Comment by allturtles
2 years ago
Yes I still find this absurd. So, first of all, here's an article on the Nixon campaign's efforts to prevent a peace deal. [0] It doesn't mention Kissinger at all. If any single person should be 'blamed' for this, surely it's Nixon? But secondly, there's no evidence at all that these efforts actually had anything to do with the failure of the Johnson administration to reach a peace agreement:
> Moreover, it cannot be said definitively whether a peace deal could have been reached without Nixon’s intervention or that it would have helped Mr. Humphrey. William P. Bundy, a foreign affairs adviser to Johnson and John F. Kennedy who was highly critical of Nixon, nonetheless concluded that prospects for the peace deal were slim anyway, so “probably no great chance was lost.”
Even if we do accept that this peace agreement would have happened and that Kissinger was the crucial linchpin in destroying it, U.S. involvement in the war continued for another 5 years, and then there were 2 further years of war without direct U.S. involvement. There were many decisions made by people in the U.S., South Vietnamese and North Vietnamese governments that kept the war going over these years, and they had wide support from their respective populaces. Continuing to fight the war until a peace that preserved South Vietnam could be secured was the orthodox position in the U.S. well into the 1970s. How can all of the moral blame for continuance of the war fall on one person?
Then, finally, assigning moral blame to someone for all the consequent downstream effects of their actions is anyway absurd. If Kissinger is a war criminal for 'causing' all the deaths in Vietnam from 1968 forward, then surely Johnson is a larger one, and Kennedy is still a larger one, since after all the war would have been over years earlier if not for them. Or we could go further and blame Napoleon III for invading Vietnam in the first place, he's surely responsible for every death in the consequent wars since then, right?
[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/us/politics/nixon-tried-t...
Again, we don't have hard proof. The theory is while Nixon had a channel to the South Vietnamese he hadn't used it effectively but stepped it up when Kissinger tipped him off that the peace talks might be moving again:
> According to Haldeman’s notes, Kissinger alerted the Nixon campaign in late September, and again in early October, that something was up. Johnson was willing to halt the U.S. bombing of the North, and with the Soviets applying pressure on Hanoi to meet certain American conditions, the odds were never better for an early settlement of the conflict, which had already claimed 30,000 American lives and torn America apart.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/06/nixon-vie...
No, that doesn't mean that the responsibility is entirely his – Nixon in particular shouldn't have been ignored after impeachment – but it does raise the question of how many people would have lived had Kissinger not bought his way into the National Security Adviser. He must, after all, have delivered something of value to have not only switched sides (he'd previously been affiliated with Nixon's opponents) but done so moving into a prestigious position without any prior government service.