I have never read or heard this anywhere but it is the impression I have always had about this book. I think it was written for the sole purpose of this chapter. This chapter would not have worked as an Op-Ed piece or any other stand alone article. Kissinger needed to put his actions and decisions in context. The context he chose, of Richelieu, Bismark, Wilson and the rest (remember TOK) colors the way this chapter reads in a way that it would not have as a stand alone piece.
Kissinger is wise here to admit his views are necessarily affected by his role in the events. He paints a dark and depressing mural of events and leaves us with three “lessons” that seem to mimic the “Powell Doctrine”.
So the question is at hand. Did Kissinger and Nixon achieve the best possible outcome given the situation, or, as Hitchens argues in his “Trials of Henry Kissinger”, did they behave like war criminals? Putting on your TOK hats try to give some credibility to each side.
Also too look at substantial differences with Ambrose. Remember what Ambrose said about the war protesters? What does Kissinger say? Does Ambrose suggest they got in 68 what they could have gotten in 74? What would Kissinger say in his defense?
When I read the two it seems as though they were writing about two completely different time periods and places with the same names. A&b at first give there respects to Henry Kissinger however didn’t hesitate to put in information the Kissibger himself wouldn’t like out there. Nixon was determined to start relations with China and to cause a Sino-Soviet split and at the same time make friends with Russia. Nixon was careful to attract congress and the American people, he suggested a secret plan and also started a secret war in Cambodia.
The more time Nixon an Kissinger spent on Vietnam and keeping the Atmy in order and adapting to te changes in the government the less change U.S. had of winning the war, Viet Cong was strong and fought endlessly. Nixon ended up bringing the troops home and was unpopular because of his slow action and the Watergate Scandal others like the hawks believed it was Johnson who was doing the right thing and putting more troops and gettin more involved with Indochina and Laos and all the possible communist countries.
It took about thirty years spent in Indochina (Asia) for America to come out only half victorious and the other rulers and countries spiteful of depending on America.
One thing that I thought was absolutely hilarious was the encounter between Le Duc Tho and Kissinger. Le Duc Tho was purposefully trying to make the negotiations difficult and it seems as though he just wanted to mess with Kissinger. For example, Le would give really long speeches and when Kissinger or anyone else would try to interrupt him would give a ten minute speech about the ridiculousness of whoever tried to interrupt him. He was purposefully trying to make the negotiations difficult and was putting on an act for most the negotiations. One interaction between Kissinger and Le Duc Tho that I found hilarious was when Kissinger noticed that Le Duc Tho had changed his ten minute speech in the morning and Le Duc Tho responded with a snarky comment with a smile. I would have liked to have been a fly on the wall to observe the negotiations between Kissinger and Le Duc Tho, it would have been pretty funny.