Does Kissinger seem a bit defensive here or is it just me? Maybe defensive isn’t the right word. Offensive? Basically he seems to be shouting ITS NOT MY FAULT and underscoring that if cooler heads had prevailed and used the cold hard calculus of national interests vis-a-vis Palmerston or Richelieu then the US would not have involved itself. It was not in tune with our interests. It was against our historic anti-colonial stance. We let China “fall” in 1948, why not little old Vietnam?
Document after document, NSC 64, NSC 68 assessments by Rusk, and all the presidents though point inexorably to more and more involvement into what will become an intractable situation. Kissinger is often vilified for his role in Vietnam. Remember that. No one would pretend, not even Christopher Hitchens (author of “Trials of Henry Kissinger”) that Henry had anything to do with decisions in SE Asia in the 1950s. He does certainly bear a great responsibility for America’s conduct in the late 60s and early / mid seventies. He puts his decisions and actions then, in the context of the history of Diplomacy on the 20th century.
How does he set it up? How does, why does the US get involved in exactly the way they do? Answer that question and you’re a long way to “getting” this chapter.
From what I understood of the reading, was because the U.S. felt morally obliged that they should be involved. Also, Kissinger goes on to say for a good chunk of the reading that Eisenhower stressed the domino theory, and a particular place he stressed it on was Indochina. After the Geneva Conference, the Eisenhower administration continues to believe that Indochina was “the key to the Asian-and perhaps the global-balance of power” (635).
Reading this chapter I really enjoyed the section talking about Guerrilla warfare, and how it was drastically different from conventional war. Kissinger stated that in a traditional war, a success rate in battle of 75% would guarantee victory, but in a Guerrilla war, protecting society only 75% of the time guarantees a defeat. This type of war sounds much more dangerous, for it focuses on the idea of civilians and average people banding together to fight as best they can. He then goes on to say that Guerrilla wars can last a long time, for a clear cut victory is almost never ensured. This reading was eye opening because it shed some light on the events that not only occurred in the wars that we know of, but also the unconventional wars that occurred within the nations themselves.
I did not really understand the moral issue that is introduced in the United States entry into Indochina. For some reason, I interpreted the moral issue to be more of an American vs. the French, which is kind of moral issue, as its America intervening with other countries colonial properties. Then it also seems like the US feels like it has a moral responsibility to prevent the Domino Theory from happening.