This. I really wish people would realize that there is no "morality" in major power geo-politics. Realpolitik is the only politik.
This entire line of discussion is risible, since classical realism, as with every legitimate foreign policy paradigm, is inherently moral in its own way; an underlying premise of Morgenthau's writings on international politics after the Second World War was the idea of doing the least harm in the context of his view of human nature as incontrovertibly flawed. Neither the belief -- nor Kissinger -- deserve to be represented as such a crude caricature. Those of us who identify with realism do not consciously attempt to render foreign policy assessments that are as immoral as possible or revel in disdaining human rights and the softer elements of international relations.
Henry Kissinger is quite arguably the best Secretary of State America has ever had, certainly the best during the Cold War. Future Secretaries should try to mimic him.
Connected to the above, you do realize that Kissinger had a very specific philosophical outlook during his career, one which is completely incompatible with the Republican Party at present? The neoconservative movement became a coherent entity in opposition to detente, withdrawal from Vietnam, and the rich European intellectual tradition which the Nixon administration embodied. I find it interesting that someone who has advocated for an invasion of Iran previously would proclaim admiration for a legacy so contrary to what you evidently believe.
I take issue with the depiction of Henry Kissinger that is being perpetuated here, but probably not for the reason one might expect. I don't think he has any reason to apologize for his conduct as National Security Advisor or Secretary of State, in an era where the foundational institutions of international jurisprudence did not exist and human rights norms as a matter of policy were a largely alien concept. I also believe there is a significant difference between encouraging or tangibly supporting the questionable behavior of another government and simply not opposing it. I'd rather not get lured into a comprehensive examination of Kissinger's alleged immorality, but I will offer that I believe the argument against him with the most validity is the brutal campaign in Cambodia, which was a projection of American power bereft of purpose. However, I find it amusing -- if understandable -- that in excoriating Nixon for the intervention, no mention is ever made of the Carter administration running interference for Pol Pot at the U.N. because of Cambodia's geopolitical alignment, or the unfortunate fact that we implicitly tolerated China and Thailand helping the Khmer Rouge regenerate.
From my perspective, the invective directed at Kissinger is no longer simply about his judgment -- citing the number of deaths during that period in Bangladesh, East Timor or Cambodia without a proper appreciation of America's role and the context they occurred in do not form a credible indictment. Rather, it has become an expression of resentment at the perceived depravity of American foreign policy during the Cold War, and Kissinger is interpreted as the figure who had the least compunction about carrying it out, despite the fact that I doubt any other administration would have altered the outcome in Pakistan, Indonesia or Chile. Whether this is fair, in light of Eisenhower's promiscuous use of the C.I.A., the aforementioned Indochina posture, or Reagan's approach to Latin America is something that each of us has to decide. If we want to criticize Kissinger, however, I think the role that he has created for himself since leaving public service is far more contemptible, in the sense that he has repeatedly offered his legitimacy as a sage to a philosophy that is so contrary to everything he adhered to academically and as a practitioner. It is impossible to reconcile the respect for absolute sovereignty, order over anarchy and balance of power logic that animated his insights with his activity as a political operative in the present, such as lending his imprimatur to the idealistic disaster in Iraq or endorsing McCain in the last election. With the exception of his attitude to the disintegration of Yugoslavia, I think Kissinger has been more concerned with the perception of possessing influence than his integrity as a scholar or participant in some of the most creative diplomacy of the modern era, which is greatly disappointing, given that his protege, Brent Scowcroft, has attempted to dispel beliefs that Kissinger, by association, has helped advance. If I were to be caustic, I might even go so far as to claim that the primary motivation behind Kissinger's career was self-aggrandizement, though I think that's somewhat uncharitable.
