One just gets the feeling that the entire apparatus was driven by the need to make money making bombs to satisfy the military and industrial powers of the time. The American victory in South Korea became a vision to build on. But waging a guerrilla war was ultimately quite costly for the Americans. It became a slaughter and dissatisfied commanders like Hackworth acted openly and at great risk against the government. He knew that the Americans were unwilling to do anything real against the Viet Cong. But Kissinger seems to me to be a busboy for the Hamptons in the big game. The game of masks gets complicated. I wonder if there are more Republicans in hell than Democrats. Certainly not communists, as they don't believe in life after death.

Not so much RIP as Rot In Hell

Henry Kissinger's Cambodia legacy of bombs and chaos

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-67582813

Kissinger's approach to the Vietnam peace negotiations was characterized by a combination of realism and pragmatism. He believed that the United States could not achieve its objectives in Vietnam through military force alone and that a negotiated settlement was necessary. However, he also believed that the United States should not make concessions that would undermine its credibility or allow North Vietnam to achieve a victory.

Discrepancies in Nixon and Kissinger's Views

Despite their shared desire to end the Vietnam War, Nixon and Kissinger held differing views on how to achieve this goal. Nixon was more inclined to use military force to pressure North Vietnam into a settlement, while Kissinger was more cautious and preferred to pursue a negotiated solution.

Instances Where Kissinger Stalled Nixon

There were several instances where Kissinger's actions could be seen as stalling or delaying Nixon's intentions. For example, in 1969, Nixon ordered Kissinger to draft a plan for bombing North Vietnam's capital, Hanoi. However, Kissinger deliberately delayed drafting the plan, hoping to give peace negotiations a chance to succeed.

On another occasion, in 1972, Nixon wanted to resume bombing North Vietnam after the North Vietnamese had launched a major offensive. However, Kissinger persuaded Nixon to delay the bombings, arguing that they would jeopardize the peace talks that were taking place in Paris.

Kissinger's Motivations

Kissinger's actions were motivated by a belief that the United States could best achieve its objectives in Vietnam through a negotiated settlement. He also believed that further escalation of the war would be counterproductive and could lead to a wider conflict with China or the Soviet Union.

Overall Impact of Kissinger's Actions

Kissinger's actions did not always prevent Nixon from taking actions that he opposed. However, his cautious approach may have helped to restrain Nixon's impulses and may have ultimately contributed to the end of the Vietnam War.

Henry Kissinger's involvement in the Vietnam War, including the bombing campaign in Cambodia, is a topic that requires careful thought.

We must recognize the immense complexities that leaders face in their efforts to secure national interests.

In matters of state, and particularly in the fog of war, the moral choices presented to any individual charge with the fate of their nation are never straightforward.

Kissinger, as National Security Advisor and Secretary of State, was dealing with one of the most polarized periods in modern history, where the threat of communism was perceived to be imminent and all-consuming

Cambodia's neighbors such as Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore understood this very well, since they were wading through those same treacherous waters.

The spillover or spread of key communist personel or a signal that the world was taking it light on communists could have had devastating repercussions for this region.

But the bombing of Cambodia should be subjected to the strictest moral scrutiny, as it should be.

Civilian casualties and the extensive devastation brought upon Cambodia carved deep scars that persist to this day.

The repercussions were severe, and they shaped the course of history for the Khemai, contributing to the rise of the internal atrocities and we in Southeast Asia felt the tremors of these events intimately.

However, it is important to appreciate the context in which decisions were made.

The United States, fearing a domino effect that would see communism spread across Asia, was driven by the imperative to contain such an advance.

As with times that call for challenging decisions, we can begin to grasp how the weight of cold strategic calculus can sometimes overshadow other considerations in the immediate term.

Kissinger's legacy is a messy but deliberate canvas littered with such difficult decisions, woven with the threads of both ingenuity in diplomacy that was manifest in his ground breaking rapprochement with China and the darker tones of the tragedies in Cambodia.

While you may not approve of all his methods or consequences, you must recognize his astuteness in the arena of international relations.

In reflecting upon his choices with a sense of empathy and respect for the myriad points of view, one must marry the reality of the unsparing repercussions these actions had on human lives with an appreciation for the urgency of the existential danger that the spread of communism during the Cold War was perceived to pose.

Leaders are often tasked with the grave duty of defending their nation's integrity and security.

Sometimes, this entails making contentious decisions that will be judged by history.

Kissinger's role during the war in Vietnam and South East Asia is a testament to the burdens that come with the stewardship of a nation's foreign policy in times of crisis.

It is an intricate part of history. It must be deliberated with sobriety and a profound understanding of the era's geopolitical struggles.

And simply writing him off as a war criminal is both a callous and a lazy simplification of a much more layered body of work.