will have to wait for another post, I think...